February 11, 2007
Re: Global Warming Update (V)

Stefan has been beating the drums lately on global warming, for good reason. I whole-heartedly agree the London Times column he cited below is a must read; so does Jonah Goldberg. It's a reminder of the importance of skepticism in science, even when the political winds of the day demand conformity.

Speaking of Goldberg, his latest column, which will run in the Seattle Times tomorrow, is also a good read. Coupled with Robert Samuelson's recent examination of the same angle, one can see a compelling reminder that policies have consequences. While there is consensus that the earth is warming (setting aside the debate about the cause), the proposed "remedies" do not engender anywhere near the same consensus, let alone certainty that their high cost to global society would have the intended or desire effect.

More importantly, keep an eye on the shift from debating global warming to debating proposed policy to address the situation (see an excellent summation of this twist from Peter Brown at the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute). Such a shift was also a key point in the Seattle Times editorial Stefan referenced. The process of enacting substantive policy to address global warming, or the environment in general, needs to be deliberative and thoughtful, not rushed by frenzied ideology.

Why?

Well, scientists and ideologues have been wrong many a time before with gloom and doom predictions. Moreover, as Goldberg's column above discusses, and as Robert Samuelson also explored, there may not be much humans can do to truly influence the situation.

Of course, that reminds us that while sane people should be able to agree we're experiencing a period of global warming, such long-term eras of warming and cooling are not uncommon in global history (setting aside the politics of this article, it provides a quick summary of such easily identifiable trends in history). Moreover, as this analysis of the Little Ice Age reminds us, we still aren't quite sure exactly why such events occur, let alone how we can or cannot influence them.

Sure, global warming remains a cute political issue for some, no matter what the political, economic, and scientific realities. But at some point an acknowledgement of what works and what doesn't would be nice. Say for example acknowledging the fact the United States has done a better job at controlling emissions in recent years than the European Union, while maintaining higher economic growth.

I agree we're in a historical period of global warming. I think we can probably do a better job of keeping our environment clean while prospering as a society (heavy on the market incentives, easy on burdensome regulation, please). Indeed, I'm probably "greener" than many Republicans. But gutting economies to achieve the results global warming zealots would like won't sell in the United States, Europe, India, China, or wherever else you want to have that debate. Prudent environmental policy is one thing; political zealotry is another.

Let the debate begin.

Posted by Eric Earling at February 11, 2007 05:40 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Hello Eric,

> Indeed, I'm probably "greener" than many Republicans. But gutting economies to achieve the results global warming zealots would like won't sell in the United States, Europe, India, China, or wherever else you want to have that debate.

I am in favor of gutting the morbidly obese economy of the United States of America. This is not the sort of message which sells in America but the necessity still remains.

If the most morbidly obese economy on the planet cannot make any sacrifices on behalf of the environment and climate, no other nation will do so either. Humankind will consume and pollute the Earth to the fullest extent made possible by Nature, and our species will go extinct and thereby provide Nature an opportunity to repair our damage at its own leisure.

Americans are morbidly obese and they love it. Needless to say, our national obesity leads to health problems -- national debt, trade deficits, budget deficits, lost perpetual wars to control oil resources in the Persian Gulf, and a population of citizens who are as morbidly obese as the nation.

At some point, Americans will have no choice except to stop. If Americans don't begin to make sacrifices now they will suffer terrible punishments in the future. The American economy will collapse and, with it, the American government and society as well.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 11, 2007 06:21 PM
2. David, do you have anything better to do than sit in front of your computer, waiting for a SP post?

And while you are in this mood that America is going to self-destruct, let me know if you need a travel agent or realtor. I suspect that your residency application to Canada may be approved soon.

Posted by: Chris on February 11, 2007 06:30 PM
3. Hello Chris,

> David, do you have anything better to do than sit in front of your computer, waiting for a SP post?

The Global Warming argument is very important, Chris, specifically because it poses a direct threat to my own home state (Florida). Should the Greenland icecap melt half of Florida's peninsula will be under water.

Maybe the residents of Washington would love to live in a warmer world (if so, they are seriously mistaken about the alleged positive benefits of global warming), but I am not prepared to sacrifice half my state for the sake of America's morbidly obese economy.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 11, 2007 06:41 PM
4. Ummm....apparently everything on the SP site is important since you live on it.

And I am not understanding what you mean by a morbidly obese economy. I've never heard that term in a business class. Can you explain?

Posted by: Chris on February 11, 2007 06:54 PM
5. Hello Chris,

> apparently everything on the SP site is important since you live on it.

There's a bunch of local politics material here which is of no interest to me. On the other hand, the global warming debate is very important.

> And I am not understanding what you mean by a morbidly obese economy. I've never heard that term in a business class. Can you explain?

You received a poor business education, Chris, if you have never heard of a morbidly obese economy.

Honestly, this is not the sort of information that they teach in business school. Morbidly obese is the term that I use to describe the United States economy. It is inspired by an observation regarding the American people.

I call the American economy morbidly obese because (1). it is too large, and (2). it has an insatiable appetite for the world's resources, and (3). it is polluting the entire globe.

I advocate putting this unhealthy, morbidly obese economy on a diet. America must sacrifice its economy for the sake of the world's environment and climate. America should also sacrifice its economy for the sake of the health of the American people.

Why is this necessary?

Because America's insatiable appetite for the world's natural resources cannot help but bump into non-negotiable natural limits within this century. If America runs into these limits at full speed the catastrophe which will follow will make the Great Depression seem very much like a beautiful spring day.

Americans are destroying America's future because of their unhealthy, addictive habits. This is a dangerous game that Americans are playing. It must end.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 11, 2007 07:07 PM
6. David, it's this so called morbidly obese economy that is going to produce the real solution to "global warming". It will be Capitalistic Scientists and Engineers who finally figure out that the only way to counteract too much CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere will be to either intentionally pollute the upper level of the atmosphere in a way to emulate the catastrophic meteor strikes that caused previous cooling climates, to intentionally pollute the atmosphere to replace all of the minute particulate matter that has been blocking the suns rays for millenia before it finishes precipitating out, or they will come up with some wonderful new chemical to add to the atmosphere that ties up the methane and CO2 that is so dangerously produced by all the swamps and marshes and cows and volcanic eruptions on this planet.

Else we can just let the planet get to the temperature it's supposed to properly be at, you know the average temperature the Darwinists believe we had when the dinosaurs were around.

Posted by: Doug on February 11, 2007 07:13 PM
7. Doug, David was either trained by Jehovah Witnesses or rabid Mormans. The effect is the same; he's always at your door at the wrong time. It's "people" like David that will rapidly eliminate the global warming rage as just Moonbat ranting.

Posted by: Dover on February 11, 2007 07:22 PM
8. Hello Doug,

> David, it's this so called morbidly obese economy that is going to produce the real solution to "global warming". It will be Capitalistic Scientists and Engineers who finally figure out that the only way to counteract too much CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere will be to either intentionally pollute the upper level of the atmosphere in a way to emulate the catastrophic meteor strikes that caused previous cooling climates, to intentionally pollute the atmosphere to replace all of the minute particulate matter that has been blocking the suns rays for millenia before it finishes precipitating out, or they will come up with some wonderful new chemical to add to the atmosphere that ties up the methane and CO2 that is so dangerously produced by all the swamps and marshes and cows and volcanic eruptions on this planet.

You are speaking in an insane manner, Doug.

Stefan and Eric apparently are arguing either that Global Warming is not happening or (cognitive dissonance here) that the Global Warming which is happening is caused by natural causes (the sun, cosmic rays, etc.).

Now you are suggesting that global warming is happening but that the solution to the problem is for humans to pollute the atmosphere more.

Before taking this desperate step, why don't we just stop polluting? Is that too much to ask?

These capitalists are destroying the world and they won't stop. Capitalism is going to kill billions of humans and, among them, millions of Americans. Such is the price that humankind will pay for the sins of capitalism.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 11, 2007 07:32 PM
9. David,
Morbid = death. Obese = overweight. If the American economy is morbidly obese, we will naturally self-correct. Obviously, you don't actually believe your own words, you believe an artificial government intervention to slow down the economy is only real way to correct the much-too-successful American economy.

And then there is this wild inconsistency:
"You received a poor business education, Chris, if you have never heard of a morbidly obese economy.
Honestly, this is not the sort of information that they teach in business school. Morbidly obese is the term that I use to describe the United States economy."

The only education you approve of is one that you make-up yourself and then teach? LOL!

Posted by: Elaine on February 11, 2007 07:45 PM
10. David,

You focus on consumption. Let's focus on PRODUCTION a more accurate measure of a countries capabilities.

GDP top ten in billions of dollars for 2003

United States 10,381.30
Japan 4,869.10
Germany 1,887.56
United Kingdom 1,530.32
China 1,371.00
France 1,359.46
Italy 1,100.45
Canada 754.87
Brazil 633.43
Spain 604.10

GDP numbers 2-6 11,017.45
It takes the next 5 top countries to equal the US>

Population
United States 295,734,134
Japan 127,417,244
Germany 82,431,390
United Kingdom 60,441,457
China 1,306,313,812
France 60,656,178
Italy 58,103,033
Canada 32,805,041
Brazil 186,112,794
Spain 40,341,462

Population of 2-10 excluding China
648,308,599
Production of 2-10 excluding China
12,739.29

GDP per capita US: $35,103.49

GDP of 2-10 excluding China: $19,650.04

Excluding China because population and economic model skew the results.

Any serious student of economics would looking to emulate the best economic model would concluded the US system works far better than any other.

We produce nearly twice as much per person as the next 5 countries.

We produce so much we are able to help the rest of the world.

You see a morbidly obese terminal patient.

I see a dynamic, prosperous country that is generous to humanity and whose fondest hope is that all mankind enjoys the freedom, liberty and prosperity we have achieve.

Posted by: JCM on February 11, 2007 08:08 PM
11. David,

It is mainly pollution that has caused cooling climatic periods on earth, granted it was 'natural' polution. Just an eruption of one volcano can cause a cooling of the planet by 1 degree for an average year. A significant meteor strike, large forest fires, all sorts of 'natural' causes of polution have basically caused cooling periods of the climate.

There are Nobel Prize winning scientists that have recommended intentional man-made polluting as a way to condition the atmosphere so that people are more comfortable with whatever temperature they get.

I am not a Nobel Prize winning scientist, and you are not as well, but I would heed their advice before I would heed any politician's advise. Mankind can more easily stop global warming by polluting more than by polluting less. The same morons who reported to the U.N. say that even if we stop polluting it would be decades before there is any improvement, that is simply because man-made greenhouse affecting polution doesn't account to much more than peanuts. However, man-made pollution done in an attempt to cool the planet can have an immediate large affect.

Posted by: Doug on February 11, 2007 08:08 PM
12. David, by "gutting" the economy, you don't by chance mean "redistribution" do you?

How do you propose your "gutting"?

Oh, hey, you don't drive one of those ever popular VW Buses that people from your sect seem to favor, do you? Because those things are the model of low environmental impact. You should tell your friends next time you are at one of your business classes discussing obesity.

I've got to go with Doug on this one...competition is human nature and is the best (proven) method to determine the most viable options.

Also, are you from Florida? Now local? You want to know what happens to land when water invades....look up Devil's Lake, North Dakota. It has nothing to do with "global warming", but everything to do when people like you limit what you can do in the environment. Thousands of acres of farm land disappearing because no one will allow action and the Canadian continue to prove they are enemies of this country.

And if half of Florida state disappeared, wouldn't that help your Urban Density goals?

Posted by: Chris on February 11, 2007 08:14 PM
13. Jonah Goldberg's column makes some good points but is based on one major logical fallacy: "let's stipulate that all of the warming was the result of our prosperity".

No, let's not. Most of our prosperity has nothing to do with global warming. Goldberg assumes that we need to continue warming the planet in order to remain prosperous. However, he provides no evidence to support that, and I doubt he can cite any.

Posted by: Bruce on February 11, 2007 08:16 PM
14. PIMF

I see a dynamic, prosperous country that is generous to humanity and whose fondest hope is that all mankind enjoys the freedom, liberty and prosperity we have achieved.

Posted by: JCM on February 11, 2007 08:17 PM
15. First of all Bruce, WE are not causing global warming. Secondly, if prosperity is not the cause of global warming, the lack of prosperity will not correct global warming.

Posted by: Elaine on February 11, 2007 08:27 PM
16. Elaine- I didn't say the lack of prosperity will correct global warming. If anything, I said the opposite. I would like to reduce global warming, not prosperity.

Posted by: Bruce on February 11, 2007 08:42 PM
17. Terrific series of URL links on these 2 threads by both Stefan and Eric: I saved local on all.

SIDEBAR ?: Is there a ''threshold total'' of how many ''David Mathews'' posts we have to endure, before he gets banished ala ''Sue'' a.k.a. ''Steve'' ??

Posted by: Methow Ken on February 11, 2007 08:49 PM
18. Bruce, you might want to take note of the history of prosperity on earth. The most prosperous times were during global warming trends. Global warming is a good time to live. Our great-great-grandchildren will probably not be so lucky.

Posted by: Elaine on February 11, 2007 08:52 PM
19. Ken @ 17. I think the nutters deserve a prominent place and front page links to their comments. Let them tell their story. Let the average Joe digest what it would mean for him if the nuts have their way. Besides, the nuts are highly entertaining. It's interesting to see how many different ways they can come up with to say "we're all gonna die."

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 11, 2007 09:05 PM
20. JeffB-- Although I agree with many of David Mathews' sentiments, I wish he would make fewer, shorter comments and stay on the specific topic being discussed.

On the other hand, the only person who responded to my comment (Elaine) completely reversed my argument...

Posted by: Bruce on February 11, 2007 09:13 PM
21. Jeff B @ 19:
O.K.: Point well taken. I yield 2 your persuasion.

And while I'm at it:
Another good piece, by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek (of all places), where among other things he sez:

''The most inconvenient truth about global warming is that we cannot stop it.''

See:
A REALLY inconvenient truth

Posted by: Methow Ken on February 11, 2007 09:31 PM
22. You Live In Florida? Writing incessantly in a Puget Sound, Washington political blog about local issues with which you know nothing?

What a sorry existance to be eternally pessimistic throughout life. Do you not have any interests other than spewing typographic diarrhea at who knows how many sites nationwide?

Oh, I forgot. You clearly enjoy photography, burning fossil fuels throughout Florida and in travelling to Arizona, Utah, Indiana, Israel, Wyoming, Tennessee, Georgia.....

Posted by: Clam Up, David Mathews! on February 11, 2007 09:35 PM
23. Matthrews is full of shit. There is nothing morbidly obese about millions of hard-working Americans who get up every day, drink their cup of coffee and go bust their ass all day to make a living. So screw you Mattherws, basement dweller.

Posted by: Manco_Dollars on February 11, 2007 10:40 PM
24. Bruce:

Explain to me how more socialism will cause Global Cooling. Yup, the onus is on you lefty motherfu***ers.

Posted by: Manco_Dollars on February 11, 2007 10:46 PM
25. Manco_Dollars, it won't. Explain to me where you learned to read, because you obviously don't have a clue what I wrote.

Posted by: Bruce on February 11, 2007 11:39 PM
26. Golly, the above comments just add more evidence that the true believers in greenhouse gases are motivated mostly by hating America. The "computer models" started from that position and were constructed to implicate CO2. A more dishonest use of science is hard to imagine.

Posted by: JB on February 12, 2007 02:40 AM
27. Hello Elaine,

> Morbid = death. Obese = overweight. If the American economy is morbidly obese, we will naturally self-correct. Obviously, you don't actually believe your own words, you believe an artificial government intervention to slow down the economy is only real way to correct the much-too-successful American economy.

I agree, Elaine, that America's morbid obesity will self-correct. If Americans do not learn self-restraint the American economy will collapse in the same dramatic fashion as the Soviet Union's.

Under these circumstances, government intervention is the wisest course of action. Except our government is also morbidly obese, incompetent, and corrupted by the same influences which has generated this unhealthy economy.

The American people might solve this problem, too, except they are living in a television-induced advertiser-driven frenzy of consumerism which is established upon capitalism's dogmas of greed, selfishness, self-involvement, and materialism.

So I don't imagine that there is any way to solve the problem of America's morbid obesity. Nature will solve this problem in a harsh manner. Americans will lose their Superpower and also their prosperity.

That's the future of our great country. Too bad for America but the punishment is well-earned.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 12, 2007 04:08 AM
28. Hello Doug,

> I am not a Nobel Prize winning scientist, and you are not as well, but I would heed their advice before I would heed any politician's advise. Mankind can more easily stop global warming by polluting more than by polluting less.

So, Doug, unlike these other conservatives you do agree that global warming is occurring?

These other conservatives speak with two voices on global warming: They deny and assert that global warming is occurring. I wish that these conservatives would make up their mind on this matter.

Well, people, is global warming happening or not?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 12, 2007 04:13 AM
29. Hello jb,

> Golly, the above comments just add more evidence that the true believers in greenhouse gases are motivated mostly by hating America.

If China was consuming 25% of the world's resources and polluting the entire globe, wouldn't you demand that China make sacrifices?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 12, 2007 04:14 AM
30. Hello Everyone,

For those of you who naively believe in the benevolence of corporations, read the following news story:

Monsanto dumped toxic waste in UK

The documents show that in 1953, company chemists tested the PCB chemicals on rats and found that they killed more than 50% with medium-level doses. However, it continued to manufacture PCBs and dispose of the wastes in south Wales until 1977, more than a decade after evidence of widespread contamination of humans and the environment was beyond doubt.

A high-level committee within the company was given the task in 1968 of assessing Monsanto's options and reported contamination in human milk, fish, birds and wildlife from around the world, including Britain. "In the case of PCBs the company is faced with a barrage of adverse publicity ... it will be impossible to deny the presence and persistence of Aroclors. The public and legal pressures to eliminate or prevent global contamination are inevitable and probably cannot be contained successfully," the committee reported.

The report, which was shown to only 12 people, said: "The alternatives are [to] say and do nothing; create a smokescreen; immediately discontinue the manufacture of Aroclors; respond responsibly, admitting growing evidence of environmental contamination ..." A scrawled note at the end of the document says: "The Big Question! What do we tell our customers ... try to stay in business or help customer's clean up their use?"

*** & etc.

Read the whole article. Corporations are well known for their willingness to lie & obfuscate on behalf of their own corporate interests: protecting profits, avoiding regulation, and escaping punishment.

Of special importance is the costs involved: "According to the agency it could cost up to 100m to clean up a site in south Wales that has been called "one of the most contaminated" in the country."

Imagine how much more expensive global warming shall cost? Trillions of dollars of lost real estate along the coast, millions of displaced people, and America driven to bankruptcy by the disruptions.

Are you willing to pay that price for this lifestyle? Are you willing to sacrifice your own nation for the sake of your own selfish gluttony?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 12, 2007 07:12 AM
31. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece


David....

Go to this website... (it's a news story) You may learn something about warming.

Like why is it that our satellites in space since 1999 have show no change in temps?

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 12, 2007 07:19 AM
32. As I've said before daivd. ( YOUR A FOOL)

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 12, 2007 07:24 AM
33. Hello Army Medic,

I read the article and am not impressed. Nor, for that matter, am I impressed by the intellectual content of the dialogue here.

The conservatives here are in a bind created by Stefan and Eric. Either:

(1). Global warming is not happening (so no worry)!

(2). Global warming is happening but it is not our fault (don't blame the primates)!

(3). Global warming is happening and it is our fault but technology will save us (via more pollution, thanks science)!

(4). Global warming is happening but we can't cut back our pollution because it would give China a competetive advantage!

It is quite evident that the conservatives here at at least 75% certain that Global Warming is occurring. The little opposition to global warming which is spoken here all sounds extremely insincere.

So I ask for clarification: Is global warming happening or is it not?

That's a simple question. Let's see if the intellectual leaders provide an answer.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 12, 2007 07:44 AM
34. Global Warming ???????
REDFIELD, N.Y. Village's snowfall could be N.Y. record snowfall in a week 136 inches.

Posted by: George on February 12, 2007 08:16 AM
35. You can already see the effects of Global Heating...in England...which has been experiencing hotter summers, milder winters.

And you know what the effect is? Life is better there. Remember all those Dickens classics? When it snowed all the time and people were all knarled up and short? That's the way England used to be.

Now that it's warmer and sunnier, you get people like Posh Spice who almost looks like a healthy American chick.

See, Global Heating benefits people and makes us healthier. The only ones who don't like warmth are the Lib Biddies who have never gotten a tan in their life.

Posted by: John Bailo on February 12, 2007 08:20 AM
36. David,

You have to go back 54 years for that story. It was things like that that caused the western nations to clean up. In 2007 Western nations are cleanest on the planet, it is the socialist and third world that you so admire and wish to live like that are mired in pollution.

Let us examine the track record for environmentalist over the same 53 year period.

Not one single prediction of environmental movement in that time has come true.

Rachel Carson would have had us believing all the birds would be extinct. Her scare mongering caused the banning of DDT we now know that DDT is not the horrible thing she claimed but that 2 and half million people a year could be saved with DDT.

Paul Ehrlich had those with out the ability to think critically worried about mass starvation, his Population Bomb was a complete bust.

Global Cooling was the scare of the '70s, that didn't exactly pan out.

We were lead to believe oil would run out in in the 1990s. we still have oil and known reserves are at the highest in history. Running out of oil may not even be likely, consider new that theory gain acceptance that oil is not a fossil fuel but a geological process.

The oceans were supposed have died by now.
We were supposed to run out of forest by now.

The list of doom and gloom that never happened goes on and on.

Now the same bunch that has peddled these scare stories are pushing global warming.

Is it any wonder I am skeptical? Why would any rational intelligent person accept what they say now without question?

As I and others have shown in multiple links in multiple threads that Warming is far from settled science. Even the vaunted UN report in sections admits radical changes in human activity will have no effect on warming.

Simply question if we can cause it, why can't we stop it?

The history of environmentalist is on of failed prediction after another, Global Warming is occurring however the cause is not even remotely determined, the UN is a POLITICAL organization.

Given the history and science available, why would anyone believe in Global Warming with such a religious fervor?

Posted by: JCM on February 12, 2007 08:24 AM
37. Hello JCM,

> Simply question if we can cause it, why can't we stop it?

So you do believe in global warming, don't you?

The Global Warming Deniers have become an endangered species. In the next several years, I suppose, they will go extinct.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 12, 2007 08:29 AM
38. I've wondered this for awhile, and would still like a reasonable answer, but if global warming is caused by man, then what caused the last ice age to end?

And if global warming is going to destroy the earth and all mankind, then why didn't the medieval warming period destroy mankind? (you know, 1000 to 1100ad when vikings farmed Greenland and vineyards prospered in England) It seems like people prospered during the last global warming period... or at least survived just fine.

Posted by: justsumguy on February 12, 2007 08:40 AM
39. Like I have said before the planet is warming. But the cause is yet to be determined and even more so the magnitude of human sources.

The climate is cyclical. Ice age to warm, it is natural as day and night and the seasons. The climate drivers are multiple, solar cycles, lunar cycles, orbital cycles, there are many earth based climate cycles.

Since I see no convincing evidence or science that man is prime driver of warming, I am left to ask one question:

Why the drive to bring on on enormous social and political change for something that is probably natural and according to the UN report even if it is man caused unstoppable?

The common thread is limiting liberty and concentrating political power.

Posted by: JCM on February 12, 2007 08:45 AM
40. Hello justsumguy,

> And if global warming is going to destroy the earth and all mankind, then why didn't the medieval warming period destroy mankind? (you know, 1000 to 1100ad when vikings farmed Greenland and vineyards prospered in England) It seems like people prospered during the last global warming period... or at least survived just fine.

Good question. There's a pretty big difference between 1100 A.D. and the 21st century: The human population has expanded from less than one billion to 6.5 billion and is on the way to 9 billion.

A lot of these people are concentrated along the coast. The agriculture industry is also threatened by an increasingly inhospitable planet.

What happens on a planet with nine billion humans when a hundred million people are displaced by rising sea levels and severe droughts destroy the crops in America's breadbasket?

The future looks bleak for a reason. We humans are placing a pretty big bet on humankind's future.

That is why it is important, even essential, for Americans to begin making sacrifices now. Drastic changes to our lifestyle today might serve to minimize the suffering of future generations.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 12, 2007 08:54 AM
41. In the next several years, I suppose, they will go extinct.

And you'll be wrong. Again. For the umpteenth time.

Posted by: jimg on February 12, 2007 09:25 AM
42. "What happens on a planet with nine billion humans when a hundred million people are displaced by rising sea levels and severe droughts destroy the crops in America's breadbasket?"

Answer: Not much. The hundred million displaced people are more than balanced by the dramatic increase in global rainfall. The number of places that currently are sub-par for raising crops far exceeds the number of places that are truly excellent (parts of Russia + US).

The few scientific studies to date of what a 1 C temperature rise means to global food production are among the most staggering information being ignored. Frankly, I personally would accept the 1 m sea level rise as a trade in a heartbeat. The 'land lost to the sea' maps never seem satisfied with the actual predicted sea level changes. Nor do they seem to know who the Dutch are. Or how far under water they already are according to those same maps.

Posted by: Al on February 12, 2007 09:27 AM
43. Mistah Matthews:
You sez: "The agriculture industry is also threatened by an increasingly inhospitable planet."

A warmer planet by a few degrees would mean more arable land in the higher latitudes and that is a good thing growing food wise. The Vikings were farming Greenland, how is that a bad thing? We will need more arable land for corn (twice as much as now dedicated to all corn crops, food and energy, minimum) once we convert over to ethanol to replace oil fueled autos and electricity generation. Add in corn for food production and a warmer planet, for more corn production, would be a welcome thing. But then you must figure in that ethanol generates more of the stuff that creates smog. Aside from the health aspects, there is the fact that smog would contribute to planet cooling. So you make the call.

Please remember that crops generally grow in warm climates and a few degrees warmer is hardly "inhospitable".

Posted by: G Jiggy on February 12, 2007 10:03 AM
44. Matthews, You are without doubt one of the useful idiots the watermelon environmentalists are counting on.
I have no doubt you believe in evolution as well, though I might add you'd be exhibit A for proof of such. But that would be insulting, which isn't allowed here. However, if you believe in evolution, why wouldn't the species left on earth today be able to adapt to the supposed coming heat wave? Seems they made it this far.

Posted by: PC on February 12, 2007 12:45 PM
45. For me the arguements to be aware of in climate change is the change in patterns of earth's and man's mode of existence. Think shifting and new diseases, die off of bees, of fish, of forests to invading foreign species, flooding oceans.
Does Western technology need to advance to care for the environment and the created world, including man's place in it? Upcoming who makes the rules? Is scientific information for man's use to ensure future generational hopes?

Posted by: N Laushkin on February 12, 2007 01:13 PM
46. Hello PC,

> However, if you believe in evolution, why wouldn't the species left on earth today be able to adapt to the supposed coming heat wave? Seems they made it this far.

Undoubtedly, the species which survive will adapt and evolve to the new climate. The Earth will exists for billions of years into the future.

The prospects for Homo sapiens, on the other hand, are not so fortunate. Humankind does not adapt. Technology has rendered humankind unfit from the standpoint of natural selection.

Humankind's future is bleak. Nature will survive just as it has survived for over four billion years.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 12, 2007 06:28 PM
47. Hello G Jiggy,

> A warmer planet by a few degrees would mean more arable land in the higher latitudes and that is a good thing growing food wise. The Vikings were farming Greenland, how is that a bad thing? We will need more arable land for corn (twice as much as now dedicated to all corn crops, food and energy, minimum) once we convert over to ethanol to replace oil fueled autos and electricity generation. Add in corn for food production and a warmer planet, for more corn production, would be a welcome thing. But then you must figure in that ethanol generates more of the stuff that creates smog. Aside from the health aspects, there is the fact that smog would contribute to planet cooling. So you make the call.

You are making a lot of assumptions and gambling with the lives of billions. I hope that you are right, otherwise the scale of human suffering will reach truly apocalyptic proportions.


Posted by: David Mathews on February 12, 2007 06:31 PM
48. Plain and simple. If human generated CO2 is bad and must be reduced at all costs, then Kyoto is a farce.

It does not make sense to tell somne to cut back while green lighting others to increase - the net result would be at best what we have today and probably worse. It wouldn't get any better after that. The countries that improved their economies by increasing their CO2 are not going to want to cut back and possibly have their economies fall.

If CO2 were indeed the catostrophe it is made out to be, why hasn't it been treated more like they treated DDT?

GW is just a political dogma using "science" to justify the leap to usurp the liberties of the citizens of the United States - to allow the government to micromange even more of our lives and livelihood.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 12, 2007 07:30 PM
49. So, after the U.S. devises a method to maintain a static temperature of our planet who gets to keep their finger on the thermostat? Ban Ki-moon? or maybe Kofi and his son could be lured out of retirement. Course now that Jimmy Carter is finished with his book he could be a strong contender. Makes a person want to head for the hills(and grab some of that soon to be waterfront).

Posted by: p on February 12, 2007 08:08 PM
50. "A warmer planet by a few degrees would mean more arable land in the higher latitudes and that is a good thing growing food wise. The Vikings were farming Greenland, how is that a bad thing? We will need more arable land for corn (twice as much as now dedicated to all corn crops, food and energy, minimum) once we convert over to ethanol to replace oil fueled autos and electricity generation."

That is a good thing - I agree. Listening to Matthew's and his ilks hysteria make me want to puke. This world is becoming overpopulated anyway. Chalk it up to nature's way. No matter how much money the Green-left and the Inconvenient Truth hysterics throw at this cause, it will not change the outcome significantly. I challenge anyone to prove contrary to this. Flatulence from Leftwingnuts and Neo-commies are a big cause of Global warming - more than they will ever want to confess to.

The Kyoto Accord will never be taken seriously until China and India are held accountable - will the UN ever wise up ? (I doubt it). With that said, the world, especially the so-called developing countries need to pollute less for the good of all... That will eliminate a healthy portion of the CO2, if and when that is ever accomplished.

Posted by: KS on February 12, 2007 08:42 PM
51. "humankind's future is bleak" eh Matthews?
We are the top of the food chain you fool. One day you will wake out of the trance you're in, have a big stoggie and enjoy life.

Posted by: PC on February 13, 2007 09:39 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?