February 06, 2007
Global Warming Update

Today's Seattle Times editorial:

Global warming is real. Now move on to coaxing out mitigating solutions.
Meanwhile, folks across the country are struggling to mitigate the unseasonably cold weather they've been experiencing.

And King County Executive Ron Sims may already be able to declare victory for his anti-global warming initiative. Puget Sound Energy has found it necessary to encourage its customers to save energy on account of "unseasonably cold temperatures" here in Western Washington.

UPDATE: "Deep freeze continues with deep snow"

Xcel Energy asked customers in North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, South Dakota and Wisconsin to conserve electricity over the next few days to reduce strain on the power grid
The extreme cold also froze water pipes in Chicago and caused a record number of motorist assistance calls to Michigan AAA.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 06, 2007 11:03 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Here is a link that explains the "scientific method." This "primarily man caused global warming" nonsense does not follow the methodology, which is THE accepted methodology for all scientific enquiry except global warming and macroevolution i.e. trans species evolution. Is it a coincidence that both of these discilpines rely on intimidation as well? I say no it is not. http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Posted by: JDH on February 6, 2007 11:27 AM
2. Like Stefan, I'm certainly open to the possibility of the earth fluctuating in temperatures on its own, hot OR cold. But I refuse to freak out about "global warming", especially while South Dakota today is sitting at MINUS 32 DEGREES. Besides, I remember when we were told just a few decades ago of the 'coming ice age'. Relax, y'all.

Posted by: Michele on February 6, 2007 11:41 AM
3. Go to this link http://oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

to see all 15,000 scietists who have signed affirming that they support this statement:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Posted by: JDH on February 6, 2007 11:43 AM
4. Global Warming is real. It has been in the past and it will be in the future. Global Cooling is real too. It has been in the past and will be in the future. Sadly for those desperate for a crisis, though, man-made Global Warming is nothing but a leftist claim to promote more government intervention and scare people into funding more bad science - and Democrats!

0.7 degrees does not make a crisis, but if there are any honest scientists out there that will acknowledge that warming and cooling is most likely the result of increased and decreased solar activity that exists in cycles, then I'll wait for the plan to rocket blocks of ice to the sun during the warming periods and nukes during the cooling ones.

As for Sims and his pandering to his leftist base, come on, this is Ron Sims! When did he ever have any credibility on issues of science, or much of anything else, or even the Seattle times for that matter? There are just certain subjects that you can't run to politicians or their liberal allies in the press to report honestly about.

Posted by: MJC on February 6, 2007 11:45 AM
5. America has enemies. Kyoto seems to me to be one way our enemies are trying to bring us down. We better wake up.

Posted by: ljm on February 6, 2007 11:57 AM
6. I wonder if Al Gore and the rest of the global warming moonbats find this unusual cold spell to be an "inconvenient truth" about their global warming theory?

Posted by: TrueSoldier on February 6, 2007 12:14 PM
7. It's no longer "global warming," now it's "global climate change." That way the moonbats can point to the below average temperatures and say, "see, that proves my point."

Posted by: Obi-Wan on February 6, 2007 12:23 PM
8. I finally had to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" last week since my daughter was going to see it in science class and I wanted to give her a balanced opinion first. I am a scientist and I am in the camp that thinks there is substantial evidence supporting the theory of man-induced global warming. But Stefan and a poster in this thread have already made one of the mistakes Al Gore made in the movie: inferring a relationship between a short-term or localized climatic phenomenon (a cold snap) and a long-term trend. Gore did this by trying to read too much into the active 2005 hurricane season (I guess he should remake his movie with a different conclusion based on the quiet 2006 hurricane season). No matter what side of the issue we're on, can we agree that we will still experience cold snaps in "warm" times and heat waves is "cold" times, and that neither is a scientific argument for or against global warming?

Posted by: Ex-WA on February 6, 2007 12:33 PM
9. Well said Ex-WA. Stefan's statements show his views are based on personal bias rather than any type of reasoning. Stefan is writing like a true liberal.

Posted by: M&M on February 6, 2007 12:41 PM
10. Actually the posts based on local "extremes" are all in fun, and a bit of counter-rhetoric. Mainly to the type of single point evidence, as Ex-WA pointed out, of the 2005 hurrucane season. Though these alarmists were also 100% convinced that 2006 was going to be far worse. With these kind of projections and proclamations, how can they be taken seriously? especially as they can't even get this afternoons weather correct, never mind next years!

Posted by: Right said Fred on February 6, 2007 12:50 PM
11. Ex-WA;

You are a scientist, what is your scientific specialty?

Your words;
"I am in the camp that THINKS there is substantial evidence supporting the THEORY of man-induced global warming"

Ex-WA and M&M; you two don't sound all that different from Stefan.

Posted by: Jeffro on February 6, 2007 12:52 PM
12. "man-induced global warming" leaves you wide latitude for an out. What you are in effect admitting is that man may have an effect that is responsible for .000000000001% of the .7 degrees that the planet has warmed since the turn of the century or that man is 100% responsible for the .7 degrees or anything in between. In other words you are not sure what the effect of human activity has been. Now let me ask you this: since you are not willing to go on the record as to what man has caused are you advocating that "we" do something to mitigate what we may or may not have caused?

Posted by: JDH on February 6, 2007 12:57 PM
13. I will keep it short and simple, which I admit, is not my usual style. There is a big difference between evidence of Global Warming, and evidence of a real crisis.

There is no evidence that any current warming trend will cause a disastrous rise in seal levels, floods, or any other weather phenomenon that human mitigation will be guaranteed to prevent. Even if we take the Gore hypnotized scientist's computer models as perfectly accurate, which they are not, those same scientists will admit that there is wide range of possible future outcomes for their models based on many other factors beyond man's control. Gore chose to take the outlying data points in the models to paint the worst possible pictures. Common sense tells us that absent a cataclysmic event such as a direct meteor hit, gradual warming, human or natural, will most likely not produce the extremes predicted in the worst case scenario computer models.

There is no good data that indicates that we have a massive need to factor a crisis into our economic decisions, political decisions, etc. This is the dirty little inconvenient truth that Al Gore desperately does not want you to know.


Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2007 01:26 PM
14. Ex-WA, M&M, and Right said Fred, thanks for your candor. I wish Stefan could be that intellectually honest.

As a thoughtful liberal, I agree that Gore's film combined anecdotal pop pseudo-science with real science. But even with its flaws, the movie was far more intelligent than 99.9% of political discourse in America, and Gore's conclusion is right -- unlike Stefan's.

Posted by: Bruce on February 6, 2007 01:35 PM
15. I'd also like to see some of these fear mongers put their money where their mouths are. I would take any $1000 bet from the side that there won't be a sea level rise of even five feet in the next 20 years. It would be an easy bet to verify. We find some house on the water in Puget Sound somewhere that is close to water level. We check back every year or so. If the homeowner has not moved the house to higher land because of a sustained rise in sea level within 20 years, the moonbat Global Warming advocate loses the bet.

Any takers?

And just think about the bet Al Gore is making with his reputation. There's a very good chance that the doom and gloom ain't coming because it's based on computer models that are just that, models. A model is an attempt to predict the behavior of a complex system, but if we knew that models were perfect, we wouldn't need models, instead we'd have equations to predict the outcome perfectly. If Gore's wrong, he's going to be remembered and laughed about for a lot more than just inventing the Internet or losing the presidency. It takes a certain kind of shameless fool to take that bet. And that description fits Al pretty well.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2007 01:39 PM
16. Jeff B, of course global warming will "most likely not" produce the "worst case scenario". But even the most-likely scenario is pretty alarming. And common sense tells me that we should try to avoid doing things that will almost certainly cause major climate change.

Posted by: Bruce on February 6, 2007 01:41 PM
17. #14 Bruce

Keep trying Bruce... talk about dis-honest.

Have you noticed that NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN haven't asked why it's so cold out there. Yet, let it be hot for one day and that's the proof for warming.

Plus what happened to the warming of the water off Calif? Didn't happen did it.

Gezzzz

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 6, 2007 01:43 PM
18. Hey Bruce.

Answer this IF you can. Why is Al Bore and his fools (Hollywood) still flying in their own jets?

Talk about CO problems.

Do you have any idea just how much one Lear jet eats in fuel?

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 6, 2007 01:48 PM
19. Jeff B, of course you would bet that sea levels won't rise "even" 5 feet in 20 years. "Even"????? Climate change just doesn't happen that quickly. The international scientific group that warned last week that global warming was almost definitely man-made and serious forecast a rise of 7 to 23 inches in the next 100 years (and a continued rise for at least 1000 years).

The fact that you even proposed such a bet suggests that either (a) you take liberals for suckers or (b) you are woefully uninformed as to the scientific consensus. Or maybe both.

Posted by: Bruce on February 6, 2007 01:51 PM
20. Army Medic/Vet, ex-WA answered your first question in post #8, though if the difference between daily fluctuations and long-term trends wasn't obvious to you before then, you need to study elementary school probability. As for Al Gore flying in a private jet, this is not about Al Gore's virtue, it's about the future of our planet.

Posted by: Bruce on February 6, 2007 01:55 PM
21. The only real in global warming is the LIE. Total complete obfiscated LIE. Pure unadulterated LIE. It must sure feel good to LIE while being self righteous wallowing in selective ignorant bliss. More than a surplus of useful idiots for the Marxists around. Well, gotta go outside now and burn my used motor oil. I do this in honor of the global warming minions across the globe. Stuff works great on those pesky old growth stumps and keeps the bugs down.

Posted by: pbs7mm on February 6, 2007 01:55 PM
22. Bruce,

But what does the word alarming mean? Alarming because the news media can hype a story that sounds ominous? Alarming in that sea level rose one foot? Alarming in that something occurred?

I think it depends on who you ask. I don't think there's anything to be alarmed about, and certainly not in the sense of the actual word alarming. Alarming to me means worthy of attention that requires immediate or nearly immediate action. Usually the word is defined with respect to danger. But the danger is highly ambiguous in terms of what it might entail and where it might occur. That's dubious. I'd call an incoming tsunami to Long Beach alarming. But a two foot rise in average sea level of 50 years is not alarming, and especially if we don't know if or where it will cause any effect that humans would need to take into account.. Humans will adapt just fine to gradual change. It happens all the time. There's erosion and many other natural processes that significantly alter terrain or other aspects of our environment so that we are forced to adapt. That's not alarming, it's adjusting.

There is no factual basis for an alarm, or massive economic effort in Global Warming. Scientists agree that the models have a wide range, and even the Gore scientists acknowledge that even if we are involved in the worst case scenario, we may not be able to change a thing no matter what we do, so our efforts should be focused more on adaptation and less on mitigation. But even that is unknown. This is all not science, it's politics.

This is a political play for redistribution and control of large corporations, etc. It has nothing to do with any real and immediate alarm.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2007 01:56 PM
23. Bruce

Can you explain to us, why in 1960's it snowed in San Diego Calif?

I know. I was there.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 6, 2007 01:57 PM
24. Bruce, you are definitely right on that. I take liberals as woefully uninformed and as suckers. Want to take the bet?

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2007 01:58 PM
25. Jeff B

Forget it Jeff. Bruce needs a boggyman to help feel better.


The left doesn't want hard numbers, no they want feelings instead.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 6, 2007 02:01 PM
26. We have to do something about global warming now! If we don't the "problem" will correct itself and everyone will know that the alarmists are a bunch of nuts.

Posted by: Dan on February 6, 2007 02:12 PM
27. George Will has an interesting piece on this...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newsweek/

Inconvenient Kyoto Truths

Was life better when a sheet of ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there?

Feb. 12, 2007 issue - Enough already. It is time to call some bluffs. John Kerry says that one reason America has become an "international pariah" is President Bush's decision to "walk away from global warming." Kerry's accusation is opaque, but it implies the usual complaint that Bush is insufficiently enthusiastic about the Kyoto Protocol's binding caps on emissions of greenhouse gases. Many senators and other experts in climate science say we must "do something" about global warming. Barack Obama says "the world" is watching to see "what action we take."

Fine. President Bush should give the world something amusing to watch. He should demand that the Senate vote on the protocol.

Climate Cassandras say the facts are clear and the case is closed. (Sen. Barbara Boxer: "We're not going to take a lot of time debating this anymore.") The consensus catechism about global warming has six tenets: 1. Global warming is happening. 2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault. 3. It will continue unless we mend our ways. 4. If it continues we are in grave danger. 5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming. 6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.

Only the first tenet is clearly true, and only in the sense that the Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this. The activity is economic growth, the wealth-creation that makes possible improved well-being--better nutrition, medicine, education, etc. How much reduction of such social goods are we willing to accept by slowing economic activity in order to (try to) regulate the planet's climate?

We do not know how much we must change our economic activity to produce a particular reduction of warming. And we do not know whether warming is necessarily dangerous. Over the millennia, the planet has warmed and cooled for reasons that are unclear but clearly were unrelated to SUVs. Was life better when ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there? Are we sure the climate at this particular moment is exactly right, and that it must be preserved, no matter the cost?

It could cost tens of trillions (in expenditures and foregone economic growth, here and in less-favored parts of the planet) to try to fine-tune the planet's temperature. We cannot know if these trillions would purchase benefits commensurate with the benefits that would have come from social wealth that was not produced.

In 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol's essential provisions were known, a "sense of the Senate" resolution declared opposition to any agreement that would do what the protocol aims to do. The Senate warned against any agreement that would require significant reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States and other developed nations without mandating "specific scheduled commitments" on the part of the 129 "developing" countries, which include China, India, Brazil and South Korea--the second, fourth, 10th and 11th largest economies. Nothing Americans can do to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will make a significant impact on the global climate while every 10 days China fires up a coal-fueled generating plant big enough to power San Diego. China will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030.

The Senate's resolution expressed opposition to any agreement that "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States," which the Senate correctly thought Kyoto would do. The Senate said any agreement should be accompanied by "a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement" it, and an analysis of the agreement's "detailed financial costs and other impacts" on the U.S. economy.

The president is now on the side of the angels, having promised to "confront" the challenge of climate change. The confronting is one reason for his fascination with new fuels. (Another reason, he says, is U.S. imports of oil from unstable nations. Our largest foreign source of oil is turbulent Canada. Our second largest is Mexico, which is experiencing turbulence because of the soaring cost of tortillas. They are made from corn, which is ... well, read on.)

Ethanol produces just slightly more energy than it takes to manufacture it. But now that the government is rigging energy markets with mandates, tariffs and subsidies, ethanol production might consume half of next year's corn crop. The price of corn already has doubled in a year. Hence the tortilla turbulence south of the border. Forests will be felled (will fewer trees mean more global warming?) to clear land for growing corn, which requires fertilizer, the manufacture of which requires energy. Oh, my.

President Clinton and his earnest vice president knew better than to seek ratification of Kyoto by a Senate that had passed its resolution of disapproval 95-0. Fifty-six of those 95 senators are still serving. Two of them are John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. That is an inconvenient truth.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on February 6, 2007 02:13 PM
28. As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Time Magazine. July, 1974.

I didn't pay any attention to the Chicken Littles then. I don't pay any attention to them now.

Posted by: jimg on February 6, 2007 02:14 PM
29. Funny! But statistically insignificant.

Stefan...time to get a stats book out.

Of course you know more than experts worldwide. Congrats on that.

Posted by: StefanisWrong on February 6, 2007 02:14 PM
30. Seriously, you just proved my argument Bruce. 7 to 23 inches in 100 years is not anything alarming or even remotely approaching a crisis. 7 inches would have zero or near zero effect on humanity. There's practically nothing built with only a 7 inch margin for possible sea rise, because we see that all the time with just storm surge. Even 23 inches would be significant, but of no real concern. My family has waterfront property on the sound. 23 inches wouldn't even come close to our house, or any of our neighbors houses, and would only require some more fill for the lawns in front of our house, and possibly a little higher sea wall. And over 100 years, that's a gradual adaptation where costs can easily be borne and needed mitigations handled by property owners and not a cause for government crisis and massive spending.

And again, that's a worst case number. So if we just split the difference in extremes, that's a little more than a foot over 100 years. That's not the definition of crisis. And the truth is, we don't even know if that's accurate. We'd be far better off spending tax dollars starting tomorrow building earthquake bunkers or meteor hit bunkers, or lahar bunkers for Mt. Rainier eruptions, as any of those events could easily occur in the next 100 years and would a far more disastrous consequence than a 1 foot rise in sea level.

And the whole 1000 year argument is totally bogus. We do not make 1000 year policy on anything. Try getting a 1000 year insurance policy on something Bruce. Planning for 1000 years from now is nothing short of foolish. There are any number of millions of different possible combinations of disaster, good fortune, technology change, disease, etc. that could significantly alter human course over the next 1000 years to make any long term policy decisions on Global Warming a primary focus. Have we forgotten about cancer, traffic problems, and any of the hundreds of other issues that actually require attention today?

If you really believe that establishing 1000 year policy now makes sense, you really are an uninformed liberal sucker.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2007 02:15 PM
31. One day Doombat Bruce was walking in the woods when -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell on his head "Oh my goodness!" said Doombat Bruce. "The sky is falling! I must go and tell the king."

On his way to the king's palace, Doombat Bruce met Henny Penny. Henny Penny said that she was going into the woods to hunt for worms. "Oh no, don't go!" said Doombat Bruce. "I was there and the sky fell on my head! Come with me to tell the king." So Henny Penny joined Doombat Bruce and they went along and went along as fast as they could. Soon they met Cocky Locky, who said, "I'm going to the woods to hunt for seeds.""Oh no, don't go!" said Henny Penny. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king." So Cocky Locky joined Henny Penny and Doombat Bruce, and they went along and went along as fast as they could. Soon they met Goosey Poosey, who was planning to go to the woods to look for berries. "Oh no, don't go!" said Cocky Locky. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king." So Goosey Poosey joined Cocky Locky, Henny Penny and Doombat Bruce, and they went along as fast as they could. Then who should appear on the path but sly old Foxy Woxy. "Where are you going, my fine feathered friends?" asked Foxy Woxy. He spoke in a polite manner, so as not to frighten them. "The sky is falling!" cried Doombat Bruce. "We must tell the king." "I know a shortcut to the palace," said Foxy woxy sweetly. "Come and follow me."

But wicked Foxy Woxy did not lead the others to the palace. He led them right up to the entrance of his foxhole. Once they were inside, Foxy Woxy was planning to gobble them up!

Just as Doombat Bruce and the others were about to go into the fox's hole, they heard a strange sound and stopped.


It was the king's hunting dogs, growling and howling.How Foxy Woxy ran, across the meadows and through the forests, with the hounds close behind. He ran until he was far, far away and never dared to come back again.

After that day, Doombat Bruce always carried an umbrella with her when she walked in the woods. The umbrella was a present from the king. And if -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell, Doombat Bruce didn't mind a bit. In fact, she didn't notice it at all.

Posted by: JDH on February 6, 2007 02:17 PM
32. Hello Everyone,

This is silly.

The weather is cold. That means: No Global Warming!

Except: Global warming theory never predicted that South Dakota, etc. would not get cold in the wintertime.

Any more questions?

I just wonder: What will you people be saying in the summertime?>/i>

If the winter's cold causes you to reject Global Warming, does the summer's heat make you believe in global warming?

When people are so devoutly ignorant of science it appears pointless to engage in any sort of argument. Will you people wait until the ocean begins eating away at America's coasts before conceding that there is a problem?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 02:30 PM
33. Hello Jeff B.,

> And the whole 1000 year argument is totally bogus. We do not make 1000 year policy on anything. Try getting a 1000 year insurance policy on something Bruce. Planning for 1000 years from now is nothing short of foolish. There are any number of millions of different possible combinations of disaster, good fortune, technology change, disease, etc. that could significantly alter human course over the next 1000 years to make any long term policy decisions on Global Warming a primary focus. Have we forgotten about cancer, traffic problems, and any of the hundreds of other issues that actually require attention today?

Planning for the next thousand years only makes sense if a primate species expected to survive for another thousand years. Homo sapiens is a primate species which will most likely go extinct within the next thousand years so I suppose long-range plans are foolish.

Given that humankind is headed to extinction, I encourage you to party on.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 02:34 PM
34. Take the oath: "I will refuse to reduce my living standards and that of my fellow countrymen. I will oppose political measures designed to roll back the advances which have brought humanity out of the stone age. I will continue to work for the betterment of mankind, including the quest for harnessing more energy, which is the story of civilization. I refuse to become a caveman. I will not allow my children's children to freeze and starve in the dark."

Human caused global warming is pure propaganda, the latest ploy by socialists to confiscate your liberty and property, and now a ploy by the enemies of Western Civilization to emasculate and dominate us.

Posted by: Steve on February 6, 2007 02:44 PM
35. David,

What's your specific actionable plan for next 1000 years? That's what we need to know. Vague assessments with vague limitations will not solve problems. And especially not unknown and/ or vague future problems.

But, since you think we are headed for extinction, you clearly don't even to have or want a plan. So why not head to another blog that discusses the extinction of man.

Thanks.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2007 02:52 PM
36. The liberal mantra in response to any situation used to be "right wing conspiracy"!!!!
Now the mantra is global warming:
Hurrican Katrina = global warming
Predicted highly active 2006 hurricane season = global warming
Low activity 2006 hurrican season = global warming
Warm winter = global warming
cold winter = global warming
warm summer = global warming
cold summer = global warming
Tsunamis = global warming
Drought = global warming
Lost penguins = gloval warming
The list contains so many examples and contradictions of same, it makes me dizzy. And, of course, the kicker is that it's all Bush's fault. And, of course, you never see published just exactly how many scientists from the actual field of climatology have publicly voiced their opinion that the global warming data and "theory" are flawed.
Bottom line is that global warming and environmental activism is a tidy "little" business, and will become ever more lucrative if huge sums are invested at the federal level, providing grants and jobs for thousands to perpetuate an unproven theory. It is ALWAYS about the money.

Posted by: katomar on February 6, 2007 02:59 PM
37. "When people are so devoutly ignorant of science" actually what is going on here is ridicule of those who twist science to further their own ends.

Human induced global warming THEORY is just that a THOERY and deserves to be respected as one possible expalanation for the warming trend we see today. It may have merit and be able to stand rigorous scientific inquiry, or it may not. At this point I doubt that it's proponents think it can stand up to the challenge. I am not a climatologist, but I am able to recognize when proponents are trying to silence those who have alternate theories and it is my experience taht when this happens that they are attempting a cover up. They also point to consensus opinion as proof of the valididity of their argument.

Posted by: JDH on February 6, 2007 03:00 PM
38. Hello Jeff B.

> What's your specific actionable plan for next 1000 years?

First on the agenda:

1. Sacrifice the American economy.
2. Sacrifice the SUV.
3. Sacrifice American obesity.
4. Sacrifice consumerism.
5. Sacrifice greed & gluttony.
6. Sacrifice America's military.
7. Sacrifice the oil, coal and natural gas industries.

How's that for a start?

> But, since you think we are headed for extinction, you clearly don't even to have or want a plan.

We are certainly headed to extinction because humankind is suffering from the leadership of selfish, self-involved fools who could care less about the consequences of present-day actions.

The present generation is impoverishing and killing future generations of humans. The American economy is one massive act of genocide against humankind's future.

You won't stop because you are too greedy and too gluttonous to restraint yourself. You cannot make any sacrifices because life as a mindless consumer is the American Way of Life.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 03:02 PM
39. Climate of Opinion
The latest U.N. report shows the "warming" debate is far from settled.

Monday, February 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Last week's headlines about the United Nations' latest report on global warming were typically breathless, predicting doom and human damnation like the most fervent religious evangelical. Yet the real news in the fourth assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be how far it is backpedaling on some key issues. Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled.

The document that caused such a stir was only a short policy report, a summary of the full scientific report due in May. Written mainly by policymakers (not scientists) who have a stake in the issue, the summary was long on dire predictions. The press reported the bullet points, noting that this latest summary pronounced with more than "90% confidence" that humans have been the main drivers of warming since the 1950s, and that higher temperatures and rising sea levels would result.

More pertinent is the underlying scientific report. And according to people who have seen that draft, it contains startling revisions of previous U.N. predictions. For example, the Center for Science and Public Policy has just released an illuminating analysis written by Lord Christopher Monckton, a one-time adviser to Margaret Thatcher who has become a voice of sanity on global warming.
Take rising sea levels. In its 2001 report, the U.N.'s best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet. Lord Monckton notes that the upcoming report's high-end best estimate is 17 inches, or half the previous prediction. Similarly, the new report shows that the 2001 assessment had overestimated the human influence on climate change since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.

Such reversals (and there are more) are remarkable, given that the IPCC's previous reports, in 1990, 1995 and 2001, have been steadily more urgent in their scientific claims and political tone. It's worth noting that many of the policymakers who tinker with the IPCC reports work for governments that have promoted climate fears as a way of justifying carbon-restriction policies. More skeptical scientists are routinely vetoed from contributing to the panel's work. The Pasteur Institute's Paul Reiter, a malaria expert who thinks global warming would have little impact on the spread of that disease, is one example.

U.N. scientists have relied heavily on computer models to predict future climate change, and these crystal balls are notoriously inaccurate. According to the models, for instance, global temperatures were supposed to have risen in recent years. Yet according to the U.S. National Climate Data Center, the world in 2006 was only 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer than it was in 2001--in the range of measurement error and thus not statistically significant.

The models also predicted that sea levels would rise much faster than they actually have. The models didn't predict the significant cooling the oceans have undergone since 2003--which is the opposite of what you'd expect with global warming. Cooler oceans have also put a damper on claims that global warming is the cause of more frequent or intense hurricanes. The models also failed to predict falling concentrations of methane in the atmosphere, another surprise.

Meanwhile, new scientific evidence keeps challenging previous assumptions. The latest report, for instance, takes greater note of the role of pollutant particles, which are thought to reflect sunlight back to space, supplying a cooling effect. More scientists are also studying the effect of solar activity on climate, and some believe it alone is responsible for recent warming.

All this appears to be resulting in a more cautious scientific approach, which is largely good news. We're told that the upcoming report is also missing any reference to the infamous "hockey stick," a study by Michael Mann that purported to show 900 years of minor fluctuations in temperature, followed by a dramatic spike over the past century. The IPCC featured the graph in 2001, but it has since been widely rebutted.
While everyone concedes that the Earth is about a degree Celsius warmer than it was a century ago, the debate continues over the cause and consequences. We don't deny that carbon emissions may play a role, but we don't believe that the case is sufficiently proven to justify a revolution in global energy use. The economic dislocations of such an abrupt policy change could be far more severe than warming itself, especially if it reduces the growth and innovation that would help the world cope with, say, rising sea levels. There are also other problems--AIDS, malaria and clean drinking water, for example--whose claims on scarce resources are at least as urgent as climate change.

The IPCC report should be understood as one more contribution to the warming debate, not some definitive last word that justifies radical policy change. It can be hard to keep one's head when everyone else is predicting the Apocalypse, but that's all the more reason to keep cool and focus on the actual science.

Posted by: JDH on February 6, 2007 03:03 PM
40. Not all climatologists are alarmists.

Posted by: Peggy U on February 6, 2007 03:05 PM
41. Jeffro @ #11: MS in Geological Sciences specializing in Quaternary Paleoecology.

JDH @ #12: I will go out on a limb and say man is responsible for the majority of warming since 1900. There are too many factors influencing climate to nail down exact percentages. But don't get me wrong about the "mitigation". The number 1 problem I have with Gore and his global warming minions is their naivete regarding the solutions. Look at a graph of per capita energy consumption versus per capita income by country. There is a striking correlation. And for all those on the low end of the world income scale, where are they trying to go? Up the scale! And their population keeps growing! Yes, they might be able to make money using less energy than us "wasteful" Americans, but nobody has ever demonstrated, on a large scale, how to decouple wealth and energy consumption. As long as there are cheap fossil fuel sources in the developing world, there is no way we'll ever convince them to not use those resources. An analogy is the clearing of tropical rainforests. As long as it makes sense economically for Brazilians to clear the rainforests, it doesn't make any difference how loud we scream.

Posted by: Ex-WA on February 6, 2007 03:05 PM
42. Hello Everyone,

Here's a news story for you Global Warming deniers who seem to think that the existence of winter serves to disprove global warming:

Japan's snow festival suffers from warm winter Tue Feb 6, 12:43 PM ET
Warm Winter

Northern Japan has kicked off its celebrated snow festival but the ice sculptors were struggling, faced with an unusually warm winter.

The week-long Sapporo Snow Festival, which is in its 58th year, attracts about two million people annually to enjoy ornate sculptures made of ice.

But the event, in the largest city on Japan's northern island of Hokkaido, has been marred this year by higher temperatures.

"Due to the warm winter, the snow this year is very watery, which has made it difficult to build the ice and snow objects," said Kazunori Sasaki of the festival's executive committee.

"We had to bring 8,000 trucks-worth of snow from outside of the city, which was nearly double that of last year," he said.

A report last week by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change blamed human activities for global warming and warned that the Earth's average surface temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees by 2100.

In Sapporo, the meteorological office said the average temperature in late January, the time the sculptors build their works, was minus 1.8 degrees Celsius (29 degrees Fahrenheit), 3.1 degrees higher than in an average year.

The festival exhibits 307 ice and snow sculptures, including a 15-metre (50-feet) high replica of the Chakri Maha Prasat palace in Bangkok.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 03:06 PM
43. Unless someone out there has figured out how to modulate the energy output of the sun, there are no "solutions" to global warming, or ever global cooling.

The only solutions available are coping with whatever climate change happens to occur.

Posted by: H Moul on February 6, 2007 03:08 PM
44. Just for the record I don't have a SUV to Sacrifice, I drive a F-150 Laredo SuperCrew FX-4. And by God I intend to produce enough of what my fellow man WANTS to keep them paying me enough to drive it with reckless abandon regardless of what the cost is. It is an expensive vehicle to operate, but it is worth it to me to get where I want to in the style I want to get there in with the comfort I want and that is all I care about when I select a vehicle.

Posted by: JDH on February 6, 2007 03:11 PM
45. When David, Bruce, Al Gore, and all the rest of the global warming calamity hollerers abandon modern life and go live in teepees I might take them seriously. Or perhaps they could go back to their communes, sans electricity. There's nothing more fun than visiting the outhouse when it's -5 out. It would be so fun to have these people find out what life was like in 1850. There's a reason those people in 19th century photos weren't smiling. There was nothing to smile about.

Liberals are such tremendous hypocrites...or have I just imagined John Edwards 29,000 square foot house, complete with massive forest clear cut?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 6, 2007 03:12 PM
46. Actually it's a F-150 Lariat SuperCrew FX-4. I may know what it is called, but I can spot the big comfortable SOB as I emerge from
1. Supporting the American economy.
2. hanging out with other guys, some of whom drive SUVs.
3. Stuffingmy fat hind end with beef from global warming causing farting cows.
4. Promoting consumerism.
5. Being greedy & gluttonous. It compells me to do something for others which they will pay me very well for.
6. Promoting America's military.
7. Helping to support the oil, coal and natural gas industries which will allow other americans to make a living supplying us greedy bastards with the fuel for our vehicles an toys.

Posted by: JDH on February 6, 2007 03:18 PM
47. "JDH @ #12: I will go out on a limb and say man is responsible for the majority of warming since 1900." Yea so what is that opinion worth? Not much without the facts to back it up.

Posted by: JDH on February 6, 2007 03:22 PM
48. Hello JDH,

> Just for the record I don't have a SUV to Sacrifice, I drive a F-150 Laredo SuperCrew FX-4. And by God I intend to produce enough of what my fellow man WANTS to keep them paying me enough to drive it with reckless abandon regardless of what the cost is. It is an expensive vehicle to operate, but it is worth it to me to get where I want to in the style I want to get there in with the comfort I want and that is all I care about when I select a vehicle.

It is good, JDH, that you are so proud to waste gasoline for the sake of your own foolish pride. Those American soldiers are dying in Iraq on your behalf. They won't be driving any SUVs or pickups.

3,100 American soldiers have died on behalf of your cheap gasoline. So keep on buring that stuff up, JDH. There's no need for sacrifice or self restraint on your part when there are so many American soldiers who are eager to die on behalf of your cheap gasoline.

I just wonder, JDH, what will you do with your pickup when there is no gasoline?

All these morbidly obese Americans will find very difficult when the oil stops flowing to the United States of America.

Morbidly obese America is a dying nation. Burn that gasoline up, JDH, and you will make America die a little sooner than it would otherwise have done.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 03:35 PM
49. Hello Bill,

> It would be so fun to have these people find out what life was like in 1850. There's a reason those people in 19th century photos weren't smiling. There was nothing to smile about.

In fifty to a hundred years, Americans will have no choice except to live as they did back in the 1850's because by that time the world's supply of oil, natural gas and coal will become depleted.

But these people will discover that our generation has completely destroyed the natural ecosystems that made life possible for the people of 1850. Do you know what that will mean?

Future Americans are going to die because of the profligate wastefulness, greed, gluttony, and morbid obesity of our generation.

Kind of makes you proud to be an American, right?

Americans are so fat that it is not even funny. Americans are positively pathetic looking as they attempt to carry their 300-lb. frame from the mall to the SUV. These Americans are unhealthy, unfit, and unhappy.

Morbidly obese America is a country on the decline. The United States of America will collapse and cease to exist as a nation. Millions of Americans will die in the anarchy which follows.

All of these Americans are going to die because of the sins of this present generation. Enjoy these sins while you can. Don't worry, someone else will suffer.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 03:41 PM
50. Actually there are more known oil reserves today than in the '70s smart guy and American Soldiers are not dying for cheap gasoline. They understand that, unfortunately it is something you will never understand. Peak Oil Panic
Is the planet running out of gas? If it is, what should the Bush administration do about it?

Ronald Bailey | May 2006 Print Edition

The Princeton geologist Ken Deffeyes warns that the imminent peak of global oil production will result in "war, famine, pestilence and death." Deffeyes, author of 2001's Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage and 2005's Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak, predicted that the peak of global oil production would occur this past Thanksgiving.

Deffeyes isn't alone. The Houston investment banker Matthew Simmons claims in his 2005 book Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy that the Saudis are lying about the size of their reserves and that they are really running on empty; last September he announced that "we could be looking at $10-a-gallon gas this winter." Colin Campbell, a former petroleum geologist who is now a trustee of the U.K.-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, warned way back in 2002 that we were headed for peak oil production, and that this would lead to "war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens." In his 2004 book Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil, the Caltech physicist David Goodstein wrote that the peak of world production is imminent and that "we can, all too easily, envision a dying civilization, the landscape littered with the rusting hulks of SUVs." Jim Motavalli, editor of the environmentalist magazine E, writes in the January/February 2006 issue, "It is impossible to escape the conclusion that we're steaming full speed ahead into a train wreck of monumental proportions."

And James Schlesinger, the country's first secretary of energy, declared in the Winter 2005-06 issue of the neoconservative foreign policy journal The National Interest that "a growing consensus accepts that the peak is not that far off." He added, "The inability readily to expand the supply of oil, given rising demand, will in the future impose a severe economic shock."

Even some traditionally calm voices are starting to sound panicky. In March 2005, the New York investment bank Goldman Sachs issued a report suggesting that oil prices would experience a "super spike" in 2006, reaching up to $105 per barrel. ChevronTexaco's willyoujoinus.com campaign, featuring a series of full-page newspaper ads that urge Americans to conserve energy, flatly declares, "The era of easy oil is over."

Such forecasts have been bolstered by a steep rise in oil prices over the last three years, going from $18 a barrel in 2002 to $70 last fall. If the price of something goes up, after all, that means it's becoming scarcer.

The good news is that the peak oil doomsters are probably wrong that world oil production is about to decline forever. Most analysts believe that world petroleum supplies will meet projected demand at reasonable prices for at least another generation. The bad news is that much of the world's oil reserves are in the custody of unstable and sometimes hostile regimes. But the oil producing nations would be the ultimate losers if they provoked an "oil crisis," since that would spur industrialized countries to cut back on imports and develop alternative energy technologies.

Apocalypse Yesterday
Predictions of imminent catastrophic depletion are almost as old as the oil industry. An 1855 advertisement for Kier's Rock Oil, a patent medicine whose key ingredient was petroleum bubbling up from salt wells near Pittsburgh, urged customers to buy soon before "this wonderful product is depleted from Nature's laboratory." The ad appeared four years before Pennsylvania's first oil well was drilled. In 1919 David White of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) predicted that world oil production would peak in nine years. And in 1943 the Standard Oil geologist Wallace Pratt calculated that the world would ultimately produce 600 billion barrels of oil. (In fact, more than 1 trillion barrels of oil had been pumped by 2006.)

During the 1970s, the Club of Rome report The Limits to Growth projected that, assuming consumption remained flat, all known oil reserves would be entirely consumed in just 31 years. With exponential growth in consumption, it added, all the known oil reserves would be consumed in 20 years. These dour predictions gained credibility when the Arab oil crisis of 1973 quadrupled prices from $3 to $12 per barrel (from $16 to $48 in 2006 dollars) and when the Iranian oil crisis more than doubled oil prices from $14 per barrel in 1978 to $35 per barrel by 1981 (from $45 to $98 in 2006 dollars).

In response, the federal government imposed price controls on oil and gas in the 1970s and established fuel economy standards to encourage the sale of more efficient automobiles. The sense of doom did not dissolve. In 1979 Energy Secretary Schlesinger proclaimed, "The energy future is bleak and is likely to grow bleaker in the decade ahead." The Global 2000 Report to President Carter, issued in 1980, predicted that the price of oil would rise by 50 percent, reaching $100 per barrel by 2000.

Most of today's petro-doomsters base their forecasts on the work of the geologist M. King Hubbert, who correctly predicted in 1956 that U.S. domestic oil production in the lower 48 states would peak around 1970 and begin to decline. In 1969 Hubbert predicted that world oil production would peak around 2000.

Hubbert argued that oil production grows until half the recoverable resources in a field have been extracted, after which production falls off at the same rate at which it expanded. This theory suggests a bell-shaped curve rising from first discovery to peak and descending to depletion. Hubbert calculated that peak oil production follows peak oil discovery with a time lag. Globally, discoveries of new oil fields peaked in 1962. The time lag between peak global discoveries and peak production was estimated to be around 32 years, but peak oilers claim that the two oil crises of the 1970s reduced consumption and thereby delayed the peak until now. Hubbert's modern disciples argue that humanity has now used up half of the world's ultimately recoverable reserves of oil, which means we are at or over the peak.

The prophets of oily doom are opposed by preachers of energy abundance. Chief among the latter is the energy economist Michael Lynch, president of the Massachusetts-based Global Petroleum Service consultancy. "Colin Campbell has the worst forecasting record on oil supply," says Lynch, "and that's saying a lot." He points out that in a 1989 article for the journal Noroil, Campbell claimed the peak of world oil production had already passed and incorrectly predicted that oil would soon cost $30 to $50 a barrel. As for Matthew Simmons, Lynch dismisses him with a sneer: "Petroleum engineers know a lot more about petroleum engineering than a Harvard MBA."

One petroleum engineer-- Michael Economides of the University of Houston--calls peak oil predictions "the figments of the imaginations of born-again pessimist geologists." Like Lynch, Economides, who worked in Russia to boost that country's oil production in the last decade, rejects Simmons' analysis. Saudi Arabia, which currently produces about 10 million barrels of oil a day, "is underproducing every one of their wells," he claims. "I can produce 20 million barrels of oil in Saudi Arabia."

The Tank Is Still More Than Half Full
So who's right? Fortunately, it looks like humanity is at least a generation away from peak oil production. Unfortunately, there could be another "oil crisis" any day now.

The world consumes about 87 million barrels of oil per day, or nearly 30 billion barrels of oil per year. How much oil is left? It's hard to be sure. Proven oil reserves--i.e., oil that is recoverable under current economic and operating conditions--are estimated to be 1.1 trillion barrels by the industry journal World Oil, 1.2 trillion by the oil company BP, and 1.3 trillion by the Oil and Gas Journal. In March 2005 the private U.K.-based energy consultancy IHS Energy estimated that the world's remaining recoverable reserves, excluding unconventional sources such as heavy oil or tar sands, are between 1.3 trillion and 2.4 trillion barrels.

But are proven reserves all that's left? Several analyses put ultimate reserves at much higher levels. For example, the USGS undertook a comprehensive analysis of world oil reserves in 2000. It calculated that the total world endowment of recoverable oil is 3 trillion barrels. (Its figure is higher because it includes estimates for undiscovered resources and projected increases in already producing fields.) In addition, the total world endowment of natural gas is equivalent to 2.6 trillion barrels of oil, plus 330 billion barrels of natural gas liquids such as propane and butane. The USGS figures that the total world endowment of conventional oil resources is equivalent to about 5.9 trillion barrels of oil. Proven reserves of oil, gas, and natural gas liquids are equivalent to 2 trillion barrels of oil. The USGS calculates that humanity has already consumed about 1 trillion barrels of oil equivalent, which means 82 percent of the world's endowment of oil and gas resources remains to be used.

In its 2005 Energy Outlook, ExxonMobil estimates "global conventional oil resources total 3.2 trillion barrels...with non-conventional 'frontier' resources such as heavy oil bringing that total to over 4 trillion barrels." In November 2005, the International Energy Agency, an organization created in 1974 by 26 industrialized countries to assess global energy issues, released its annual World Energy Outlook report, which accepted the USGS numbers and concluded that "the world's energy resources are adequate to meet projected growth in energy demand" until at least 2030. The report predicted that oil production would grow from the 2004 level of 82 million barrels a day to 115 million barrels a day and that any "peak" would occur after 2030. It suggested that world oil prices will decline to around $35 per barrel (in 2004 dollars) by 2010 and eventually rise to $39 per barrel by 2030. At the Montreal Climate Change Conference in December, Claude Mandil, head of the International Energy Agency, declared: "We don't share the tenets of the peak oil theory. We feel that they underestimate technological developments. For many decades to come there is no geological problem."

Probably the most respected private oil consultancy in the world is Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) in Boston. On December 7, 2005, CERA senior consultant Robert W. Esser testified at a House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee hearing on the peak oil theory. "CERA's belief is that the world is not running out of oil imminently or in the near to medium term," Esser said. "Indeed, CERA projects that world oil production capacity has the potential to rise from 87 million barrels per day [mbd] in 2005 to as much as 108 mbd by 2015....We see no evidence to suggest a peak before 2020, nor do we see a transparent and technically sound analysis from another source that justifies belief in an imminent peak." Instead of a sharp peak followed by a production decline, CERA's analysts foresee an "undulating plateau" in which global oil production remains more or less steady. "It will be a number of decades into this century before we get to an inflection point that will herald the arrival of the undulating plateau," said Esser.

Peak oilers discount these rosy scenarios, insisting the relevant fact is that new oil discoveries have been falling during the last couple of decades. But the petroleum optimists, such as the analysts at the USGS, say there is more to it than that. They point out that reserve growth and new discoveries have been outpacing oil consumption. (Reserve growth is the increase in production in already discovered and developed fields.) From 1995 and 2003 the world consumed 236 billion barrels of oil. It also saw reserve growth of 175 billion barrels, combined with 138 billion barrels from new discoveries, added a total of 313 billion barrels to the world's proven oil reserves. In the U.S., oil field reserves typically turn out to be four to nine times as high as the original estimates. The increase in production is a result of improved recovery technologies, further discoveries in the field, and improved field management.

Consider the Kern River field in California, which was discovered in 1899. In 1942 it was estimated that only 54 million barrels remained to be produced there. During the next 44 years the field produced 736 million barrels and had another 970 million barrels remaining. For geological reasons, petroleum engineers cannot pump every drop of oil out of a reservoir. But by 2004 technological advances enabled them to recover 35 percent of a conventional reservoir's oil, up from an average of 22 percent in 1980. If this recovery factor can be increased by another five percentage points, that would boost worldwide recoverable reserves by more than all of Saudi Arabia's current proven reserves. Economides points out that in 1976 the U.S. was estimated to have 23 billion barrels of reserves remaining. In 2005 it still had 23 billion barrels of oil reserves, even though American oil fields produced almost 40 billion barrels of oil between 1976 and 2005.

Matthew Simmons claims to have found that the Saudis are greatly exaggerating the size of their reserves. If true, this is bad news, because the Saudis have more than 30 percent of the world's reserves and have served as the world's supplier of last resort for a couple of decades. Simmons argues that the Saudis and others are exaggerating what they have because the supply quotas set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) were tied to the size of a country's reserves--the bigger its reserves, the more oil it was permitted to sell. But the desire to boost quotas cannot account for the fact that non-OPEC reserves grew nearly three times faster than OPEC reserves between 1981 and 1996. And whatever incentive OPEC members had to lie about their reserves should have dissipated as the price of oil rose during the last couple of years. Economides notes that the Saudis are investing $100 billion in new production projects, which undercuts the notion that they know they are running out of oil.

At a November meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations, chief International Energy Agency economist Fatih Birol responded to the assertion that Saudi Arabia can't raise its oil production by outlining a scenario in which he assumed that Saudi oil reserves were 35 percent lower than claimed. Birol noted that experts believe forcing water into reserves to maintain pressure would raise the cost of producing oil by 70 percent at most. In his analysis, Birol assumed it would raise the cost by 300 percent. Considering that it costs about $1.50 to produce a barrel of Saudi crude oil, that means the cost would rise to $6 per barrel. Even with these two assumptions, Birol argues the Saudis could easily produce 18 million barrels of oil per day by 2020, up from the current level of around 10 million.

So if the world has adequate oil supplies for the next generation, can we all go back to driving Hummers? Not so fast.

The Real Oil Crisis
Simmons has been wrong so far: Gasoline does not cost $10 a gallon. Oil prices hovered between $55 and $65 per barrel in late 2005 and early 2006, down from $70 in September 2005. The U.S. Energy Information Administration believes gasoline prices will remain below $3 per gallon in 2006.

What about the future? The International Energy Agency calculates that $3 trillion must be invested in oil production and refining facilities during the next 25 years to meet world demand in 2030. In principle that target could easily be met, since producing 1 trillion barrels at $30 per barrel yields $30 trillion in income over 25 years.

The problem is that the vast majority of the world's remaining oil reserves are not possessed by private enterprises. Seventy-seven percent of known reserves belong to government-owned companies. That means oil will be produced with all the efficiency associated with central planning. Michael Economides estimates, for example, that it will take $4 billion in investment to keep Venezuela's oil production at current levels. Yet that country's Castro-wannabe president, Hugo Chavez, is investing just half that.

If ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, or other private companies actually owned the reserves, the world would be in a much more secure position with regard to oil production. Instead, we are subject to the whims of figures like Chavez, Russia's Vladimir Putin, and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and must worry about the doubtful stability of their personalities and regimes. (To be sure, even a private reserve under such a regime would face the constant threat of nationalization or other interference.) In the mid-1990s, the world had more than 10 million barrels per day of spare production capacity. That figure has fallen to between 1 and 2 million barrels, which means that any significant disruption in supplies can cause prices to soar.

Economides worries that the conventional wisdom that oil-producing countries do not want to cause a global economic recession is wrong. "The danger posed by the axis of energy militants--Venezuela, Iran, and, increasingly, Russia under President Vladimir Putin--is that they could not care less," he says. "These militants hardly have functioning real economies whose workings would be adversely affected by a recession." Economides' views looked prophetic when oil prices jumped to a three-and-half-month high after Iran's threat in January to retaliate against any United Nations sanctions imposed to curb its nuclear ambitions by cutting its oil exports.

Despite the recent jump in oil prices, the world's economy has not slowed down. Why not? Goldman Sachs notes that oil is less important than it was a generation ago. At the height of the Iranian oil crisis in 1980-81, paying for gasoline took up 4.5 percent of U.S. GDP and 7.2 percent of U.S. consumer expenditures. In 2005, even though U.S. gas prices peaked at $3.07 per gallon after Hurricane Katrina, only 2.6 percent of GDP went to pay for gas and consumers spent only 3.7 percent of their incomes to fuel their cars and SUVs. Goldman Sachs believes gasoline prices would need to exceed $4 per gallon before consumers really started to cut back.

As the oil crisis of the 1970s demonstrated, while the demand for oil is inelastic in the short run, consumers do eventually adjust to higher prices. U.S. oil consumption declined by 13 percent between 1973 and 1983. According to Frederick Cedoz, vice president of the D.C.-based energy and political risk consulting group Global Water and Energy Strategy Team, "We get three times more GDP out of a barrel of oil than we did in the 1970s."

The higher prices of the 1970s led eventually to an oil glut and prices below $10 a barrel by 1986. Should one or more of the "energy militants" choose to deploy the "oil weapon" again, they will cause considerable economic pain to the developed countries. But detonating the oil weapon would end up disarming the energy militants for a generation, after consumer cutbacks produce a new glut.

Oil War Hawks
Unfortunately, you don't have to go to Iran, Russia, or Venezuela to find energy militants. We have some homegrown ones right here in America, and they think the world is already in the opening stages of a global energy war. Last July, the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., assembled some of the scariest American oil war hawks for a program called "The Coming Energy Wars: A 21st Century Time Bomb?"

All the participants apparently accept the idea that world oil supplies are about to decline, and they all share a zero-sum view of natural resources. According to the Heritage panelists, the chief villain in the coming energy wars is China. Referring to China as the "Thirsty Dragon," Cedoz warned, "China wants to lock up supplies at the wellhead with long-term purchase contracts." He darkly pointed to Chinese negotiations over oil supplies in Sudan, Ecuador, and Colombia. (Actually, if the Chinese sign up for long-term contracts, that would encourage producers to invest more in production. That would benefit all consumers, not just the Chinese.)

Refurbished cold warrior Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, opposed the $18.5 billion bid by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation for the California-based oil company Unocal last year. "It's a very ill-advised transaction," said Gaffney. "It's not in our interests to turn over more of our finite resources to others. They should be taken off the market." Our finite resources? Seventy percent of Unocal's reserves and production are located in East Asia and the Caspian Sea region.

The Chinese company withdrew its bid after a number of congressmen promised to outlaw the sale. But Gaffney isn't breathing easier. China's oil grab, he announced, "is only part of a larger plan to deny us strategic minerals, strategic choke points, and strategic regions. Their purpose is to deny the U.S. a dominant role in the world and if necessary to defeat us."

Ilan Berman, vice president for policy at the American Foreign Policy Council, regretted that "energy is not viewed through a national security prism. We should be competing to lock up supplies and diversifying and exploring new technologies." Berman argued that as resources become scarcer there is no way to avoid a zero-sum game. "We have to approach this through the lens of the haves and have-nots," he declared.

One dissenting voice at the Heritage Foundation session was Harvey Feldman, a former ambassador to Papua New Guinea and an East Asian specialist. "Berman is suggesting that we change from a paradigm of relying on the market," said Feldman. "OK, we're going to be in competition with the British, Japanese, French, Germans, Indians, and everybody else. Is this really in the interest of the United States?" Given that most of the experts in the oil business don't think the world is about to run out of oil, this is one time to hope that President Bush is listening to his buddies in the oil industry.

Instead of preparing for an energy war, the best policy is to let markets have free rein. Even if, say, the Iranians make the political decision to disrupt the flow of oil to world markets, those markets left to themselves will eventually discipline them. The temporarily higher prices will encourage more exploration and technological advances, which will bring energy prices back down. On the day of his inauguration in 1981, President Ronald Reagan lifted oil price controls. Five years later oil prices fell below $10 a barrel.

One day, the oil age will end. As with all resources, there is ultimately a finite supply of oil. So it is not yet clear how the world will power itself for the bulk of the coming century. But we have at least another three decades to find alternatives to petroleum. "Trusting markets is the only way we can assure energy abundance in the future," notes the University of Houston's Economides. "It's also the only way that we will ever transition to something other than oil and gas."


Posted by: JDH on February 6, 2007 03:45 PM
51. My specific actionable plan for the next 1000 years goes like this:

1. Sacrifice David Matthews.
2. Sacrifice the rest of those who think like David Matthews that the solution to all our problems is to curtail the freedoms of everyone else down to some set of limitations that they feel will preserve the earth, or the species, or other animals or whatever else in some unknown static state that is of some unknown value that only a limited few get to determine.
3. Let the rest of us get on with trading freely, owning property, living life, enjoying life, enjoying our world, enjoying our happiness, enjoying our pleasures and solving our problems in the best mutually beneficial way as they arise.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2007 03:46 PM
52. Sssh! Don't tell David that the NASCAR season is starting up in a couple of weeks. He might blow a gasket!

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 6, 2007 03:47 PM
53. When a child suffers from extensive Rickets and Eczema, left untreated, they often become really weird bloggers of doom and gloom. Later in life, the ravages of the diseases manifest as dimensia and incoherence.

Posted by: Doc-T on February 6, 2007 03:51 PM
54. Hello JDH,

> Actually there are more known oil reserves today than in the '70s smart guy and American Soldiers are not dying for cheap gasoline.

That's astonishing. That's really great news, JDH.

If our American soldiers are not dying for oil that must mean that they are dying for nothing.

Except, of course, our soldiers really are dying for the sake of oil. These soldiers are dying on behalf of Americs's SUVs and big pickups. These soldiers are dying so that obese Americans can go shopping at the mall.

These soldiers clearly are not dying for freedom & democracy.

But ... JDH ... please do keep on wasting gasoline! It is your duty as a mindless American hyperconsumer to burn up gasoline as quickly as possible.

Patriotism demands that you waste gasoline. Automobiles are more important than the world's climate. Wasting gasoline is an inalienable American right.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 03:51 PM
55. Ex-WA @ #41

Thanks for your response. I also respect your opinion on global warming and its causes. What is the single largest contributor to global warming? What are the next four? Can you please provide specific answers. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Jeffro on February 6, 2007 03:53 PM
56. Hello Jeff B.,

> 1. Sacrifice David Matthews.

That's a great plan you have there, Jeff. America is one bloody country with all the people that we have murdered on behalf of our consumer culture.

> 2. Sacrifice the rest of those who think like David Matthews that the solution to all our problems is to curtail the freedoms of everyone else down to some set of limitations that they feel will preserve the earth, or the species, or other animals or whatever else in some unknown static state that is of some unknown value that only a limited few get to determine.

You must think that The United States of America is the entire world, Jeff. There are billions of humans who do not have your freedom, prosperity, or wasteful lifestyle. Your freedom is made possibly by the oppression, exploitation and deprivation of these billions.

> 3. Let the rest of us get on with trading freely, owning property, living life, enjoying life, enjoying our world, enjoying our happiness, enjoying our pleasures and solving our problems in the best mutually beneficial way as they arise.

You are intoxicated in your own greed & gluttony, Jeff. You seem to think that looking out for your own interests is the same as looking out for humankind's best interests.

But it is not. Billions are already suffering, millions are already dying, and in response to all this you want to concentrate upon your own wealth & luxuries.

Is it any wonder that the United States of America will suffer an untimely demise?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 03:59 PM
57. Hello Bill,

> Don't tell David that the NASCAR season is starting up in a couple of weeks.

NASCAR is a sport which will go extinct within the next several decades. When oil costs more than $150 a barrel and gasoline is $6 a gallon at your local gas station the American public will demand an end to the fossil-fuel sports.

The airline industry, likewise, will have an untimely demise at some point in this century. The birds will again own the skies and humans will have no choice except to dream about flying.

That's the future. Hope you love it.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 04:03 PM
58. Hello Doc-T,

> When a child suffers from extensive Rickets and Eczema, left untreated, they often become really weird bloggers of doom and gloom. Later in life, the ravages of the diseases manifest as dimensia and incoherence.

Thanks for describing & explaining your condition, Doc-T. I will keep that in mind when reading your posts in the future.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 04:06 PM
59. What doomsday fools never acknowledge is that the world is a dynamic place. Resources are always a function of technology. Today's need is not tomorrow's. Modern rational and intelligent humans are not going to sit by idly and starve or reduce our quality of lives to huddling in teepees. There are millions of brilliant minds, and all it takes is one mind to come up with an energy solution that we have not yet imagined. Necessity is the mother of invention.

And, if we did find ourselves in a true crisis with lifeboat ethics. The hysterical thrashers would quickly be thrown overboard in favor of the more calm and rational minds that must prevail if we are to find real solutions in dire situations.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2007 04:06 PM
60. David, if you are really concerned about millions dying and suffering, then I hope you are concerned about the over 1 million unborn babies every year who are getting ripped and torn to shreds, some burned (saline) in abortion every year. Go to abort73.com to get educated on what this looks like and how widespread the problem is,and how very human-looking these supposed blobs of tissue are. Silentscream.org shows a baby desparately trying to get away from the suction tube before it tears him/her apart.

Posted by: Michele on February 6, 2007 04:07 PM
61. NASCAR extinct?

Now that's when the south really will rise again.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 6, 2007 04:11 PM
62. Hello JDH,

> One day, the oil age will end.

The above quote, from post #50, is the most important statement in the article. Do you fully comprehend what the above sentence means?

Do you understand what the end of oil means to the United States of America and its legions of morbidly obese consumers?

Do you understand what the end of oil means to the United States' economy and military?

Needless to say, the future of America is bleak. We are burning away our future as we burn up all of the world's fossil fuels.

And we are also changing the Earth's climate in manners which shall make life extremely difficult for future generations of Americans (and all people). If the oceans swallow the Earth's coasts the ports will be underwater and all those cheap Chinese consumer products won't have any means of getting into the shopping carts of America's obese consumers.

The future is bleak, and it becomes bleaker with each passing day. We are destroying humankind's future and living like kings & queens of the world by the sacrifice of their blood.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 04:11 PM
63. David Mathews-

EGADS! Will you please shut up. You are being baited like the ignoramus you are. You have nothing logical nor entertaining to add to this debate. There were others on this post that have valid comments, i.e. Ex-WA. I may disagree with him on some points, We may also find consensus on others. Now your psychotic rants have probably scared them away. You, my friend are just a stooly and are being played.

Bye-bye!

Thanks for making that point Michele.

Posted by: Jeffro on February 6, 2007 04:16 PM
64. Hello Jeff,

> What doomsday fools never acknowledge is that the world is a dynamic place. Resources are always a function of technology. Today's need is not tomorrow's. Modern rational and intelligent humans are not going to sit by idly and starve or reduce our quality of lives to huddling in teepees. There are millions of brilliant minds, and all it takes is one mind to come up with an energy solution that we have not yet imagined. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Necessity is the mother of invention, yes, but plenty of humans have died while desperately waiting for a technological solution to their problems.

The fossil fuel - global warming crisis is the sort of catastrophe which technology cannot, and will not, solve. Billions of humans will die because of your unwillingness to make any sacrifices on their behalf.

> And, if we did find ourselves in a true crisis with lifeboat ethics. The hysterical thrashers would quickly be thrown overboard in favor of the more calm and rational minds that must prevail if we are to find real solutions in dire situations.

The calm & rational minds are allowing millions of humans to die from deprivation right now. These millions are allowed to die because they are impoverished. I imagine that America's future generations of impoverished people will face the same tragedy and suffer the same fate.

These people are going to die because of your selfish desire to live large. Too bad for them.


Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 04:17 PM
65. David Matthews,

I have a modest proposal. Let's do liposuction on all the obese Americans, collect the fat, render it down, and use it to fuel SUV's. There - problem solved! If the fat people object, we can eat them, or sell their organs to China or something.

Fear not. When the Dems take the White House in '08, all will be fixed by John Edwards (motto -Capitalism made me fabulously rich, now you little people enjoy the socialism I'm givin' y'all)or Hillary (motto - Constitution? I don't need no stinkin' constitution to nationalize the oil and medical industry.)

Seriously David, can you give us a model for an economy you prefer to the American one which according to you is "is one massive act of genocide against humankind's future." Would that be the North Korean economy? They don't use much energy (the entire country is dark at night on satellite images). Or is it the Euro economy with massive unemployment and underemployment and no way to deliver the promised cradle to grave entitlements in the future? Or do you pine for a return to the Soviet economy, of feudalism, or the Roman empire?

If we could turn the clock back 1000 years, the pristine ecosystem would be fine, and there would be very few obese people. Unfortunately, famine, plague and malaria would kill millions upon millions of innocent children, but I suppose you would prefer that to the "genocidal" American way.
Also, Columbus would not yet have "discovered" the new world, so all the inhabitants of North and South America would still live in stone age bliss (yes, all the civilizations of the new world were neolithic in 1492, none used the wheel for transportation, none had metallurgy - they had not yet invented iron age or bronze age culture).

David, you need a chill pill. I suggest lighting a candle and repeating the following mantra - "It's all Bush's fault, it's all Bush's fault...."

Posted by: Steve on February 6, 2007 04:17 PM
66. Got that JDH?

We're all gonna die. And we're not going to try and do anything to stop it. We're not gonna see oil becoming scarce in time to save ourselves. We won't be able to distribute food.

We might as well all just stop what we are doing and listen to any of the socialists in power for instructions on where to send in our remaining wealth and where to go to await our assignment in the Bleak New World Order.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2007 04:20 PM
67. Hello Bill,

> NASCAR extinct? Now that's when the south really will rise again.

When NASCAR goes extinct the people of the South will be facing much bigger problems than the loss of their entertainment. Do you know how difficult life will become in the South when America's electricity supply declines and power outages become routine?

For example, Florida's great population explosion occurred after air conditioners became widely available. Do you know what will happen to Florida when all of these air conditioners cease operating because there simply is not enough electricity?

Things will become difficult. Life will become impossible. Many will suffer, many will die.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 04:21 PM
68. Many are suffering now just reading your comments Dave. While none will die, many will wish they were dead.

Posted by: Steve on February 6, 2007 04:30 PM
69. Hello Steve,

You ask good questions:

> Seriously David, can you give us a model for an economy you prefer to the American one which according to you is "is one massive act of genocide against humankind's future." Would that be the North Korean economy?

Honestly, Steve, I prefer no economy. Nature's economy is much better than humankind has ever invented. Nature's economy has functioned successfully for billions of years, humankind's economy won't function for much longer than ten thousand years.


> They don't use much energy (the entire country is dark at night on satellite images).

I imagine that the United States of America will have absolutely dark skies of the same sort in a century. America is depleting its own resources at a reckless pace. Future generations will have no choice except to live without.

> Or is it the Euro economy with massive unemployment and underemployment and no way to deliver the promised cradle to grave entitlements in the future?

Most of the jobs that Americans do are better left undone. Unemployment is better than destroying the Earth for the sake of transient and easily wasted wealth.

> Or do you pine for a return to the Soviet economy, of feudalism, or the Roman empire?

I love Nature's economy and don't favor any of the above. Nature's economy is better than humankind's economic theories.

> If we could turn the clock back 1000 years, the pristine ecosystem would be fine, and there would be very few obese people. Unfortunately, famine, plague and malaria would kill millions upon millions of innocent children, but I suppose you would prefer that to the "genocidal" American way.

The world of a thousand years ago could support the human population of that era. This present world cannot sustain a population of 6.5 - 9 billion people. So, instead of millions dying from malaria what you will have is billions dying from starvation circa the late 21st century. Which would you prefer?

> Also, Columbus would not yet have "discovered" the new world, so all the inhabitants of North and South America would still live in stone age bliss (yes, all the civilizations of the new world were neolithic in 1492, none used the wheel for transportation, none had metallurgy - they had not yet invented iron age or bronze age culture).

Columbus and his ilk committed genocide against the New World civilizations and eradicated entire cultures. This world would be a much better place if the New World never encountered the European plague.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 04:30 PM
70. David,

There's really nothing else for you in this world. Why bother living? Why bother continuing in a world with the majority of us SUV driving monsters? Every moment you step outside and see us all mindlessly going about our lives must be pure torture for you. We are all out to get you whether we know it or not. It's coming so much sooner than we think. Since you know it's coming, why bother to watch the painful decline? And frankly, since it's so scarce, we could all use the wood in your house to build our survival fires, and the electricity you are using for your computer. Take one for the team. You first. Renounce all of your possessions and your share of the oil waste that's used to get food to you, and then your life for the greater good. That's what you want. Show us all the way by your example.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2007 04:31 PM
71. Liberals are easily identified. No sense of humor,(see Dennis Kucinich D-Pluto).

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 6, 2007 04:32 PM
72. Hello Jeff B.,

> We're all gonna die. And we're not going to try and do anything to stop it. We're not gonna see oil becoming scarce in time to save ourselves. We won't be able to distribute food.

Yes, Jeff, we are all going to die. And, yes, we will not solve the oil depletion problem. Obese Americans cannot endure any sacrifices so this nation will just drive off the cliff and suffer the deadly consequences.

Distributing food becomes a problem when there are 400 million Americans and America's breadbasket fails because of droughts & heat waves. Then Americans will starve and our society might crumble, but who cares about these future Americans?

> We might as well all just stop what we are doing and listen to any of the socialists in power for instructions on where to send in our remaining wealth and where to go to await our assignment in the Bleak New World Order.

I suggest that you sell all of your possessions and use the proceeds to feed the impoverished people of Zimbabwe. Will you do that much for me?


Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 04:35 PM
73. Hello Jeff B.,

> There's really nothing else for you in this world. Why bother living? Why bother continuing in a world with the majority of us SUV driving monsters? Every moment you step outside and see us all mindlessly going about our lives must be pure torture for you. We are all out to get you whether we know it or not. It's coming so much sooner than we think. Since you know it's coming, why bother to watch the painful decline? And frankly, since it's so scarce, we could all use the wood in your house to build our survival fires, and the electricity you are using for your computer. Take one for the team. You first. Renounce all of your possessions and your share of the oil waste that's used to get food to you, and then your life for the greater good. That's what you want. Show us all the way by your example.

I will not die on your behalf, Jeff, but I will sacrifice the entire American economy on the world's behalf.

For that reason, I encourage all of the world's oil exporters to cease supplying the United States of America with oil. These countries should leave their oil in the ground for the sake of future generations of their own citizens.

How does that idea sound?


Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 04:39 PM
74. Hey Matthews and all his little pea brained cling-on coat tail riders, how do you explain the temps of Mars rising? Do little green men have Hummers up there? Also, China has about half of the most polluted cities in the world but I don't think they commute in SUV's there.
Perhaps their oxen aren't ULEV like Honda Pilots, etc.

Posted by: PC on February 6, 2007 04:46 PM
75. ""The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."

-Paul Erlich-"The Population Bomb" - 1968

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 6, 2007 04:56 PM
76. Hello PC,

> Hey Matthews and all his little pea brained cling-on coat tail riders, how do you explain the temps of Mars rising?

There simply isn't any historical data to back up the claim that Mars' temperatures are rising. Those who bring Mars up in the context of Earth's climate are merely uninformed and speaking out of their own ignorance.

> Do little green men have Hummers up there? Also, China has about half of the most polluted cities in the world but I don't think they commute in SUV's there.

The Chinese people are buying cars & SUVs at a furious pace right now. But the main source of China's pollution comes from coal-burning power plants and also coal-burning stoves in people's homes.

China is suffering a bunch becomes of the techno-addiction and I don't imagine that such a large, populous country can escape the drastic consequences which are coming.

Have you heard that 80% of China's rivers are horrendously polluted?

Have you heard that if China's consumers consumed oil as wastefully as obese America they would consume the entire world's daily oil production?

China's a major problem in this world from the standpoint of pollution, but the United States of America is much worse.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 05:02 PM
77. Hello Bill,

> ""The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."

Between now and 2040, the human population of the Earth will reach 9,000,000,000.

We were extremely lucky in the 1970's and 1980's but does anyone imagine that humankind's luck will continue with massive overpopulation and oil depletion and crop failures due to global warming?

Optimism is a wonderful thing but in this case America's optimism amounts to a crime of negligence. Americans don't want to make any sacrifices so Americans naively assume that things cannot help but just keep on getting better.

History over the last ten thousand years indicate that things can, and do, get worse and fail catastrophically.

Given that nine billion humans will inhabit this planet in several decades it is important that Americans cease living recklessly.

Billions of humans could die if you make a mistake. What are their lives worth to you?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 05:09 PM
78. Ummm....I think something got under David's skin.

And David, using a socialist example to prove your point may be lost on us here at SP.

I thought liberals loved China. Oh wait...again with the "only when conveinient" thing....

Posted by: Chris on February 6, 2007 05:13 PM
79. David-

PLEASE?! PLEEEEEEAAAASSSSSEE! You must go away.

Nature's Economy - oh yeah, I remember that from econ. It would be funny if it wasn't so rediculous.

Jeff - stop killing all those people because you want to live large.

Posted by: Jeffro on February 6, 2007 05:14 PM
80. See how it works?

David Matthews won't die on my behalf, but he expects me to renounce the modern world that capitalists have created, along with which means the technology, productivity and general infrastructure that has no doubt already extended, and possibly might even directly save my life one day. Thus, what he really wants is for me, and a whole lot of other "obese Americans" that have come to depend on and enjoy our world to die on his behalf. And on behalf of others who view the world as fixed and limited, and man as incapable and destined to failure.

David Matthews is a nihilist.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2007 05:17 PM
81. "Given that nine billion humans will inhabit this planet in several decades it is important that Americans cease living recklessly."

Maybe you should direct that comment to John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, and all the other rich liberals.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 6, 2007 05:17 PM
82. I love Nature's economy and don't favor any of the above. Nature's economy is better than humankind's economic theories.

... as he sits on his computer spewing his ignorance to the world.

Here's a suggestion, Dave. Turn off your computer. Throw it out of your yurt. Soak up some root and have a sip. Let the rest of us wallow in our capitalistic misery. Let us feel the shame, kay?

Posted by: jimg on February 6, 2007 05:30 PM
83. Hello Jeffro,

> Nature's Economy - oh yeah, I remember that from econ. It would be funny if it wasn't so rediculous.

Nature's economy is not something that you could learn about in your economics class. Economics is entirely consumed in the delusion of money/wealth and addiction to consumption.

This is the specific reason why all economic theories cannot help but fail catastrophically. Communism and socialism have both failed, capitalism's failure is fast approaching.

Nature's economy has functioned successfully for four billion years. Human economic theories has arisen and failed for the last ten thousand years. With the failure of capitalism all human economic systems will have failed.

The ultimate destination of all human economic activity is the extinction of Homo sapiens from the Universe. Technology won't mean much after humans are gone.

Extinction is the ultimate price that Homo sapiens will pay for humankind's destruction of the environment. Oh well, that's life. Nature will recover but our species will not.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 05:32 PM
84. Hello Jeff B.,

> David Matthews won't die on my behalf, but he expects me to renounce the modern world that capitalists have created, along with which means the technology, productivity and general infrastructure that has no doubt already extended, and possibly might even directly save my life one day.

Yes, Jeff, you are listening well. This is exactly what I am requesting for you to sacrifice.

> Thus, what he really wants is for me, and a whole lot of other "obese Americans" that have come to depend on and enjoy our world to die on his behalf.

Obese America will die horrendously if it fails to discover the benefits of self-restraint and sacrifice. Obese America is killing itself. If you love obese America you will advocate that it make whatever sacrifices are necessary to prolong its survival.

> And on behalf of others who view the world as fixed and limited, and man as incapable and destined to failure.

Homo sapiens are already a terrible failure and at this point we can only make matters worse by consuming & polluting the rest of the world in order to save our technology via the self-exterimination of the humankind.

> David Matthews is a nihilist.

Those familiar with the history of life on this Earth know that extinction is as inevitable as death. Call it nihilism if you wish, but it is also the truth.


Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 05:38 PM
85. What I don't like is that the French are so big on Kyoto, which is very convenient for them because they get so much of their power is nuclear.

If we wanted to solve our energy crisis, have real energy independence, and cut our carbon emissions drastically, we could build nuclear plants all over this great nation (a new one hasn't been built in 30 years, I believe). It would go a long ways toward making compliance with Kyoto a reality. But who, I ask you, would put a stop to it? Environmentalists.

It's because they don't support clean, smart, sustainable energy. They oppose energy consumption in all its forms.

So let's sit in our priuses and be smug.

Posted by: AD on February 6, 2007 05:39 PM
86. Hello jimg,

> Turn off your computer. Throw it out of your yurt. Soak up some root and have a sip. Let the rest of us wallow in our capitalistic misery. Let us feel the shame, kay?

There was an ecologically-friendly self-sustaining non-technological civilization that inhabited this continent for thousands of years. The United States of America conquered and eradicated all of these civilizations, and now it has consumed and destroyed all of the environments which formerly supported human & all life within these ecosystems.

Therefore: When civilization collapses humankind will quickly discover that there is nothing whatsoever to fall back upon. Billions will suffer and die.

Too bad for Americans. Billions of bad decisions have created this ecological catastrophe and the human catastrophe must certainly follow.

But you need not worry. Keep on shopping and driving your SUVs. Consumerism is patriotism in the United States of America.

The world is yours: Burn it all up! Who cares about the future? There's money to be earned today.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 05:43 PM
87. Hello AD,

I am opposed to nuclear power. Without apology, regrets or remorse. Nuclear energy is just a bad idea, a terrible idea, and with horrendous environmental consequences throughout the entire production-consumption-disposal cycle.

So much for nuclear.

> It's because they don't support clean, smart, sustainable energy. They oppose energy consumption in all its forms.

That is correct. I am opposed to energy consumption. The animals survived for millions of years on this Earth without energy except for the old, reliable sun. If humans cannot survive without our energy sources that just means that Homo sapiens will go extinct.

How is it that humans are so weak compared to the animals?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 05:46 PM
88. Things would be so much better if only the wheel hadn't been invented.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 6, 2007 05:48 PM
89. See the fallacy. David assumes that resources and our capability is limited to some unknown extent which of course he cannot know or describe, he simply believes that there are unsustainable limits. Nevermind all previous increase in human capabilities, resources, technology, etc. that got us to where we are today. The future is unknown and that's all David needs on which to build his fallacy.

And as such, he believes that we will somehow be saving ourselves by irrationally subjecting ourselves to some unknown extents, even if in the process we limit things that would save our lives today or extend the quality of our lives today.

In short, man today has no right to live for the sake of man tomorrow. Only if we reduce our lives to the most minimalist existence, even if that is a death sentence, is someone like David Mathews happy.

And, all the while telling us this from the comfort of some indoor, lighted place with a computer and internet access.

So, again, if this is the world that David Mathews seeks, he owes it to his convictions to go first and show us the way.

Sign off David. Go outside and look for a mud hole or cave to crawl up in for shelter. Don't touch any trees, and if there's someone else in the cave you find, well keep looking, there might be enough caves. When you awake, scavenge by eating any small bugs or berries that you can find. Don't light any fires, and take off those clothes. You're going to have to make do with what's in nature for your shelter and warmth, and you can't harm any animals either, so a pelt or animal hide is out of the question. And if you get sick, well, that's just too damn bad. No hospitals, medicine or aid for you. Let's see how long you last. Probably before the oil runs out, so you are set. Good luck pal.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2007 06:00 PM
90. And what is the one thing that human's possess for our survival that animals don't have? Volitional consciousness and the capacity to reason. In other words, our brains. We may not be fast, have built in fur coats, sharp claws or instincts, but we have the capacity to fashion all those things and more. And to David Mathews, we are wrong for doing so. Even though we too are animals and of the earth, according to David, we have no right to use our strengths for our survival.

David wishes and longs for the extinction of man, and he hopes to bind our hands behind our backs and force us to stop using our ingenuity to hasten our demise.

Our survival will depend on our brains. And one of the first things we must do with our brains is show our fellow man that the philosophy of David Mathews is a direct assault on man.

Fortunately, very few will be dumb enough to choose the route of David Mathews, so short of him employing force, we are free to bet on ourselves and our ability to make a better future just as we did in the past.. And if / when David Mathews still finds that advantage unacceptable and he chooses to use force to try and bring about his vision, then we have reason to respond in kind, just as we did with the Unabomber, who held a similar set of views.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2007 06:15 PM
91. Climate change just doesn't happen that quickly. The international scientific group that warned last week that global warming was almost definitely man-made and serious forecast a rise of 7 to 23 inches in the next 100 years (and a continued rise for at least 1000 years).

Wow! I am SO GLAD that the sea level rise is going to SLOW DOWN at such a fast rate! Thank God there is climate change happening, and it's slowing the rate of the sea level rise...

After all, the sea levels have risen 400 feet in the last 18,000 years. Or a rate of 26.7 inches per century.

Wow, I am SO GLAD the rate of the rise in the oceans is slowing down - we gotta keep up doing what we're doing, after all it's helping slow the flooding of the tidal areas!

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on February 6, 2007 06:21 PM
92. Hello Jeff B.,

> See the fallacy. David assumes that resources and our capability is limited to some unknown extent which of course he cannot know or describe, he simply believes that there are unsustainable limits. Nevermind all previous increase in human capabilities, resources, technology, etc. that got us to where we are today. The future is unknown and that's all David needs on which to build his fallacy.

Jeff, you seem to have failed to notice that your lifestyle represents the minority on the Earth. There are billions of humans who live within resource limits as they are impoverished, exploited, deprived and often lacking the basic necessities of life.

Yes ... there are billions of humans who are presently suffering & deprived. Since we allow so much suffering in the present is there any doubt whatsoever about massive human suffering in the future?

> And as such, he believes that we will somehow be saving ourselves by irrationally subjecting ourselves to some unknown extents, even if in the process we limit things that would save our lives today or extend the quality of our lives today.

The concept of saving things for future use is not so unusual as it might first appear. If you ate all of food in your fridge today you won't have anything to eat tomorrow.

The only difference is that I am applying this principle to the entire Earth's population over the next several centuries (and millennia) of humankind's existence.

Why should the present generation burn up all of the Earth's resources? What right does the present generation have to burn up all of the Earth's resources?

> In short, man today has no right to live for the sake of man tomorrow. Only if we reduce our lives to the most minimalist existence, even if that is a death sentence, is someone like David Mathews happy.

Yes, we all should live in a minimalistic fashion. Morbidly obese America might find this a sacrifice too great to contemplate. But, nonetheless, we do need to make the sacrifice.

> And, all the while telling us this from the comfort of some indoor, lighted place with a computer and internet access.

I have to talk to people in their own language within their own environment. Otherwise the public will die because of a lack of information.

> So, again, if this is the world that David Mathews seeks, he owes it to his convictions to go first and show us the way.

This is a problem which involves 300 million morbidly obese American hyperconsumers. My own sacricies -- as small as they are -- are not enough.

The entire nation must make these sacrifices or the entire nation will collapse and die in a most horrible fashion. Think this over and choose wisely because millions will die if you fail to act immediately.

> Sign off David. Go outside and look for a mud hole or cave to crawl up in for shelter. Don't touch any trees, and if there's someone else in the cave you find, well keep looking, there might be enough caves. When you awake, scavenge by eating any small bugs or berries that you can find. Don't light any fires, and take off those clothes. You're going to have to make do with what's in nature for your shelter and warmth, and you can't harm any animals either, so a pelt or animal hide is out of the question. And if you get sick, well, that's just too damn bad. No hospitals, medicine or aid for you. Let's see how long you last. Probably before the oil runs out, so you are set. Good luck pal.

The animals are tough and wise enough for the above existence.

Humankind cannot survive in Nature because humankind is weak. Natural selection would immediately eradicate humans from the Earth should our species ever lose its technological crutches.

You are as much a doomer as I am, Jeff. By conceding that humans are absolutely dependent upon technology for our survival you are also declaring that humankind will go extinct once all these technologies are lost.

Tell me, Jeff, how long could humankind survive if all of these technologies were lost?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 06:23 PM
93. One of the most effective solutions to Global Climate change (warming) is Nuclear power. When global warming alarmists in the USA start to embrace this, then I will believe that the Greens and the left are really into proposing solutions for the continuation of humanity, instead of following the money for their self-serving purposes. Certainly there is the possibility of nukes getting into the wrong hands, but nuclear power for useful purposes does not need to be limited because of that. In the end, it won't matter if the bomb comes from North Korea or Pakistan, Russia or Red China. Clearly the radical Islamists are not to be trusted and continuously watched with vigilance.

There is technology now that will allow the recycling and utilization of virtually all of the nuclear waste (Dr. Bill Wattenburg elaborated on this on Money Talk with Bob Brinker several weeks ago). Therefore nuclear power can be safe. France has 85 nuclear power plants - believe it or not !

"I am opposed to nuclear power. Without apology, regrets or remorse. Nuclear energy is just a bad idea, a terrible idea, and with horrendous environmental consequences throughout the entire production-consumption-disposal cycle.
So much for nuclear."

Garbage - baseless claims - where is your documented
evidence ? Once again DM shows his ignorance and pompousity with misinformation. Your negligible credibility continues to shrink.

Posted by: KS on February 6, 2007 06:46 PM
94. Hello Edmonds Dan,

> After all, the sea levels have risen 400 feet in the last 18,000 years. Or a rate of 26.7 inches per century.

You are making an egregious error, Edmonds. What you failed to notice is that over the last 18,000 years there was a pretty serious ice age which covered much of North America with an ice cap.

The 400 foot rise of sea level occurred quickly from a geological standpoint as the ice cap melted.

It is reasonable to suppose that if human activites begin melting Greenland and Antarctica's ice caps that a substantial rise in sea levels might again follow. It might occur more quickly than the previous episode of rising sea levels.

Do you know what will happen to the world's coasts?

Would you like to contemplate the economic consequences of losing trillions of dollars worth of land and development?

That's the price that humankind will pay for the polluting the entire globe. Was it worth it?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 06:51 PM
95. Hello KS,

> One of the most effective solutions to Global Climate change (warming) is Nuclear power. When global warming alarmists in the USA start to embrace this, then I will believe that the Greens and the left are really into proposing solutions for the continuation of humanity, instead of following the money for their self-serving purposes.

No deal, KS. No thanks on the nuclear power idea.

So much for nuclear power. Better luck with your next idea.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 06:54 PM
96. David-

I'm intrigued by the concept of natures economy. I'm not grasping the concept. If you are against all types of economies than any form of currency, regardless how rudamentary, represents the economies you despise. Please explain your concept. I'm totally serious, and would like a concise explanation.

Thank you.

Posted by: Jeffro on February 6, 2007 06:55 PM
97. OMG. Reading the thread is like listening to a broken record. For the record, I like my computer, heat and lights. I'm also OK carpooling when I can and turning down the heat when I'm not in the house. I like taking out the ATVs and boat in the summer. But I also wouldn't mind if they got better mileage, caused less emissions. What I'm not OK with is watching TV specials showing those numbnuts during Christmas time with their 10,000 strands of Christmas lights. Or how Las Vegas sucks so much power and water from an arid location. You want water, move it to New Orleans. Or Halliburton driving empty trucks around so they can get paid.

So why not...

1) Make cars more fuel-efficient. It's possible. They'll be cheaper to fill up so we'll be able to continue driving so we can work, play, live.

2) Cut down on emissions. Who really enjoys breathing in all the crap that we do?

3) Invest in research. Gee, I wish an American car manufacturer had invented the hybrid engines so Toyota would be paying us licensing fees instead of us. Let's see if we can come up with the next break through.

4) Cut down on consumption. Use it when you need, but cut down on the consumption of throw-away items where you can. Target will find plenty of other things to sell you.

5) Plant Trees. I like trees. That's why I live in the Seattle, and not AZ.

C'mon are these things really so horrible? It'll take many more years to find out what causes global warming. And I doubt we'll ever get consensus on the final result (heck we can't even get everybody to agree on creationism or evolution.) In the meantime, wouldn't you WANT to better our environment? Environment as the dictionary defines "the surrounding or conditions which an animal, or human being lives".
Where's the American know-how, can-do, inventive spirit?

Posted by: redkittyred on February 6, 2007 07:02 PM
98. "Jeff, you seem to have failed to notice that your lifestyle represents the minority on the Earth. There are billions of humans who live within resource limits as they are impoverished, exploited, deprived and often lacking the basic necessities of life.

Yes ... there are billions of humans who are presently suffering & deprived. Since we allow so much suffering in the present is there any doubt whatsoever about massive human suffering in the future?"

O.K. Doombat let me lay it out for you. The way out of poverty is capital investment in something someone else wants or needs. Are you oblivious to China's rapid rise? Trade is the road to prosperity. That is trade in wants and needs, got it. So what is limitless? Here on this planet it's human production. And humans do that quite nicely until some know it all decides they know what everyone wants and needs. Raw materials are limited, but human ingenuity finds or produces replacements as soon as shortages arise UNLESS some know it all gets in the way. YOU are the problem, you and the likes of you. Should I and a significant number want something and have produced something others wany and paid us for it ... it will appear in the marketplace because we will barter what we have produced for whar they have produced. Sometimes the trip involves an almost infinate # of transactions, but that in a nut shell is how a market economy works. Sometimes ludites get in the way, nuclear energy in the 60's & 70's and screw the process up. I remember the grim reaper costumed a-holes back then that prevented plants comming on line.

Posted by: JDH on February 6, 2007 07:04 PM
99. Hello Jeffro,

> I'm intrigued by the concept of natures economy. I'm not grasping the concept. If you are against all types of economies than any form of currency, regardless how rudamentary, represents the economies you despise. Please explain your concept. I'm totally serious, and would like a concise explanation.

Nature's economy has three essential components:

1. No money.
2. No possessions.
3. No commerce.

It is an economic theory which has functioned successfully for billions of years. If Homo sapiens would like to survive on the Earth we must adopt Nature's economy.

But, honestly, it is too late. Homo sapiens will undoubtedly go extinct and Nature will restore the Earth to pristine health and flourishing life. The Earth without humans will be about a billion times better than the Earth under human domination.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 07:05 PM
100. Hello redkittyred,

> OMG. Reading the thread is like listening to a broken record. For the record, I like my computer, heat and lights. I'm also OK carpooling when I can and turning down the heat when I'm not in the house. I like taking out the ATVs and boat in the summer. But I also wouldn't mind if they got better mileage, caused less emissions. What I'm not OK with is watching TV specials showing those numbnuts during Christmas time with their 10,000 strands of Christmas lights. Or how Las Vegas sucks so much power and water from an arid location. You want water, move it to New Orleans. Or Halliburton driving empty trucks around so they can get paid.

This is a perfect illustration of America's problem: The American people really do believe that it is all about them. Selfish self-involvement is our predominant trait: The Universe must exist for our sake.

Well, redkittyred, I hate to tell you: What you want and what you are going to get are not necessarily the same. There are billions of people living right now who are deprived of the basic necessities of life, I am certain that they would really love to have your lifestyle.

Americans are going to lose computers, heat and light. God has not guaranteed that Americans will possess this lifestyle forever. Hence it will come to an end.

Americans will also have no choice except to lose their prosperity, consumer lifestyle and global dominance. All empires fail, hence the American empire will fail.

Redkittyred, Nature doesn't care what you want. Nature is harsh. When you burn up all of your resources you simply won't have any more. When you exhaust your energy supplies your technologies will fail.

The Universe does not rotate around Americans. The life that you are living now will come to an end.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 07:12 PM
101. redkittyred: Who's worse--the guy with 10,000 christmas lights for a few weeks out of the year? Or the guy running his gasoline-powered boat all spring and summer? At least the christmas lights guy isn't fouling my air like your boat does. (just a thought). He's enjoying his 'vice'; you seem to be enjoying yours. I do not personally own a boat. Never will.

I have to snicker when my in-laws (diehard democrats) complain about people driving their gas-guzzlers, yet these same in-laws own a motor home the size of a small city and which gets less than 10 miles per gallon.
Go figure.

Then there's my daughter's leftwing friend (most of the kids in her group are conservative or in the middle, but there always has to be one hard-lefty, right?) at school, who drives around in a nice newer SUV, but complains that it's a "rich white person's gas-guzzler". She happens to be white and attend private school, btw.
I had to laugh--she's already at 17 playing the false liberal guilt game, while being exactly what she complains about. har-har

(I say she trade it in immediately for a Yugo, or start being grateful for all the privileges she has been blessed with. But the complaining thing has no merit and has to stop.)

Posted by: Michele ( on February 6, 2007 07:21 PM
102. I think we should thank David for being the embodiment of all the things we know about the left...on major steroids.

I'm surprised he wasn't invited to speak at the recent DNC winter meeting.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 6, 2007 07:25 PM
103. Hello JDH,

> O.K. Doombat let me lay it out for you. The way out of poverty is capital investment in something someone else wants or needs. Are you oblivious to China's rapid rise? Trade is the road to prosperity. That is trade in wants and needs, got it.

China's rise is only temporary and it will lead to horrendous consequences both for the Chinese & everyone else.

Don't you know that the Space Shuttle brightens the entire sky as it rises but its flame can only last for a few minutes? Do you know why its flame is so temporary?

> So what is limitless? Here on this planet it's human production. And humans do that quite nicely until some know it all decides they know what everyone wants and needs.

Shall I point out that humans aren't doing this job very well right now? Billions are already suffering, billions have always suffered, and billions will continue to suffering. Why has the Free-Market God not saved these people?

> Raw materials are limited, but human ingenuity finds or produces replacements as soon as shortages arise UNLESS some know it all gets in the way. YOU are the problem, you and the likes of you.

Here you are speaking a myth of capitalism. If you consume all of the world's resources you will have nothing left to substitute. There are some natural resources which have no substitutes: Once the oil is gone those cars aren't going to move. There are some resources whose loss will lead to death: If you don't have food, you die of starvation; if you don't have potable water, you die of dehydration.

The Free-Market-God cannot create resources ex nihilo regardless of how much money is offered for its acquisition. If the resource is consumed & exhausted the capitalists will simply lack the resource and have no choice except to live without.

> Should I and a significant number want something and have produced something others wany and paid us for it ... it will appear in the marketplace because we will barter what we have produced for whar they have produced.

The is the Free Market Religion which you are describing. It is working right now (for some) but it will not work forever.

> Sometimes the trip involves an almost infinate # of transactions, but that in a nut shell is how a market economy works. Sometimes ludites get in the way, nuclear energy in the 60's & 70's and screw the process up. I remember the grim reaper costumed a-holes back then that prevented plants comming on line.

Nuclear power plants are reprehensible. They are horrendous sources of energy. Humankind would be better off if nuclear power was never invented in the first place.

So: No deal on the nuclear power. Not then, not now, not ever.

The nuclear power idea is DOA. Do you have anything else?


Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 07:25 PM
104. No sale David-

Sorry about the pun, but your simplistic explanation is unsatisfactory. How would a community function together, forage, grow food, hunt, fish -all these things required a community for survival. Explain in terms that I can comprehend, regardless if it's too late. I'm treating you as a logical homo sapian, please afford me the same respect.

redkittyred-

I really think most of the SP posters are in agreement with econimizing resources whenever possible. That's just common sense. We all want clean air, etc. - we also want to enjoy lfe as you do. No disagreement here even though I'm skepticle of human caused global warming theory and am no an environmental extremist.

Posted by: Jeffro on February 6, 2007 07:27 PM
105. "Once the oil is gone those cars aren't going to move." You are not even worth responding to. Good God left to you we would all be impoverished. But then again, it has already happened, that is what has happened every time your ilk takes over. Man oh man the past Utopia that never was, this guy is delusional.

Posted by: JDH on February 6, 2007 07:30 PM
106. Hello Jeffro,

> Sorry about the pun, but your simplistic explanation is unsatisfactory. How would a community function together, forage, grow food, hunt, fish -all these things required a community for survival. Explain in terms that I can comprehend, regardless if it's too late. I'm treating you as a logical homo sapian, please afford me the same respect.

The idea that I am describing has worked quite well for thousands to ten thousands of years for the world's primitive cultures. These people never possessed money nor did they ever buy or sell anything. They simply existed and existed simply.

But this is a lifestyle which is impossible today. Humans have damaged the Earth that much. When collapse comes it will occur completely. Homo sapiens will go extinct and Nature will go on very well without the human plague.

So much for humankind.


Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 07:32 PM
107. It's obvious this guy's folly would lead to an earth with a very low capacity for humans. His "cure" for what ails human kind is circular and wouls severly limit the number of people who could live a life of little deprevation, it would be self fullfilling in that regard. He evidently wants a very small number of people to scratch a living from the soil with no technological advances allowed. What a sucker!!!

Posted by: JDH on February 6, 2007 07:38 PM
108. There was an ecologically-friendly self-sustaining non-technological civilization that inhabited this continent for thousands of years. The United States of America conquered and eradicated all of these civilizations, and now it has consumed and destroyed all of the environments which formerly supported human & all life within these ecosystems.

I'm pretty sure the Spanish had a large hand in that, but that's besides the point...

David, if you are such a fan of this civilization, why don't you go live like them? I mean, really, a large portion of this state is either national forest, national park, state forest, or state park. There is nothing preventing you from living this way. You would be even more successful in Idaho.

What is preventing you from going and living in the woods in an eco-friendly way, if that is such a noble thing to do? I mean, really, if American Consumerism is so horrible and evil, why not lead by example and abandon this society and live in the woods? Or move to Africa or South America, where there are still people living the way you describe and look up to so much, instead of sitting there on your environmentally unfriendly computer (do you know what kind of chemicals go into that motherboard, or how much petroleum is in plastic plastic? It's even worse if you are using a CRT monitor), sucking up precious resources while telling a bunch of people who think you're nuts and aren't listening to you how horrible, evil, and stupid they are for not believing that mankind will be extinct shortly?

Posted by: Mike H on February 6, 2007 07:39 PM
109. I can see David Matthews has already pooped on this thread. Will his poop cause global warming I wonder?

Posted by: Manco_Dollars on February 6, 2007 07:45 PM
110. global warming hysteria is nothing new... the left tried this during the 1980s, except it was the ozone hole. Well, mankind banned all CFCs over a decade ago and the ozone hole is still there, in fact it is the largest it has ever been. Huh. I guess the scientists were wrong. Just like they are wrong about global warming.

Posted by: Marc on February 6, 2007 07:49 PM
111. #100

My point was that I'm willing to conserve where I can but also knowing that it's unrealistic to give up the car. There is a ton of technology out there that exists. And there's soooo much more we can do. If the fossil fuel technology fails, we should have a new one to replace it. More efficient solar cells. Solar panels as standard roofing material. So instead of the doom and gloom, why don't we spend out energy (ha, pun) on something more productive. Our hydro plants today are vastly better than the original mills. Who's to say what tomorrow's engines will do?

#101. Why trade in for a Yugo when the Smart cars are so much cuter?

There's this strange notion that the left is one cookie cutter image. I believe there is also a wide spectrum of people on the right and I'd like to find some common ground on basic things that we can agree on. Perhaps the guy with the Christmas lights could switch to LEDs? So are you disagreeing with the rest of the post?

BTW. I save up that fuel for my yearly off-road and boating trip by commuting on my 90/mpg scooter to every day. :-P

Posted by: redkittyred on February 6, 2007 07:50 PM
112. Sorry David-

Besides your rediculous, vague, broken record post on this site, your message will go to your grave and your journey will be friendless and lonely. You remind me of the Grisley Man from that documentary who eventually was eaten by the bears he worshipped. Sad, I feel sorry for you. I hope you find some kind of happiness, I mean that sincerely.

Posted by: Jeffro on February 6, 2007 07:54 PM
113. Hello Mike H,

> David, if you are such a fan of this civilization, why don't you go live like them? I mean, really, a large portion of this state is either national forest, national park, state forest, or state park. There is nothing preventing you from living this way. You would be even more successful in Idaho.

That's not possible and you know it. Americans have eradicated both the natural environment and made the natural lifestyle impossible. There is only one sort of life available for Americans and when that becomes impossible, we will suffer in a terrible manner.

> What is preventing you from going and living in the woods in an eco-friendly way, if that is such a noble thing to do?

Simply stated: Americans have destroyed, polluted and eradicated this sort of lifestyle as we have transformed the living environment into an asphalt-covered polluted desolate wasteland.

> I mean, really, if American Consumerism is so horrible and evil, why not lead by example and abandon this society and live in the woods? Or move to Africa or South America, where there are still people living the way you describe and look up to so much, instead of sitting there on your environmentally unfriendly computer (do you know what kind of chemicals go into that motherboard, or how much petroleum is in plastic plastic?

The sin is committed here in America. Therefore it must end here. But it will not end and future generations will suffer the consequences. Who cares about them, though, since the whole Universe seems to rotate around the American consumer?

> It's even worse if you are using a CRT monitor), sucking up precious resources while telling a bunch of people who think you're nuts and aren't listening to you how horrible, evil, and stupid they are for not believing that mankind will be extinct shortly?

Honestly, I believe that your lifestyle is nuts. How else to explain the manner in which millions of Americans have surrendered their bodies to obesity? The animals are not so foolish.

Americans are simply insane in their approach to life in the Universe: Americans really do believe that there are no consequences for their actions.

Americans really do believe that the Earth possesses an infinite amount of resources and also an infinite capacity to absorb humankind's pollution.

Americans really do believe that the United States of America is an eternal nation, an immortal empire.

Americans really do believe that God (and/or The Free Market) guarantees our wealth, prosperity and well-being forever into the future.

These are the insane myths of our culture and they are all going to fail. Americans will discover that life can become harsh and impoverished. Americans will discover that they cannot get everything even if they really want it.

Americans are so divorced from reality and Nature that it is easy to understand their insanity, morbid obesity, greed, gluttony, and insatiable appetites. Needless to say: The United States of America will collapse and Americans will lose everything.

So much for the United States of America and its lunacy.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 08:02 PM
114. #112 Jeffro:

People like David Matthews enjoy being unhappy. They put themselves up as selfless martyrs to conver up the fact that they have nothing to offer the opposite sex... Ouch that hurt.

Posted by: Manco_Dollars on February 6, 2007 08:03 PM
115. Hello redkittyred,

> My point was that I'm willing to conserve where I can but also knowing that it's unrealistic to give up the car.

It may be unrealistic to give up the car, redkittyred, but you won't have any choice about the matter: No gasoline, no car, end of story.

> There is a ton of technology out there that exists. And there's soooo much more we can do.

Your faith in humankind is simply astonishing, redkittyred. Homo sapiens are a primate, not God. There are things which humans cannot do.

> If the fossil fuel technology fails, we should have a new one to replace it.

That's a statement of blind faith and nothing else.

> More efficient solar cells. Solar panels as standard roofing material.

Evidently you do not comprehend the full scale of humankind's problem on its global scale.

> So instead of the doom and gloom, why don't we spend out energy (ha, pun) on something more productive. Our hydro plants today are vastly better than the original mills. Who's to say what tomorrow's engines will do?

You can dream of utopia if you wish but these grandiose promises often fail.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 08:09 PM
116. Ya want to know something else smart ass, I also waer a Rolex which is comprised of a few scraps of metal but which my purchase of helped improve everyone (from those who mined the metal to the woman who sold it to me) who had a hand in getting it from the ground to my wrist's quality of life. I also have about two dozen other high end wrist watches that likewise provided the means to buy everything from health care to soup and nuts for PEOPLE. I wear Kiton shirts, hand sewn by women in Italy they cost ~$500 a copy and provide a better life for everyone from the guy that grew the cotton to the seemstress who finished the cuffs than your scratchy assed hemp cloth crap. I also wear Hicky Freeman, Zegna, Brioni suits they are all hand made and by God the fact that I have them does NOTHING to diminish the hemp supply that your scratchy assed wardrobe consists of. What is more what I buy provides opportunity for others just as their demand for the service I provide uplifts my quality of life. Get a clue fool. The money Isave is invested in God knows what, but it is lent to entrepeneers who put people to work producing what others demand and that is what makes the world go round. So put that in your hemp filled pipe and shove it.

Posted by: JDH on February 6, 2007 08:12 PM
117. "You remind me of the Grisley Man from that documentary"

I was thinking more along the lines of the current documentary "Zoo."

Posted by: Janet on February 6, 2007 08:15 PM
118. What I am saying is if you want to uplift people, get some skill, earn some money and BUY what they have to offer. This is what they want, they don't want your God Damned charity they simply want an opportunity to serve their fellow man and be paid for it. You have me good and pissed off right now you holier than thou piece of worthless rubbish. The way to help your fellow man is to serve your fellow man and he will be happy to pay you to serve him PROVIDED he has an outlet for what he produces for his fellow man. This is a dynamic that works and works well.

Posted by: JDH on February 6, 2007 08:19 PM
119. #118 JDH:

It's useless trying to drum sense into the mindless skull of a nihilist like David Matthews. I'm sure he views humanity as a "virus" deserving of extinction for daring to "pollute Mother Gaia".

Posted by: Manco_Dollars on February 6, 2007 08:26 PM
120. "No deal, KS. No thanks on the nuclear power idea.

So much for nuclear power. Better luck with your next idea."

Looks like this is a winning idea then, simply because DM - with negligible credibility rejected it. It will happen - case closed - there are few solutions to reduce CO2 emissions that won't negatively impact economies of the world. Nuclear power in developed countries will cause a significant reduction in CO2 and other pollutants.

Even with that, the temperature will decrease only a miniscule amount - because a majority of the warmup is caused by the sun's higher temperature. This is part of a global warming cycle that occurs every 1500 years, followed by a cool down in about 200-300 years.

Posted by: KS on February 6, 2007 08:27 PM
121. My bad, should read - This is part of a global warming cycle that occurs approximately every 1500 years.

Posted by: KS on February 6, 2007 08:30 PM
122. Hello Manco,

> I'm sure he views humanity as a "virus" deserving of extinction for daring to "pollute Mother Gaia".

Humankind is more of a plague rather than a virus.

Now Manco, I have a question for you. Do you agree with the following statement:

Without technology humankind cannot survive.

Yes or No?


Posted by: David Mathews on February 6, 2007 08:32 PM
123. #122 Matthews:

Wow, you agreed with me. Plague or virus it's all the same. Now as far as what humanity needs to survive, it's not technology but rationality, or the unique power of human thought. Not that you'd know anything about it.

Posted by: Manco_Dollars on February 6, 2007 08:44 PM
124. #111: simply commenting on some of the content of your rant. I'm 100% for good 'ol american ingenuity AND nice clean air. Perhaps even more than you are on both those counts.

and I can't help but notice lefties who complain about the very thing they do. Doesn't add up and needs to be called ou;hence, the examples I gave. How about dumping the boat and switching to oars so we don't have to breathe the exhaust, which unavoidably drifts over to the shore (I once left a beach in Juanita a few years back because the boat fumes were unbelievably bad. The passing cars on the nearby busy street weren't even close to being as bad)?

In the meantime, we really don't need senators like Cantwell who complain about dependence on foreign oil while denying our country the right to drill out of its own oil stores in-ground. How does that make any sense? It doesn't. Open up ANWR NOW. Increase domestic supply NOW.

Posted by: Michele on February 6, 2007 08:57 PM
125. #124 Michele:

We musn't risk offending Alaskan caribou. That would be the ultimate evil. Even worse then Sunni on Shiite violence.

Posted by: Manco_Dollars on February 6, 2007 09:00 PM
126. JeffB@30, 7 to 23 inches in 100 years is indeed alarming to most scientists, if not to you. And "planning for 1000 years from now is nothing short of foolish" makes sense in most respects, but not when we are doing things today that will affect climate for the next 1000 years.

H Moul@43, "The only solutions available are coping with whatever climate change happens to occur" is ridiculous. Climate change doesn't "happen to occur"; we are causing it.

Marc@110, actually scientists were pretty much on the mark about the ozone hole. CFCs cause increased damage for about 15 years and then stay in the upper atmosphere for around 100 years; the size of the ozone hole is changing as predicted.

But there is no proof that man causes climate change. And evolution is just a theory, and there is no proof that smoking causes cancer, and the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, and NASA faked the moon landing. I was so wrong about everything. Sorry.

Posted by: Bruce on February 6, 2007 09:11 PM
127. Manco: Offended caribou? Heh, they're too busy cozying up to the nice, warm oil pipeline (and increasing their numbers while doing so) that the lefties complained would decimate the herds. :-)

Posted by: Michele on February 6, 2007 09:17 PM
128. Mess in aisle 126, Mess in aisle 126. More poop to clean up. David Matthews has found a playbuddy.

Posted by: Manco_Dollars on February 6, 2007 09:18 PM
129. #126 - "The only solutions available are coping with whatever climate change happens to occur" is ridiculous. Climate change doesn't "happen to occur"; we are causing it."

Bull-pucky - scare tactic of the left ! Even if there was no industrialization on earth, warming would still be occurring as it did about 1500 years ago, when Greenland was nearly ice-free and Labrador was know as Vinland. The sun is causing a vast majority of it & humans are amplifying it in nominal amount. Nuclear power in the USA would be a coping solution - that would lessen the CO2 emissions more than any one source.

Posted by: KS on February 6, 2007 09:41 PM
130. Good grief, Mathews, are you still here? Do you really want to spend your entire life ranting at people on a blog that deals primarily with the politics of a state you will probably never visit? Seriously, what is the attraction for you?

Posted by: Peggy U on February 6, 2007 09:45 PM
131. It is reasonable to suppose that if human activites begin melting Greenland and Antarctica's ice caps that a substantial rise in sea levels might again follow. It might occur more quickly than the previous episode of rising sea levels.

Do you know what will happen to the world's coasts?

Would you like to contemplate the economic consequences of losing trillions of dollars worth of land and development?

That's the price that humankind will pay for the polluting the entire globe. Was it worth it?

Let's see... We've already got DOCUMENTED PROOF of over 400 feet of rise WITHOUT the "evils of man" driving it. Now we're talking another 10-20 feet over the next 1000 years. Yeah, at WORST man may contribute 5% of the total sea rise. At WORST, and we benefit immensely from the society we have.

See, this thing called climate change happens whether man is around or not. And the facts are still out on our impact on climate change. And even IF we assume the worst case that the UN paper claims, we're still talking less than 5% of the total impact. Provided we don't slip back into an ice-age!

What would the impact be of an ice-age? With everything north of 40 deg latitude covered under ice? With the Mediterranean cut-off from the Atlantic? Of the great plains gone, no more food?

Is your goal to make nature static? It'll never happen - we have to learn to live with the changes. If we are so bad, and add 5% to the total sea level rise, well OK that's something to consider. What happens when the ice-age comes and we LOSE 400+ feet of ocean level? Isn't that going to be a bigger problem for us? I'd say so!

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on February 6, 2007 09:59 PM
132. "Homo sapiens will undoubtedly go extinct and Nature will restore the Earth to pristine health and flourishing life. The Earth without humans will be about a billion times better than the Earth under human domination." - David Matthews

I love that line. Who, Mr. Matthews, will be around to marvel at this magical, pristine world? You're showing that you place no inherent value in human life, human consciousness, the human mind, and (if you're willing to go so far) the human soul.

Posted by: AD on February 6, 2007 10:37 PM
133. I think we need to take up a collection and send David some toilet paper. Obviously, it's those corn cobs in his outhouse that are making him so bitter.

Posted by: katomar on February 6, 2007 10:55 PM
134. Stefan must be laughing at all the posts from DM and the other moonbats.

A blog entry on "global climate change" brings out the moonbats like WD-40 on fish bait.

Gotcha! LOL!!!


Posted by: Obi-Wan on February 6, 2007 11:27 PM
135. Everyone who is interested in understanding the serious flaws and anti-man fallacies of those like David Mathews, really ouught to go do a Google search for the Unabomber's Manifesto and read it. David Mathews and Unabomer Ted Kaczynski agree on almost everything.

David is wrong on so many counts its impossible to address every point without staying up all night. But let's take a few of the major points.

David believes that American wealth is directly linked to suffering and poverty in other countries. This is so far from reality that it warrants discussing. It's not only untrue but the opposite is true. Countries like Darfur experience extreme povery because its cittizens live under Authoritarian rule. There is no means of personal wealth creation. There's barely an economy capable of supporting the most basic life supporting functions and tyrannical rulers have no need or care to abide by anything that provides for their people or allows their people to provide for themselves. To the extent that poor countries have begun to embrace market economies is to the extent that they've risen out of poverty. The world has seen many countries choose democracy since the 1970s and all of those countries experience a greater qulity of life today for their willingness to emcrace economic and political freedom.

If it were not for Western technology in farming, water treatment, sewage treatment, disease prevention, reduction in malaria, pharmaceuticals , and basic education on hygene, etc. many of these poor countries would see vastly greater death and poverty. The Western culture brought about by the Enlightenment in Europe which eschewed dogmatic Christian law for a more secular and academic religion under Thomas Aquinas is the foundation that David is ultimately attacking. And it's precisely that Enlightment which has created the higher standard of life that we (including David) enjoy today in the US, and what has trickled down to provide a better quality of life everywhere in the world, even for those living under stifling tyranny.

If we were to take away all of the technology, and everything else that man haters like David dislike, we would suffer greatly, but we would imp along somewhat due to the large body of knowledge that all of us possess. But for countries that get that technology in a secondary or tertiray manner from us, there would be an almost instant death sentence as they plunged into total chaos with nothing to fight back all of the onslaughts of disease and sanitary woes that they barely hold back now under tyrannical rule.

Also note how David has no real answer for the possibility that new technology is on the horizon. And no real answer for how we got to where we are now in the world without growth in technology and better ingenuity and use of resources. If we are to take David seriously, then there's really no explanation of how man has survived at all. David is afraid of the possibility of a transformative new energy technology, or simply better governance amongst man that opens now starving tyrannically ruled countries to places where commerce fuels and encourages people to trade amongst, and provide each other with goods and needs. For if any of these things come to pass and we are able to continue to survive and provide for our needs, all of which currently looks far more likely than not, then David looks like nothing but an alarmist fool.

Ultimately, by his own admittance, David has no faith in mankind, nor in our ability to handle problems and provide for our future. And he takes is a step further by actively preaching nihilism and cheerleading for our extinction.

Another important fallacy in David's thinking is that his scenarios of doom and gloom depend on massive and supposedly unsustainable population growth and a need for energy, with a corresponding scarcity of resources and needs to provide for that population. But these are incompatible concepts. If there is not enough food, medicine, disease prevention, clean water, etc. then there cannot be a corresponding rise in population. Much of the increase in population has been made possible by technology. Previous doom and gloom forecasts with respect to population never took into account that there would be advances in farming, healthcare, clean water, etc. and they were wrong. Population will grow as technology allows average lifespan to increase.

As I said near the top of the thread. I'll take the bet that man will survive and that the doom and gloom is not coming, and so do the vast majority of Americans. This is a large world, and mankind occupies only a very small percentage of our land masses and resources. There's plenty of room and resources for growth, and there will be new technologies that completely redefine what we consider as resources today. Many scientists are nearing a process that makes the cheap production of hydrogen from water possible, and many other technologies consistently make it more efficient to use existing technologies with cleaner outcomes and less energy input. Take just the advances and coming advances in LED light technology alone and you have a potentially huge reduction in energy needs over just the next 20 years. As the US lighting market shifts to LEDs, there will be a massive reduction in heat energy waste and energy required for the same level of bright light that we enjoy today. Ever think about how much of our energy goes to lighting? For example the christmas light whining higher up in this thread is reduced to laughable as running even thousands of LED christmas lights for all of December amounts to only pennies worth of energy. Literally, less than one dollar of electricity. Less energy needs for any one appliance or person means more energy available for each person. And noone has to offer up David's primative sacrifices if technology renders greater energy needs obsolete.

The point being that market forces change, needs change, resources change, technology changes, etc.

David is banking on a static world with respect to good, and hyperchange with respect to bad. There's nothing that should convince any rational person who can plainly see our technological history that this will be the case. It's all baseless claims of doom and gloom for the promulgation of fear of the unknown future, and intense self-hatred, and man-hatred.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 7, 2007 12:33 AM
136. The Seattle Times Editorial "Global Warming Is Real" is just the opposite an article that appeared in the Canada Free Press Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts, by Timothy Ball, Ph.D. in Climatology. Timothy Ball was on the Dori Monson show Tuesday.

EXCERPT: Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

Posted by: Janet on February 7, 2007 12:42 AM
137. Hello AD,

> I love that line. Who, Mr. Matthews, will be around to marvel at this magical, pristine world? You're showing that you place no inherent value in human life, human consciousness, the human mind, and (if you're willing to go so far) the human soul.

Humans are not marvelling at this magical, pristine world. Humans are consuming, eradicating, and polluting this once-pristine world as we transform the planet into humankind's sewer.

As to the inherent value of humankind: Transforming the Earth into humankind's sewer is humankind's one and only lasting contribution to the Universe, and it is a reprehensible, evil act of a primate against the very source of its life & survival.

If humans loved life they would not behave in such a recklessly destructive manner.

For that reason, I am certain that humankind's behavior over the last five hundred years constitutes of a form of self-extinction.

Too bad for humankind but Nature undoubtedly will survive and flourish. The Earth doesn't need Homo sapiens, the Universe doesn't care, and God is enraged by ten thousand years of human sin & rebellion upon the Earth.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 7, 2007 05:02 AM
138. Hello Edmonds,

> Let's see... We've already got DOCUMENTED PROOF of over 400 feet of rise WITHOUT the "evils of man" driving it. Now we're talking another 10-20 feet over the next 1000 years. Yeah, at WORST man may contribute 5% of the total sea rise. At WORST, and we benefit immensely from the society we have.

A sea level rise of ten to twenty feet is a major catastrophe on a planet with 9 billion people and a densely population coast. Our civilization was built upon the assumption that the ocean would stay where it is and not rise.

The oceans did rise four hundred feet in the past. There was an ice age. The climate does vary naturally. Natural climate change alone could destroy civilization.

But this is a case in which humankind have turned a bad situation and made it much, much worse. By pumping so much pollution in the atmosphere and destroying so much of the environment the Earth is warming much more & much quicker than it otherwise would.

The impacts of human driven climate change takes a bad situation and makes it into a catastrophe. Civilization will not die a natural death. Civilization will die because of human recklessness.

So much for civilization. It was good while it lasted. Once it is gone it shall never return.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 7, 2007 05:10 AM
139. Hello Jeff B.,

> Everyone who is interested in understanding the serious flaws and anti-man fallacies of those like David Mathews, really ouught to go do a Google search for the Unabomber's Manifesto and read it. David Mathews and Unabomer Ted Kaczynski agree on almost everything.

Have you studied Ted Kaczynski? Are you an authority on his thoughts?

Hitler was very much in favor of technology & technological solutions. Does your faith in technology mean that you and Hitler have much in common?

1. About poverty: The United States of America is able to consume 25% of the world's resources because of massive human suffering and impoverishment throughout the rest of the world. If these poor people were as wealthy as Americans they would consume their own resources and have nothing left over to export to the United States. The world's poverty makes American prosperity possible.

1a. I should also point out the other manner in which America profits from poverty: Those Chinese and Third-World employees of American corporations are paid less than $2 a day and they work 12-14 hours a day making the cheap consumer products which Americans buy and discard. Consumerism is a driving force of the American economy and it is profitable only by virtue of exploiting these impoverished near-slaves.

2. And it's precisely that Enlightment which has created the higher standard of life that we (including David) enjoy today in the US, and what has trickled down to provide a better quality of life everywhere in the world, even for those living under stifling tyranny.

I reject the above argument: Present-day prosperity is made possible by consuming the world's resources at a tremendous and ever-increasing rate. While things look good for some right now a day will come in which the resources are finally exhausted and the bill for this lifestyle becomes due and humankind faces poverty & suffering on truly apocalyptic scale.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 7, 2007 05:23 AM
140. Hello Jeff B.,

I read the paragraphs regarding technology and its ability to solve humankind's problems.

I will ask you a question about technology's role in humankind's survival:

Do you believe:

1. Humankind could survive without technology.

Or do you believe:

2. Humankind can survive because of technology.

Or, finally:

3. Humankind survival is impossible without technology.

This is a very important question. I look forward to your answer.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 7, 2007 05:27 AM
141. Mr. Mathews-

The wheel is technology.

Even the old Native American and South American civilizations created a footprint on this earth.

Some versions of greek mythology describe Hope being let loose on the human race as a gift. Others describe it as a curse.

The debate over the cause of global warming will not end here, look at topics of abortion, evolution and welfare. So why not move the topic of cutting down our footprint? Or have you given up on tomorrow already?

Posted by: redkittyred on February 7, 2007 07:43 AM
142. Humankind will survive.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 7, 2007 07:44 AM
143. RE: POST 139

David Matthew wrote:

1. About poverty: The United States of America is able to consume 25% of the world's resources because of massive human suffering and impoverishment throughout the rest of the world.

Is this really true? 25% of the world's resources? Cause when I look at a globe, it looks like we occupy maybe about 25% of the world's land mass... so exactly why is this a problem?

Posted by: thecomputerguy on February 7, 2007 08:31 AM
144. To David M and other like-minded lemmings:

It ain't a zero-sum game. A rising tide raises all boats (like that analogy?). There is no finite amount of resources, only finite amounts of the ones we use NOW. The end of the horse would have been a calamity a century ago; today, it's one day's anthropomorphic mourning about Barbaro from the MSM and that's about it. (And no more manure piles, no more flies and typhus in the cities...) Why? because of the internal combusion engine! If petroleum becomes truly scarce, or if the environment begins to erode in a way which makes it profitable to develop an alternative, presto!-- an answer will spring, full-blown, from some entrepreneur's greedy, teeming brain. The Arabs will be impoverished, too. Surely we can all agree that seeing them return to beggary (and buggery?) will be mother nature's blessing to all of us, with a little help from Adam Smith.

Besides, the serendipitous effects may well be beneficial in a way that true virtue is finally rewarded. With every foot of sea level rise (which, incidentally, would make moot the Viaduct quandary), the real estate bonanza enjoyed by the coastal nutballs on both ends of our great nation will shrink to insignificance, while the heartland red state folks with their baseball, apple-pie, and Chevrolets, will finally enjoy some of that beachfront lifestyle.

Cheer up, Al Gore wannabes. The end of one world is the beginning of a newer, better one.

Change is natural.

Posted by: Rey Smith on February 7, 2007 08:34 AM
145. And speaking of "The Arabs will be impoverished, too." Yes they will, acttually theya are already impoverished in every way, shackled by their adherence to a creed very similar in it's effects to that of Doombat Mathews'. Actually let's take a look at how the Doombat prescription will play out in the middle east - they are simply relying on what nature has provided them. They are essentially incompetent to mine the oil they are living on. They have essentially no skills to offer to their fellow man and very little in the way of intillectual capital. so their prospects are limited, severely. In America where intillectual capital and monitary capital are both recognized as not limited by all TRUE Americans our prosperity is not limited in any way. As one resource dries up another will come along to replace it.

Posted by: JDH on February 7, 2007 08:48 AM
146. I doubt many people still read this thread, but I just had to respond to #140 which asked a question to Jeff B.

DM, your question is a total fallacy. The problem is that you see humankind and technology two separate objects. As such, the selections to your question end up with the three you listed. And Jeff B. succinctly answer your question with, "Humankind will survive." with no regard to technology. You see, technology is byproduct of human ingenuity, and humankind has the capacity to survive regardless just as it has been able to last 6000 years or so.

You are basing your global warming dooms day scenario on your perceived weather patterns of the last few decades, and I just cannot believe how you completely missed the advancement in quality of life over the last few decades. I m certain that you'd only equate the advancement in quality of life to contributing to the eventual doomsday. Just get a grip in your life before it becomes too burdensome for you to render your own life too meaningless to continue living.

Posted by: DopioLover (was C. Oh) on February 7, 2007 09:39 AM
147. Here's a great link to the 2007 Index of Economic Freedom. As you can see, it is exactly as I said. The countries that live under oppression are poor. And the countries with freedom are rich. David Mathews wants you to believe that all of this happened in a vacuum, and that the poor are poor at the expense of the rich. but this of course ignores that many of the countries that were far down on the list decades ago, have risen due to their embrace of economic freedom. And then there's the conundrum of China for David. China has embraced much of the technology of the US and is one of the world's great consumers of the resources that David holds are in scarcity with a hard limit. Yet, China is not wealthy and much of its citizens remain in poverty, with short life-spans. What is different about China? The oppressive regime that controls China limits the freedom of its people to improve their own lot. Even within some artificially limited and ridiculously minimalist standard that David holds as an ideal, but of course will not even adhere to himself. And that limitation is what keeps people in suffering. If we don the yoke that David wants us all to wear, we will not end up in a better world with longer lives, but instead will join our third world cousins in poverty and decay.

There's no reason that all countries can't participate in greater wealth and a higher standard of living if their peoples are willing to eschew oppression and fight for freedom. Freedom that allows markets to grow and ideas to flourish.

When a people engages in the vigorous exchange of goods, services and ideas, the result is what we have here in the US. And sadly, there are people like David Mathews that are so filled with human-hatred that they would have us regress to a lesser state. (But David won't give up his car or Internet connection.)

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 7, 2007 09:45 AM
148. Dave Matthews,

To my way of thinking, you are a pitiful being.

You are absolutely right on, we will all die. The only difference is that your life will have been totally wasted on worry over things that you have no control over and you will never know about because you will probably be long dead if and when all your dire predictions come about.

You will have acomplished nothing with your time here but consume oxygen and obesely use polluting
chemicals for all your nature photography. In other words, you will have accomplished nothing but add to the misery of the billions of starving masses.

I'm sorry for you, there is no joy in your life.

Posted by: dan on February 7, 2007 09:47 AM
149. News item today:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi Gets Big Jet

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have access to an Air Force jet larger than the one used by her predecessor so she can fly nonstop between Washington and her San Francisco district.

The liberal mantra, "do as we say, not as we do".

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 7, 2007 10:10 AM
150. Don't know if this has already been brought up about the paradox of global warming: but heard on ABC news about the snow dump in the midwest/east is because of warming. The cold air blast from the Arctic picked up moisture from The Great Lakes and came back down as snow. Normally, Lake Eerie is frozen this time of year (and the moisture wouldn't have been picked up) but the Lake is running 10-15° above average.

Posted by: redkittyred on February 7, 2007 12:24 PM
151. "the snow dump in the midwest/east is because of warming." In other news the lack of snow is because of global warming, increased rainfall is because of global warming in areas where there is increased rainfall and in areas in which there is decreased rainfall that is due to global warming and any increase in the number of people eating dinner at any particular Col Sanders is due to blobal warming however should some Col Sanders have reported a decrease in the number of people having dinner there that too is because of global warming and bla bla bla and yada yada yada and ....

Posted by: JDH on February 7, 2007 12:46 PM
152. redkitty, it's ALL about global warming from now on, twenty-four-seven. Nutty Astronaut babe? Global warming in orbit. Super Bowl rain storm causing Rex Grossman to revert to PeeWee football skills? Can you say el fricken neenyo? Stock market at record highs? Not the Bush tax policy, no no nevah -- it's the shift in humididity, kitty!

Gore for the Nobel Prize! Snickers for everyone!

Posted by: Rey Smith on February 7, 2007 12:46 PM
153. like I've said before: If your political opponent can successfully convince a majority of voters that the weather is your fault, then you've lost the battle. That, my friends is all this is about.

Posted by: thecomputerguy on February 7, 2007 12:54 PM
154. I am impressed by David Mathews!!! He continued to fight when his battle was lost!

Now if we could only get the Dims to fight in Iraq while the battle is still being won!

I got the following quote off an economics web site, Cafe Hyek: http://cafehayek.typepad.com/

The global warming issue is primarily a political issue just like the minimum wage is primarily a political issue. Both are used by the Democrats to make those of us who have a tendancy to see and point out the cost side of the equation appear heartless and uncaring. What's amazing to me is that they get away with it time and time again. An appropriate response to calls to raise the minimum wage would be, "absolutely, we think it should be raised to $20/hr". An appropriate response to calls to "do something" about global warming would be, "absolutely, we should shut down all the factories immediately, impound all SUVs, and go to war with China if they refuse to comply".

Posted by: Bob in SeaTac on February 7, 2007 02:57 PM
155. Hello Jeff B.,

> Humankind will survive.

That's good news.

So we really don't need the automobile, the air conditioner/heater, the fridge, the television, the cell phone, etc.

Do you agree that humankind can afford to lose all these things and the species will still survive?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 7, 2007 03:20 PM
156. Hello thecomputerguy,

> Is this really true? 25% of the world's resources? Cause when I look at a globe, it looks like we occupy maybe about 25% of the world's land mass... so exactly why is this a problem?

You really ought to study that map a little closer, computer guy.

Anyhow, the relevant number: Americans are 5% of the world's population. Our gluttonous, insatiable appetites compels us to consume 25% of the world's resources.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 7, 2007 03:23 PM
157. Doombat Mathews is pretty scrappy online, but I doubt if he would have much staying power in face to face competition on this subject. My experience is that Globalwarmists and Macroevoliutionists are both so emotionally invested in their pet theory, a theory that just cannot transcend the missing links in their chain of supporting facts, that when their adversary stays on topic and focused on demanding that they produce scientific proof for every claim they make and then points to the flaws they contain that they break down and start either crying or lash out in a profanity laced name calling tirade. While both of these theories deserved consideration, at one time, as possible theories that explain something neither of them have stood up to rigorous scientific testing.

Posted by: JDH on February 7, 2007 03:26 PM
158. Hello Rey Smith,

> It ain't a zero-sum game. A rising tide raises all boats (like that analogy?). There is no finite amount of resources, only finite amounts of the ones we use NOW. The end of the horse would have been a calamity a century ago; today, it's one day's anthropomorphic mourning about Barbaro from the MSM and that's about it. (And no more manure piles, no more flies and typhus in the cities...) Why? because of the internal combusion engine! If petroleum becomes truly scarce, or if the environment begins to erode in a way which makes it profitable to develop an alternative, presto!-- an answer will spring, full-blown, from some entrepreneur's greedy, teeming brain. The Arabs will be impoverished, too. Surely we can all agree that seeing them return to beggary (and buggery?) will be mother nature's blessing to all of us, with a little help from Adam Smith.

You are a man of faith, Rey Smith. You believe in the Free Market God. Unlike other gods, the Free Market God provides its miracles only for a price. If you have enough money, you get the miracle; if not, you are left to fester and die (see Africa).

When you claim that "There is no finite amount of resources ..." you are expressing an absurdity. The Earth is finite hence all of its resources are finite. When you run out of a resource you seek for a substitute. If no substitute is found you have no choice except to live (or die) without.

For a resource such as oil, the exhaustion of the resource would only serve to exterminate the automobile (a blessing which I pray for every day). On the other hand, if you run out of potable water you will die of dehydration.

Those who take it on faith that the Free Market God will provide will discover on some future day that the Free Market God can fail in a catastrophic fashion. Billions will suffer, billions will die. Too bad for them that our promises were never fulfilled.


> Besides, the serendipitous effects may well be beneficial in a way that true virtue is finally rewarded. With every foot of sea level rise (which, incidentally, would make moot the Viaduct quandary), the real estate bonanza enjoyed by the coastal nutballs on both ends of our great nation will shrink to insignificance, while the heartland red state folks with their baseball, apple-pie, and Chevrolets, will finally enjoy some of that beachfront lifestyle.

Wonderful. New York City, New Orleans, and Miami would all be under water but at least you will have a beach in your backyard. Too bad that America's economy would sink into the abyss should these coastal cities ever disappear beneath the waves.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 7, 2007 03:32 PM
159. It's the same ignorance that leads one to conclude a cold spell disproves global warming and that the eye disproves evolution.

Who are you people?

Posted by: Doc on February 7, 2007 03:36 PM
160. It's the same ignorance that leads one to conclude a cold spell disproves global warming and that the eye disproves evolution.

Who are you people?

Posted by: Doc on February 7, 2007 03:36 PM
161. It's the same ignorance that leads one to conclude a cold spell disproves global warming and that the eye disproves evolution.

Who are you people?

Posted by: Doc on February 7, 2007 03:37 PM
162. Hello JDH,

> And speaking of "The Arabs will be impoverished, too." Yes they will, acttually theya are already impoverished in every way, shackled by their adherence to a creed very similar in it's effects to that of Doombat Mathews'. Actually let's take a look at how the Doombat prescription will play out in the middle east - they are simply relying on what nature has provided them. They are essentially incompetent to mine the oil they are living on. They have essentially no skills to offer to their fellow man and very little in the way of intillectual capital. so their prospects are limited, severely. In America where intillectual capital and monitary capital are both recognized as not limited by all TRUE Americans our prosperity is not limited in any way. As one resource dries up another will come along to replace it.

Ignorant, prejudiced attitudes against the Muslims fail to take into account all of the crimes & atrocities which the West has committed against the Arab nations over the last century. Britain, France and the United States of America created that mess in the Middle East and we certainly are paying a price.

Those who think that the Muslims are incompetent have failed to notice that the Muslims do possess nuclear bombs (Pakistan) and have built nuclear power plants and processing facilities (Iraq and Iran).

The Muslims have also defeated the American military in Iraq over the last three years. Our technological superiority doesn't generate invincibility.

Now, JDH, what do you suppose would happen if these Muslims decided to cease exporting oil?

What do you imagine would happen to the American economy?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 7, 2007 03:38 PM
163. so true I had to say it thrice

Posted by: Doc on February 7, 2007 03:39 PM
164. Hello Dopiolover,

> DM, your question is a total fallacy. The problem is that you see humankind and technology two separate objects. As such, the selections to your question end up with the three you listed. And Jeff B. succinctly answer your question with, "Humankind will survive." with no regard to technology. You see, technology is byproduct of human ingenuity, and humankind has the capacity to survive regardless just as it has been able to last 6000 years or so.

This is great news, Dopiolover. Based upon the above principle, I propose the following:

If humankind can survive without technology, humankind should survive without technology.

Let's sacrifice all of our machines for the Nature's sake. We don't need these machines. Let's get rid of them all. Humankind will be just fine without them.

> You are basing your global warming dooms day scenario on your perceived weather patterns of the last few decades, and I just cannot believe how you completely missed the advancement in quality of life over the last few decades. I m certain that you'd only equate the advancement in quality of life to contributing to the eventual doomsday. Just get a grip in your life before it becomes too burdensome for you to render your own life too meaningless to continue living.

The so-called advance in the quality of life is at most only a delusion of civilization. Things might appear better (to you) but these improvements are coming at the cost of humankind destroying all of Nature.

I'd much prefer to live without any of these alleged improvements with a fully functioning and healthy Earth.

We haven't yet seen the end of capitalism. When capitalism comes to an end we will be able to determine if it served as a net-positive or a net-negative for humankind as a whole.


Posted by: David Mathews on February 7, 2007 03:47 PM
165. Hello Jeff B.,

> The countries that live under oppression are poor. And the countries with freedom are rich. David Mathews wants you to believe that all of this happened in a vacuum, and that the poor are poor at the expense of the rich. but this of course ignores that many of the countries that were far down on the list decades ago, have risen due to their embrace of economic freedom.

Jeff, I think that you are suffering from a misperception: The "prosperous" people that you are speaking about are not enjoying your standard of living. These people are relatively better off than those who are really impoverished but they are still very poor compared to American standards.

> And then there's the conundrum of China for David. China has embraced much of the technology of the US and is one of the world's great consumers of the resources that David holds are in scarcity with a hard limit. Yet, China is not wealthy and much of its citizens remain in poverty, with short life-spans. What is different about China? The oppressive regime that controls China limits the freedom of its people to improve their own lot.

China is a real economic success story but also an ecological catastrophe (of the same order as the world's other great ecological catastrophe, the United States of America).

The Chinese people really do want America's consumer culture. They are buying cars and living in suburbs and accumulating possessions.

Do you know what would happen if the Chinese consumed oil at the same rate as Americans? They would consume the entire world's daily oil production.

So you see, there are real physical limits to the Earth's resources. The Chinese cannot attain America's standard of living because there simply is not enough oil in the world to support two overpopulated obese consumer cultures.

> Even within some artificially limited and ridiculously minimalist standard that David holds as an ideal, but of course will not even adhere to himself. And that limitation is what keeps people in suffering. If we don the yoke that David wants us all to wear, we will not end up in a better world with longer lives, but instead will join our third world cousins in poverty and decay.

We will join the Third World whether we want to or not. The Earth's resources are not sufficient to maintain this lifestyle forever. At some point Americans will discover: No gasoline at the gas station, no electricity at the plug, and no food at the grocery store.

That'a America's future. No the future which you would choose, but the future which you will get.

> There's no reason that all countries can't participate in greater wealth and a higher standard of living if their peoples are willing to eschew oppression and fight for freedom. Freedom that allows markets to grow and ideas to flourish.

This is merely a myth of capitalism. There are 6.5 billion humans on this Earth. They all cannot live like Americans. Billions of impoverished people make America's lifestyle possible.

> When a people engages in the vigorous exchange of goods, services and ideas, the result is what we have here in the US. And sadly, there are people like David Mathews that are so filled with human-hatred that they would have us regress to a lesser state. (But David won't give up his car or Internet connection.)

Yes, I would have us regress to a lesser state. But this is not a matter of choice for humankind. With the exhaustion of resources and climate change humans will lose a lot more than just America's gluttony.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 7, 2007 04:02 PM
166. DM, Jeff B, JDH, AD and others - why do you even acknowledge the presence of Matthews ? You just encourage his bloviation of half-truths and misinformation. You guys might consider acting less like a mouthpiece of the Republican Party and more like shrewd conservatives do and not give him an opening.

Posted by: KS on February 7, 2007 07:36 PM
167. DM, it's not worth it to continue with your skewed reasoning, and this will be my last time ever responding to you. I said humankind can survive with or without technology, and you concluded that humankind should give up technology altogether. How do you come to that? No wonder you are so defeated with the doomsday that will not even occur in your life time. I have greater hope and greater trust to humankind and its ability to improve things for the better. Throughout history, mankind came up with ingenious technologies when faced with the most seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Black plague is an example that comes to mind. Likewise, when water rises in the future, human cause or not, in a rather dramatic way, I have no doubt humankind will overcome the problem. The only thing that cannot be avoided or surmounted by humankind will be the literal judgment (and spare me your allegorical doomsday scenarios).

You are so lost with no hope. Like I said earlier, get a grip in life before you turn suicidal. I am sincere with my concerns with your mental health.

Posted by: DopioLover on February 7, 2007 07:45 PM
168. Hello Dopiolover,

> I said humankind can survive with or without technology, and you concluded that humankind should give up technology altogether. How do you come to that?

Well, very easily, based upon the principle:

Humans ought to live without unnecessary addictive unhealthy things.

Because this technology makes humankind weak and it polluted the entire planet. Given that humans are strong enough to live without technology, I believe that we should.

Is this too much to ask? If that is the case, then that would indicate: Life without technology is impossible or in other words Humankind cannot survive without technology.

> No wonder you are so defeated with the doomsday that will not even occur in your life time.

You are seriously mistaken about the state of the world. The catastrophe is happening right now. If modern humans do not make substantial sacrifices now billions of humans could potentially die in the future.

Why should modern luxuries take precedence over future necessities?

Why should Americans remain obese while more than a billion humans are impoverished and undernourished?

Americans are unwilling to make any sacrifices and this is a crime against humanity committed by this generation against all future humans.

> I have greater hope and greater trust to humankind and its ability to improve things for the better. Throughout history, mankind came up with ingenious technologies when faced with the most seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

Your faith in technology merely serves as a justification for this generation's profligacy & pollution. You care a whole bunch about your own standard of living and will let someone else inherit the mess & the consequences.

Those people will pay your bills. They will suffer. They will die. They will discover that the techno-salvation which you promised never materialized.

You can sleep comfortably every night with the knowledge that you will never see the people that you are killing. They are safely hidden from view on other continents and in the distant future.

You won't sacrifice for them because your only obligation is to your own self. Who cares about the future when there is so much shopping to do today?

> Likewise, when water rises in the future, human cause or not, in a rather dramatic way, I have no doubt humankind will overcome the problem.

Or humankind will be overcome by the problem. Remember how well the United States of America handled Hurricane Katrina?

> You are so lost with no hope. Like I said earlier, get a grip in life before you turn suicidal. I am sincere with my concerns with your mental health.

I am seriously concerned about the mental health of all people who believe in the Techno-God and Techn-Salvation as a means of justifying their polluting, wasteful lifestyle in the face of massive human suffering in today's world and much more suffering in the future.

Americans are self-indulgent, obese, and they feel entitled to consume the entire globe. These opinions constitute the market-driven insanity of the American people. The incessant propaganda of advertising brainwashes Americans with the doctrine that they must always have more and live large on the Earth.

The United States of Ameica is a morbidly obese nation with an insatiable appetite. The United States of America won't restrain its own appetites. I guess that Nature will have to restrain us in the harshest manner possible.


Posted by: David Mathews on February 7, 2007 08:42 PM
169. KS: I enjoy reading the exchanges at soundpolitics. However, when one person dominates the board with the same lengthy comments over and over and over again, it gets tiresome and loses its appeal.

Posted by: Peggy U on February 7, 2007 09:08 PM
170. I have to give you final parting words. DM, if you truly believe humans ought to give up technology althogether, you gotta start by giving up yourself. You can start with internet, computers, riding cars and even busses. If keep responding to any responses here, your are only a hypocrit. You are addicted to technology, and you are only telling others to give up when you obviously can't.

Posted by: DopioLover on February 7, 2007 09:09 PM
171. KS -

As conservatives we believe that open discourse and free thinking promotes progress and knowledge. Matthew's thinking is dangerous and that's precisely why he should be given a forum. What's gained by refusing to engage? Discussion only helps for us and others to understand what these people believe and why it's so wrong.

To the US' disproportionate consumption point: when I was taking high school statistics, my class was shown a graph with points plotting the energy consumption per capita of various nations on one axis and their infant mortality on the other. That was the day we learned what a correlation was. And there was one. Take from that what you will.

And pay attention to production. With direct domestic production of goods or efficiency-increasing technology we produce and export, the world benefits from American innovation. We're not stealing from the rest of the world. Our actions are a net positive, by far. Acknowledging this makes the demands from the left that we not also benefit from our actions seem a bit unreasonable.

Posted by: AD on February 7, 2007 09:16 PM
172. #124 Missed your reply earlier, I'm sure you were waiting with baited breath (intentionally misspelled).

Maybe the boats need a tune up? Back to my point, let's invest in making engines more efficient, and pollute less. And if you were more of an advocate of ingenuity and clean air you might have taken the leap to 110%, plus infinity.

I don't see what you're calling out, I haven't asked for a ban on cars or boats. And your experience on Juanita seems to be my experience downtown every day. I want CLEANER cars.

And can't we save ANWR for a rainy day? I don't understand "spend-now republicans".

Anyway, it's late and I envy the rest of you who have the perseverance to keep up this looooong thread.

Posted by: redkittyred on February 7, 2007 10:01 PM
173. KS, yeah, I fully admit, this time I fell into the "feed the troll" trap. The saying goes "never argue with a fool."

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 7, 2007 11:27 PM
174. Hello Jeff B.,

> KS, yeah, I fully admit, this time I fell into the "feed the troll" trap. The saying goes "never argue with a fool."

Needless to say, those who are so fond of using the "It is cold outside" argument against global warming are the fools.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 8, 2007 05:52 AM
175. #152 Can you say el fricken neenyo? Stock market at record highs? Not the Bush tax policy, no no nevah -- it's the shift in humididity, kitty!

yes, where do you think humidity comes from? thx for making it so easy.

Posted by: redkittyred on February 8, 2007 07:33 AM
176. Here is an excelent article that points out that there are at least two sides to this issue. Doombat Mathews thinks these people should just shut up and live a live of want and deprivation, I say no they deserve better. the story is in today's National Review Online - here is a link

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjI4MDIzYzkyYmUyYWJkM2Q3ZjEzNTg1YzZiNWY1MjE=

One thing I have noticesd is that it is generally those who benefit from what their fellow man has accomplished who want others to be content to live like animals. Here is an excerpt from the article -

"Mine Your Own Business looks primarily at ongoing efforts to stop Canadian company Gabriel Resources from building a gold mine in Rosia Montana, Romania. The region is poor, with many people still residing in tiny, Communist-era block apartments and forced to use outhouses in a place in which freezing temperatures are common. Most anti-mine activists, of course, live far away, surrounded by modern comforts. But despite this, they claim to know what the locals want.

McAleer, on the other hand, figured the locals might be in a better position to explain their needs. In the film, he walks the streets of Rosia Montana and two other potential mine locations conducting interviews with area residents. Every one of them repeats a variant on one idea: What they really want is to work, and the mines would provide them that opportunity. By talking directly to locals, and by airing their ideas rather than claiming to speak for them, McAleer beats supposedly pro-local environmentalists at their own game.

Environmentalists, of course, talk endlessly about preserving traditional ways of life, but locals don't want to preserve poverty and hardship. They want a chance to provide a more comfortable existence for themselves and their families. McAleer catches Francoise Heidebroek, who works with an anti-mining NGO, claiming that Rosia Montana residents would "prefer to ride a horse than drive a car." When McAleer asks locals if they'd prefer to clop about in freezing temperatures on a horse, they just laugh at him. Heidebroek, it's useful to note, sequesters herself away in the modernized capitol city of Bucharest. If she wants to saddle up every morning, well, I say good luck. But there's no reason that her equestrian whimsy should force actual Rosia Montana residents to do the same. "

Posted by: JDH on February 8, 2007 08:18 AM
177. Hello JDH,

You perhaps failed to notice the most important sentence in the National Review article:

"McAleer, of course, has his biases. The film begins by explaining that much of its funding came from Gabriel Resources, the company that wants to put in the mine. But McAleer also makes clear that he took the money on the condition that the company would have no editorial control. In a question and answer session after the film, he claimed to come from a liberal background and said that, on his first trip to Rosia Montana, he had intended to tell a typical story about big bad corporations. The facts of the story, however, were too obvious to ignore."

Conservatives are gullible and naive regarding the humanitarian record of mining corporations throughout the world. These mining corporations are in the business of making a profit and they don't care about the well-being of the impoverished people displaced by the mines. The corporations also don't care about the ecological catastrophes that they generate in the process of mining.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 8, 2007 08:32 AM
178. Dave,

Do you realize how much gold there is in those little connectors inside your computer?

Posted by: dan on February 8, 2007 08:48 AM
179. I have to admit that David Mathews is right. I merely posted all that feel-good stuff about the coastal cities being submerged as a good thing because I know he lives on the coast.

And he's right about Africa, too: those people are poverty-stricken because they have no money, and have to rely on the largesse of limousine liberals to keep them supplied with victimhood (can you say "Bono"?) instead of industry, employment, and a sound banking system. How can you argue with logic like that?

Go forth, David, and preach against the evils of the god of economics. And while you're at it, tell that nasty old high tide to hold off for a few hours. I guarantee you'll be equally successful in both crusades.

Posted by: Rey Smith on February 8, 2007 08:52 AM
180. If you want to see examples of research which has been corrupted by the source of funding...you have an excellent example readily available in the what passes for long range climate research. It is so transparently agenda driven that is is worse than useless.

Posted by: JDH on February 8, 2007 08:58 AM
181. Waddya wanna bet that that booger eatin' doombat DM is going to say that this story proves his point?

Meat, sugar scarce in Venezuela stores By NATALIE OBIKO PEARSON, AP Business Writer
52 minutes ago


Meat cuts vanished from Venezuelan supermarkets this week, leaving only unsavory bits like chicken feet, while costly artificial sweeteners have increasingly replaced sugar, and many staples sell far above government-fixed prices.

President Hugo Chavez's administration blames the food supply problems on unscrupulous speculators, but industry officials say government price controls that strangle profits are responsible. Authorities on Wednesday raided a warehouse in Caracas and seized seven tons of sugar hoarded by vendors unwilling to market the inventory at the official price.

Major private supermarkets suspended sales of beef earlier this week after one chain was shut down for 48 hours for pricing meat above government-set levels, but an agreement reached with the government on Wednesday night promises to return meat to empty refrigerator shelves.

Shortages have sporadically appeared with items from milk to coffee since early 2003, when Chavez began regulating prices for 400 basic products as a way to counter inflation and protect the poor.

Yet inflation has soared to an accumulated 78 percent in the last four years in an economy awash in petrodollars, and food prices have increased particularly swiftly, creating a widening discrepancy between official prices and the true cost of getting goods to market in Venezuela.

"Shortages have increased significantly as well as violations of price controls," Central Bank director Domingo Maza Zavala told the Venezuelan broadcaster Union Radio on Thursday. "The difference between real market prices and controlled prices is very high."

Most items can still be found, but only by paying a hefty markup at grocery stores or on the black market. A glance at prices in several Caracas supermarkets this week showed milk, ground coffee, cheese and beans selling between 30 percent to 60 percent above regulated prices.

The state runs a nationwide network of subsidized food stores, but in recent months some items have become increasingly hard to find.

At a giant outdoor market held last weekend by the government to address the problems, a street vendor crushed raw sugar cane to sell juice to weary shoppers waiting in line to buy sugar.

"They say there are no shortages, but I'm not finding anything in the stores," grumbled Ana Diaz, a 70-year-old housewife who after eight hours, had managed to fill a bag with chicken, milk, vegetable oil and sugar bought at official prices. "There's a problem somewhere, and it needs to be fixed."

Gonzalo Asuaje, president of the meat processors association Afrigo, said that costs and demand have surged but in four years the government has barely raised the price of beef, which now stands at $1.82 per pound. Simply getting beef to retailers now costs $2.41 per pound without including any markup, he said.

"They want to sell it at the same price the cattle breeder gets for his cow," he said. "It's impossible."

After a meeting with government officials Wednesday, supermarkets association head Luis Rodriguez told the TV channel Globovision that beef and chicken will be available at regulated prices within two to three days. He did not say whether the government would be subsidizing sales or if negotiations on price controls would continue.

The government has urged Venezuelans to refrain from panic buying and is looking to imports to help.

Jorge Alvarado, trade secretary at the Bolivian Embassy in Caracas, told the state news agency that Venezuela's government plans to import 330 tons of Bolivian beef next week, eventually bringing that to 11,000 tons a year. It also plans to import 8,250 tons of beans, chicken, soybeans and cooking oil, Alvarado said.

Government officials dismiss any problems with price controls, while state TV has begun running tickers urging the public to "denounce the hoarders and speculators" through a toll-free phone number.

"The weight of the law will be felt, and we demand punishment," Information Minister Willian Lara said Wednesday.

Posted by: JDH on February 8, 2007 01:47 PM
182. David-

The US consumes 25% of the world's resources because it produces over 25% of the world's wealth. The fact that our population is only 5% of the world's is irrelevant. It simply means we are way more productive than some others, for instance, illiterate malaria ridden unfortunates in Africa.

But the wealth (often intellectual) the US produces ultimately helps these unfortunates (think - DDT, productive farming practices), and would do so much more if it weren't for the corrupt, often socialist, tryants who run much of the continent.
I know David thinks it is tragic that some anonymous genius invented the wheel, the Phoenicians invented the alphabet, the Greeks invented democracy, the Romans invented structural concrete, the Florentines invented the scientific method, the Americans invented the airplane, North Americans discovered penicillin and insulin, etc. I think it is wonderful, awesome and almost miraculous.

Bottom line - David hates mankind, is an athiest, and is insane. I love mankind and am not.

Stop talking to him - he is delusional and will never change, and you will only become depressed.
Take a nice spin the the old SUV and enjoy the scenery in our beautiful state.

Posted by: Steve on February 8, 2007 04:08 PM
183. Hello Steve,

> The US consumes 25% of the world's resources because it produces over 25% of the world's wealth. The fact that our population is only 5% of the world's is irrelevant. It simply means we are way more productive than some others, for instance, illiterate malaria ridden unfortunates in Africa.

Wealthy people cannot help but generate more economic activity than the poor but this does not justify the desparity between the wealthy and the poor.

America's wealth is a tenuous thing. The desparity between America and the rest of the world cannot possibly endure for too much longer. America is living way beyond its means and has accummulated a mountain of debt ($8.6 trillion) and has massive federal budget deficits and trade deficits as well.

This is an economically unsustainable circumstance. America can command 25% of the world's resources only because the world presently is tolerating America's debt and financing America's deficits.

A day will come in which the world ceases to tolerate these excesses and America will have no choice except consume less, much less, of everything. Instead of 25% of the world's resources, America will get only 20%. Instead of 20%, America will get only 15%. And so forth until America can consume only 5% of the world's resources.

At that point Americans will become acquainted with real poverty.

> But the wealth (often intellectual) the US produces ultimately helps these unfortunates (think - DDT, productive farming practices), and would do so much more if it weren't for the corrupt, often socialist, tryants who run much of the continent.

America has made some contributions to humankind. America has also committed some crimes against humanity. I'd say that at best we are at a draw: The evil and good cancel each other out.

> I know David thinks it is tragic that some anonymous genius invented the wheel, the Phoenicians invented the alphabet, the Greeks invented democracy, the Romans invented structural concrete, the Florentines invented the scientific method, the Americans invented the airplane, North Americans discovered penicillin and insulin, etc. I think it is wonderful, awesome and almost miraculous.

The world would be a better place if humans had not invented any of these things. These inventions of humankind appear awesome, wonderful and almost miraculous only within the human context. Nature's accomplishments are much more impressive than humans have ever done. Look at the living world, look at the Earth, look at the Universe.

Humankind's accomplishments are at best poor imitations of Nature's work. At worst, humankind's accomplishments have served to destroy and eradicate the world's of Nature as they create a desolate polluted wasteland.

> Bottom line - David hates mankind, is an athiest, and is insane. I love mankind and am not.

You haven't yet established and proven that you love humankind. Nor have you proven that you are not insane. You will have to work a lot harder to prove these claims.

> Stop talking to him - he is delusional and will never change, and you will only become depressed.

You should become depressed because of the crimes which are committed on your behalf.

> Take a nice spin the the old SUV and enjoy the scenery in our beautiful state.

Everyone should appreciate the beauty of their home state. This is some good advice.



Posted by: David Mathews on February 8, 2007 06:48 PM
184. Bruce,

I think you are a hypocite. You say there is global wamring, but what have YOU personally done to reduce your CO2 emissions? Have you stopped breathing?

Posted by: pbj on February 9, 2007 01:03 AM
185. Can't help but jump in the fray. I was researching the cause of the recent cold snap across the country, as now, not only Fox has TRUMPETED 24 hours a freakin day how ASTONISHINGLY cold it is.. I'll give you, CNN, MSDNC (I like that joke! You right-wingnuts have got a few up your sleeve.) also had reported on it.. and last night, the Report of all Reports, the Colbert Report, as well, gave a Tip of the Hat to the 11 foot snowdrift, for bashing global warming advocates.

He then had some leftwing mouthpiece (yes, they ARE on both sides) who apparently didn't see that segment, couldn't get his head around a creative solution nor explanation, simply "cut, cut, cut" energy use.. which is fine, but he couldn't really address Colbert's points, which had more to do with the prevailing counterarguments (here, quite apparent.. I'll put up examples, Bill Cruchon, #149, an absolute example of Factiness; PC, #74, you made a point I WISH Colbert had, and obviously you're either a Limbaugh fanatic or a Schnitthead; and for god's sake, Jeff B., can we lay off the socialist diatribe? It's surprising how much Fidel and Chavez's rhetoric have in common with Bush's.. Bad, dishonest leadership isn't a province of "populist movements." Ayn Randians..). But the proponents of REASONABLE SUSTAINABLE CAUTION, like redkittyred, have the danger of making the "apocalyptic atheist/nihilists" (are we supposed to conjure up images of Flea in The Great Lebowski?) sound like they have a point, woe is us if someone puts the brakes on consumerism! Good lord, if American consumers began educating themselves and changed what they bought, for greener or hormoneless or MONSANTO-LESS products, it would shift away from irresponsible corporate activities to responsible ones; the problem is, the reason the righties get into this "oh, that's a slippery slope!! Anti-McDonalds, COMMUNIST!!" is because the MOUTHPIECES at the top (with a vested interest in these entities) are deathly afraid of CORPORATE BEHAVIOR becoming a DETERMINING FACTOR in whether consumers buy or not.

And for you, "Doombat Matthews.." This is where I found liberation: The great American dollar, oh, so bloodied, from the Thailandese rape houses to Jack Abramoff's Marianna Island worker-coerced abortion clinics, yet STILL.. determines property rights, "mindshare" (you must know that term), and eventually, voting districts.. so the TRICK of the Beast (please, be careful, not to sound like those grim Revelationist Bible-Beaters) is to subtly, inscrutably, almost unnoticeably.. TWIST it, to bankrupt the purveyors of ravage, genetically induced crop failure, production sharing agreements with cretin backward Muslim extremist countries (or backward African tyrants, or backward South American tyrants).. The point is redirecting that money toward the antithesis of these monsters. So technology and the economy, are the solution; just not with the near religious adherence to the Old Money's aforementioned reckless monstrosities.

I'll be around.

Posted by: Chazam on February 13, 2007 11:50 AM
186. Just to be crystal clear.. I said

But the proponents of REASONABLE SUSTAINABLE CAUTION, like redkittyred, have the danger of making the "apocalyptic atheist/nihilists" (are we supposed to conjure up images of Flea in The Great Lebowski?) sound like they have a point, woe is us if someone puts the brakes on consumerism!

I should say, "woe is us if we begin to STEER AWAY from the established path, from the traditional suppliers."

And I'm not SO anti-corporate-power that I don't, for example, shop Wal-Mart, or not use Windows.. I've gotta save the funds I use to help promote companies that produce organically (BTW.. I feel the e-coli breakout in spinach last year might have been intra-corporate terrorism.. look at Monsanto's history, spreading their hybrid strains intentionally and then suing farmers for their land, because it's producing Monsanto's genetic strain.. Example of outright agro-corporate piracy), buy from contributors to various causes, etc. That's my right as an American consumer: the behavior and the intentions (bring it on, cliche' soccer-mom Dittoheads) of the producers and suppliers I buy from.

And in THIS way.. the media can finally take its rightful place: as the 4th branch, creating transparency and disseminating truth from behind the walls of the corporate inner sanctum, and behind itself as well, ideally. True responsibility, because EVERYTHING is on camera.. and NOTHING gets missed. Especially painkiller addicts with valium coming back from the Dominican Republic, evangelists with male prostitute crank parties, and directors of child protection investigations molesting and masturbating to underage pages. At least CLINTON.... stuck with the chicks.

"pSSSH!..." ...sound of the soccer mom's ball, SUV tires, and selfrighteous ego deflating.

Posted by: Chazam on February 13, 2007 12:10 PM
187. Just to be crystal clear.. I said

But the proponents of REASONABLE SUSTAINABLE CAUTION, like redkittyred, have the danger of making the "apocalyptic atheist/nihilists" (are we supposed to conjure up images of Flea in The Great Lebowski?) sound like they have a point, woe is us if someone puts the brakes on consumerism!

I should say, "woe is us if we begin to STEER AWAY from the established path, from the traditional suppliers."

And I'm not SO anti-corporate-power that I don't, for example, shop Wal-Mart, or not use Windows.. I've gotta save the funds I use to help promote companies that produce organically (BTW.. I feel the e-coli breakout in spinach last year might have been intra-corporate terrorism.. look at Monsanto's history, spreading their hybrid strains intentionally and then suing farmers for their land, because it's producing Monsanto's genetic strain.. Example of outright agro-corporate piracy), buy from contributors to various causes, etc. That's my right as an American consumer: the behavior and the intentions (bring it on, cliche' soccer-mom Dittoheads) of the producers and suppliers I buy from.

And in THIS way.. the media can finally take its rightful place: as the 4th branch, creating transparency and disseminating truth from behind the walls of the corporate inner sanctum, and behind itself as well, ideally. True responsibility, because EVERYTHING is on camera.. and NOTHING gets missed. Especially painkiller addicts with unprescribed Viagra coming back from the Dominican Republic, evangelists with male prostitute crank parties, and directors of child protection investigations molesting and masturbating to underage pages. At least CLINTON.... stuck with the chicks.

"pSSSH!..." ...sound of the soccer mom's ball, SUV tires, and selfrighteous ego deflating.

Posted by: Chazam on February 13, 2007 12:11 PM
188. and FINALLY... O-bama, in '0-8, O-god, I have to start respecting black people again.. muAhaHAHAH!

Posted by: cHaZIZZLE.. on February 13, 2007 12:14 PM
189. So sorry!... You hotheads got me looking: Copying and pasting from smilingchimp.com:

(a comments-laden website not unlike this one)

Your 'theory' is wrong

My theory is that this warming trend is 10% man made, 70% increased solar energy, and 20% increased internal heat from our solar system entering a different part of the galaxy

Your 'theory' (actually more a hypothesis - because one must propose tests and predictions for a real theory) is way wrong. The solar input-contribution is no where near that large.

The maximal magnitude of inherent solar -induced climate variability was probably first highlighted by Sabatino Sofia et al in their paper 'Solar Constant: Constraints on Possible Variations Derived from Solar Diameter Measurements', in Science, Vol. 204, 1306, 1979. Their estimate was a solar change in irradiance of roughly 0.1 % averaged over each solar cycle. (Irradiance is a measure of the energy per square meter received from the Sun).

Thus if the solar irradiance effect at Earth (solar constant) is normally about 1360 watts/m^2, this would imply an increase of roughly 1.36 W/m^2.. The problem is that there is no observational evidence to support this in the warming period of the 12th century, or any time in the past century when global warming spiked to serious levels. (Some like Sofia have argued that even if it had occurred, it would only engender a temp. increase contribution of perhaps one-fourth of one degree, or significantly less than what has been documented.

More recent space-based observations appear to show a variation in solar irradiance of at least 0.15% over the standard 11-year solar cycle. (E.g. Parker, E.N., Nature, Vol. 399, p. 416). However, even with this higher percentage ascribed to solar changes, the heating effect is nowhere near comparable to that induced from man-made global warming. (See, e.g. Martin I. Hoffert et al, in Nature, Vol. 401, p. 764).

As the authors in the latter study point out, the heating component arising from greenhouse gas emissions from 1861-1990 amounted to anywhere from 2.0 to 2.8 watts per square meter. The solar variability component detected over the same period amounted to 0.1 to 0.5 watts per square meter. Thus, even the MAXIMUM solar variability amounted to only a fraction (25%) of the MINIMUM power input from human-induced greenhouse warming!

Re: "internal heat in the solar system generated from another part of the galaxy" there is absolutely no evidence for such. Any signal along that score - or even 'internal heat' (U = 3nkT) generated anywhere IN the solar system would be so insignificant as to have ZERO net effect on Earth climate.

Posted by: Chazam on February 13, 2007 12:27 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?