Congressman Jay Inslee says "polar bears, a beloved American icon, are at risk" and calls for massive government intervention to reverse global warming. And maybe the government can also help the Mastodons return to Sequim!
But another article suggests America will only be able to reverse climate change if we takeover China first:
Asia's growing air pollution -- billowing million-ton plumes of soot, smog and wood smoke -- is making the Pacific region cloudier and stormier, disrupting winter-weather patterns along the West Coast and into the Arctic, researchers reported Monday.Oh, wait:
Until recently, most scientists believed that, with its adverse effects on health and plant life, such aerosol pollution was mostly a local problem: If anything, it helped rather than hindered the climate -- at least in terms of global warming -- by offsetting the heat-trapping effects of greenhouse gasesWhat? I thought the science was settled. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 06, 2007 12:15 PM | Email This
Ooops, that's exactly what is happening, my bad....
Posted by: H Moul on March 6, 2007 12:23 PMHere's a question for ya'll. Al Gore is to Elmer Gantry as David Matthews is to....?
Most creative response wins a free trip to DM's website. Tin foil hat not provided.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 6, 2007 12:47 PMWhat causes ice ages?
"Studies of ice and seabed cores reveal that temperature rise and fall is
heavily correlated with changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations. But it's
a chicken-and-egg problem. Are CO2 rises and falls a cause of climate
change or an effect? "
Will forests slow global warming - or speed it up?
"By removing carbon dioxide - the principal cause of global warming - from
the air, trees grow. "
[I guess we don't know if CO2 drives climate -- except when we do.]
Why can't we predict the weather?
"A few years ago, weather forecasts were totally unreliable beyond a couple
of days; today better computer models make them accurate as far as a week
out. That's fine for figuring out how to pack for a business trip or
whether you need to rent a big tent for the wedding reception. The trouble
starts when you want to build a computer model to predict the weather over decades or centuries. . .even refining precision doesn't get us to
long-term prediction."
[And, apparently, the climate models are very good at predicting future climate -- except when they aren't.]
Another high-profile skeptic is revealed here:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
Probably rolling in newly acquired Oil Money, he is.
You may make all the specious arguments you wish, but nothing will wash away the stain that humanity has put on the Earth. Like a poorly-casked Merlot, homo sapiens and its effect n Mother earth is all but indelible. Catastrophe beckons. Calamity rains. Al Gore is right, and you all know it. You ignore his warnings, and those of the overwhelming majority of European scientists who wear men's underwear, when you disregard the warnings of coming calamity which are crystal-clear.
The poor polar bears are just the tip of the iceberg. Watch out for fur seals to be next. Before the peace-loving Canadians can club them to death on what reminas of the ice, they'll faint dead away from excess perspiration, and befog the northern hemisphere with the miasmic humidity of their waterproof body odors.
Already the Northern Lights -- our beloved Aurora Borealis -- the veritable Symbol of All that is Psychedelic -- have been reported to be flickering like neon tubes over a taco stand. And for what? So gas-guzzling SUVs can prowl the remaining wilderness, throwing up mud and dust to further damage our fragile atmosphere, which struggles in its death-throes to cast off the ravishments of the Naked Ape.
Repent, O you sinners of pollution! Eschew paper products -- lest the forests be brutally deflowered! Especially bathroom tissue! Is your nether region really worth a stand of first-growth hemlock?
David Mathews
Posted by: Rey Smith as David Mathews on March 6, 2007 12:53 PMhttp://pbsg.npolar.no
You will find population statistics there.
Posted by: JDH on March 6, 2007 01:16 PMDammit Jim, I'm a blowhard, not a doctor!
Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 6, 2007 01:21 PMI assume you enjoy such things as living in house, driving a car or at least use public transportation, have electricity, internet hookup and computer and the list is almost endless.
You should consider that all of those things required some impact on your revered Mother Nature. So before you post again about GW, please remove from your life all those things that have an impact on the environment and then maybe you will have some credibility here.
Posted by: BornRight on March 6, 2007 01:39 PM Q&A 1. Is it true that polar bears at the San Diego Zoo turned green?
Galesburg, Illinois
Yes. After the coats of three adult polar bears turned markedly green in the summer of 1978, a study of their fur was carried out by Dr. Ralph Lewin of Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Phillip Robinson of the San Diego Zoo. As reported in Nature, vol. 278, March 29, 1979, the study revealed that the unusual color was caused by algal cells living inside of wide, hollow guard hairs of the bears' outer coats. The scientists found that the hollow channel in the guard hairs, normally air-filled for greater insulation from the cold, is connected to the outside by lateral pores. These lateral openings could explain how the alga entered the hairs initially and could provide a means for the plant cells to exchange inorganic nutrients and wastes. Tests showed that the alga possessed microscopic structure and pigments characteristic of the cyanophytes, the blue-green algae, and may be a new species. Although a few other vertebrates are known to carry algae on their surfaces, growth of algal cells in the warm protected environment inside of hairs is apparently unique to captive polar bears.
Gotta love that sequence of green polar bears / human extinction. What could be more logical?
Mwahahaha
Pretty sneaky way to try to get your hands on my house, my car, and my laptop. Well, it won't work.
Now don't bother me. I'm going outside to fire up my old-growth-forest-burning generator.
Posted by: Rey Smith on March 6, 2007 02:05 PMOn February 2, 2007 she authored a front page article with the headline, "Climate Scientists Surer Than Ever, Humans to Blame".
"Surer Than Ever" (?) Sandi has a head on her shoulders, but lets hope she didn't compose that headline.
"Journalists" like Sandi Doughton do not want to research both sides of their reporter's beat.
I have tried to have an open discussion with her in which I pleaded with her to at least peruse credible articles with a different flavor about the "state of the science" on global warming.
The door always slams shut. "Skeptics have ZERO credibility". "What about Dr. Fred Singer, director of NOAA for 17 years?". He's the worst, in the pocket of big business, just ask Cliff Mass. Never mind that Singer accepts no commercial contributions to his organization, and Mass sucks the public teat everyday all day long. With some kind of weird saintly immunity.
When are the journalists and media people going to INVESTIGATE their own stories?
Don't they know that "now that the science is done", that the only news left is that "the science ISN'T done"?
I pointed out to Sandi that now that the "Science is Done" that the climate scientists can give up their grants and start gainful employment by building electric windmills.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on March 6, 2007 02:12 PM
Electric windmills, okay.
But not within sight of Hyannisport.
Or Elliott Bay, I betcha.
Posted by: Rey Smith on March 6, 2007 02:22 PMThe guy is advocating mass-global suicide... I vote that the those of the liberal persuasion show all us Conservative dummies how it's done.
We'll be waiting.... Quick! The ever-disappearing and greatly disappointed mommy Earth is anxious!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 6, 2007 02:40 PMShirley Jones? (can't remember her character's name)
Posted by: sro on March 6, 2007 02:48 PMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/traveloutdoors/2002708696_nwwpolarbear29.html
Q: How do you catch a poloar bear?
A: You cut a hole in the ice and put peas all the way around the edge. And when he comes up and take a pea, you kick him in the icehole.
And I have to hand it to this guy
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/23/1090464828966.html
Posted by: JDH on March 6, 2007 03:10 PMFor this effort Inslee is seen a local demigod for assuaging the collective guilt of America over this issue while at the same time using this at every opportunity to link today's terrorism efforts with past war-time emergency actions he clasified as pure racism.
How does this tie in to Inslee attemtp to save polar bears -- another example of bad science/bad history agenda to let the Bainbridge fringe know he is their man to save humanity.
Can't the Republicans come up with a serious candidate to take on this Dem moonbeam lightweight from Bainbridge?
Posted by: James M. Olsen on March 6, 2007 03:18 PMFunny though, they didn't teach us how to catch and kill one. Considering that the polar bear is one of the earth's most vicious killers, maybe it's best to leave them alone.
And on & on...
Agree with them....then ask what THEY are willing to sacrifice.
If it is as serious as they profess, you would think they would go back to their Bohemian Lifestyle.
Trust me....not a chance.
This is about emotion, fear & political control.
And it is falling apart at the seams.
Ask Ron Sims & Mayor Nickels if they will pledge to never fart again??
This would mean changing their diets!
And hey, don't plants & trees desire CO2???
And isn't a warmer planet a lessw energy dependent planet?
Oh...and isn't the Earth starting a cycle where it is closer to the Sun??
Persionally I'd like to serve a couple PETA members up a knuckle sandwich and not a faux one either.
For those of you who believe the science is not settled, I'm sure you think the same about evolution. I guess global warming caused by human activity is a hoax just like dinosaur fossils are a hoax.
Posted by: Bill L on March 6, 2007 04:28 PMBut since you think it is Bill, I was going to ask if I can have your house, car, computer, and everything else that plugs into a wall, outputs any kind of heat, etc. I mean, obviously you're bought into this psuedoscience, and so you immediately plan to divest yourself of all this poison spewing stuff.
Posted by: johnny on March 6, 2007 04:41 PMSpeaking of fucked: until you can front everyone the money to buy their Energy Star dishwashers, their twirly bird neon bulbs (which some research has shown to be carcinogenic), their hybrid SUVs, and move into YOUR Ozzie and Hairynet neighborhood -- especially all the little brown people who slave in the facotries where your Gore-tex underwear is gleaned from the livers of unborn Naugahydes -- you're just rolling over like a cheap intellectual hooker for Big Al and his burgeoning front-butt.
Another realization - Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" is based on bad intelligence and cherry picking from the scientific community with an environmentalist ax to grind, with new research the position has been modified - even the Kyoto-Treaty freaks have backed off on the extent of human influence. By the same token, the Iraq War was based on bad intelligence and cherry picking by the Bush Administration that led them to believe that WMD's were a clear and present danger. There is global warming, and coincidentally other planets in our solar system are also experiencing it too - because of the Sun getting hotter.
Posted by: KS on March 6, 2007 06:45 PMThe intellectual content of the present conversation does illustrate that conservatives and creationists and fundamentalists cannot grasp science.
Stefan, always eager to boast of his own ignorance, asks the ill-informed question:
What? I thought the science was settled.
I could ask Stefan, "About what?" but that it pointless because Stefan is devoutly ignorant about all things scientific. It is sort of like asking a fundamentalist preacher to respond to geological arguments about evolution: "I don't need to know anything about biology. I can read my Bible!"
These flat-earthers are allergic to science. They prefer ignorance to knowledge specifically because their ignorance exempts them from responsibility for their actions.
America is morbidly obese and addicted to fossil fuels. What a sick, sick nation. A sick and dying nation. A violent and bloody nation. A prosperous and yet impoverished nation. A nation in decline.
The United States of America is a dying nation. I encourage you conservatives to keep on shopping, though, because your irresponsible behavior will accelerate America's demise.
Contrary to all of our proud boasting, humans aren't nearly as intelligent an animal as we all suppose. An intelligent animal would never destroy its own planet.
But it doesn't make any difference at this point. Once Homo sapiens have gone extinct the Earth will recover very nicely. Nature will clean up our mess & repair our damage. Evolution will repopulate the Earth with numerous new species in order to replace all those that humankind has driven extinct.
So this story does end hopefully. Nature will survive humankind's demise.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 6, 2007 06:48 PM> Show me a true left winger that understands the scientific method or has any use for it!
These conservative fundamentalists are happy in their own ignorance regarding all things scientific.
Conservatives and science mix as well as oil and water.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 6, 2007 06:53 PM> DM, you take yourself far too seriously. The scientific method states its findings within an error tolerance. It does not reach social or political conclusions!
It is pointless to talk about science with a group of fundamentalists who get all of their science, biology, and geology from the book of Genesis.
These fundamentalists are allergic to science and scientific thought. They would rather remain ignorant rather than hear anything contrary to their faith.
How can I engage in a scientific argument with fundamentalist zealots? It simply isn't possible. The uneducated prefer ignorance.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 6, 2007 07:17 PMHere's an ill-informed question. Are there any intelligent, scientifically-literate people in the house?
It is pointless to argue about science with a bunch of fundamentalists. These people don't even believe in evolution, how could they possibly believe in Global Warming?
These conservatives get their science from the Bible. Of course, they are seveal thousand years behind in their thinking.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 6, 2007 07:47 PM> DM, Albert Einstein was quite religious in his beliefs. He only gave us the special and general theories of relativity. I suppose that he wasn't worthy of an intellectual discussion.
What do you know about Albert Einstein? Whatever you think you know is wrong. You are ill-informed about a great many things.
I have come to expect ignorance & scientific illiteracy from these fundamentalists. If I found a well-informed person at SoundPolitics that would constitute a miracle and prove that God really does exist.
God, your children are wearisome to me. How can you stand to associate with these people? Imagine spending eternity with fundamentalists. Not a pretty picture.
God, what is it going to take to wake up your children from the coma of their addictions? God, you've got to wake up your children before they finish destroying Your own creation.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 6, 2007 07:53 PMIt sounds to me that you are the only fundamentalist posting here. You refuse to listen to any arguement that is not fed to you by the left-wing establishment. As to equating not believing in evolution to not believing in global warming, this arguement holds no water. I would argue that most of the so-called "fundamentalist" posters here don't deny that some sort of global warming is/has/will happen, we just don't believe that it is anthropogenically caused or reversible, nor should it be.
Posted by: Geoff Morse on March 6, 2007 08:06 PMHave you heard the phrase, "God doesn't play dice with the universe". Yes, Einstein said that.
Now I might take a bit of wisdom from my parents who said, "Never get in a stink contest with a skunk, folks won't be able to tell who stinks."
END
Posted by: Fed Up on March 6, 2007 08:07 PM> I would argue that most of the so-called "fundamentalist" posters here don't deny that some sort of global warming is/has/will happen, we just don't believe that it is anthropogenically caused or reversible, nor should it be.
That's an obscure passage there, Geoff. Exactly what are you saying?
Conservatives cannot dispute with Global Warming yet they still insist that it isn't happening. Creationists have the same difficulty with evolution, too.
Fundamentalism and science don't mix. That much is evident here.
> Have you heard the phrase, "God doesn't play dice with the universe". Yes, Einstein said that.
Einstein did say, "God doesn't play dice with the Universe." But it was not a statement of faith.
What does God say about pollution anyway? Jesus loves George W. Bush and ExxonMobil, doesn't he?
Jesus died on the cross so that obese Americans would have a reason to shop from Thanksgiving to Christmas. Jesus died for the SUV!
God loves America. God loves America's nuclear bombs & aircraft carriers. God loves Wal-Mart and McDonald's, too.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 6, 2007 08:24 PMWhat is so obscure about my statement? Have you lost command of the english language? I'll break it down for your obviously simple, one-sided mind.
I am arguing that most of the posters here that disagree with the left's--and your--arguements about global warming are not saying that global warming is not happening. Instead the arguement is over the cause. You claim that humans--thus the term anthropogenically--are the sole cause of said global warming, regardless of the facts that many in the scientific community have noted. Additionally, I am pointing out that many that post here, including me, are reserving judgement. Seeing as the facts do not point to anthropogenically (i.e.: human) caused global warming, it would be hasty to say that only our activities on this planet would reverse said global warming.
By the way, I notice that you didn't try to refute my implication that you are the true "fundamentalist" here. All of your rantings are the only evidence of belief without proof. Don't deny it David--if you truly believed in science you would be skeptical of your own assertions. Instead you go on and on in a most dogmatic fashion.
Interesting if not hypocritical.
Posted by: Geoff Morse on March 6, 2007 08:37 PMThat's a goliath of an ego you've got there, speaking of Biblical fundamentalists.
But I digress. Actually, I resent being lumped in with all those global-warming-denying fundamentalists you keep finding under your bed. I honestly doubt that anyone really questions that the globe is warming. Again.
No one here disputes that there are climatic cycles which have affected the climate of the earth since Tipper Gore's ur-granny was just a pudgy little girl. It's the "cyclical" part that you, and only you, seem to have trouble wrapping your mind (sic) around.
Remember the Byrds' "Turn, Turn, Turn"? Remember the bumpersnickers of yesteryear, like "Change is natural"? When you rant and rage against the machines which have given you your comfortable middle-class lifestyle, think about yesterday's revolution, which has become today's tired old orthodoxy.
Earth Day has come and gone. All that's left is some litter. The Woodstock generation are mostly Republicans with diversified portfolios. The radical changes you clamor for are old, old hat; yay, ancient and fuddy-duddy fedoras.
To sum up: That was Zen. This is Tao.
Posted by: Rey Smith on March 6, 2007 08:40 PMThat is truly the pot calling the kettle black ! What say you, fed up and everyone else ?
Posted by: KS on March 6, 2007 08:42 PM> What is so obscure about my statement?
Well, Geoff, finally ... a profound question.
> I am arguing that most of the posters here that disagree with the left's--and your--arguements about global warming are not saying that global warming is not happening. Instead the arguement is over the cause.
Okay ... so you do agree that Global Warming is happening. We are finally making some progress.
> You claim that humans--thus the term anthropogenically--are the sole cause of said global warming, regardless of the facts that many in the scientific community have noted.
This is just plain silly and egregiously unscientific, Geoff. No one claims that humans are solely responsible for the warming. The sun plays a pretty significant role, too. And the atmosphere.
Humans do bear responsibility for pollution & environmental destruction and the climate change generated by these activities. Do you dispute with this notion?
> Additionally, I am pointing out that many that post here, including me, are reserving judgement. Seeing as the facts do not point to anthropogenically (i.e.: human) caused global warming, it would be hasty to say that only our activities on this planet would reverse said global warming.
Do you have any opinions regarding pollution, Geoff? What opinions do you have about pollution?
> By the way, I notice that you didn't try to refute my implication that you are the true "fundamentalist" here. All of your rantings are the only evidence of belief without proof. Don't deny it David--if you truly believed in science you would be skeptical of your own assertions. Instead you go on and on in a most dogmatic fashion.
The above statements reflect scientific illiteracy and nothing else. Science does not operate in the above fashion, nor has it ever.
Global warming and the negative impacts of pollution are both well established scientific facts.
> Evolution is still just a theory..not proven law/science..there's still holes & gaps in the theory (ie: the missing link) where Darwinists can't account for things with fossil records and other provable facts or data. Yet this " theory" is taught as gospel in school..they are so insecure that to suggest presenting the Intelligent Design theory & Darwinism side by side and letting people decide for themselves, they get all upset and try to shut down debate & opposing views. Darwinism is the atheist/liberal "religion"..a way to explain the complexity of life but erase God from the equation but they still haven't been able to pull it off and they know it! It's the hostility to religion that drive alot of this politicized science.
When people speak in the above fashion about evolution's flaws & weaknesses, I am compelled to wonder:
Have you read your Bible?
There are numerous errors, flaws, inconsistencies, contradictions, and scientific absurdities in the Bible. Darwinism is flawed but it cannot possibly be as flawed as the Bible.
How old is the Earth, Cara? Am I related to an ape?
> There's also the "Politically incorrect guide to Global Warming".
It is selling big and is also available on Amazon.com
I have read plenty of the "Politically Incorrect" books and must inform you that these books are written specifically for the uneducated & intellectually lazy & prejudiced & easily manipulated conservatives.
Anyone who is really interested in science will listen to the scientists. But SoundPolitics is evidently an blog for the anti-scientific scientifically illiterate conservatives.
As such, these Politically Incorrect books should serve you well ...
Posted by: David Mathews on March 6, 2007 09:03 PMDavid, how come you never back up your arguments with facts, and instead only rework your mantra of the apocalypse?
All of you right wing wackos have faith in the techno god, but the damage is already done, it's too late. You obese Americans are on a collision course with extinction. Even pointing out the fallacies in my arguments won't prevent the end of your ravenous world. Your fate is at hand.
It was a lovely day here in Florida. I went for a walk down to the beach where I buried my head in the sand for a while. Then I went to a zoo to speak with a manatee. He told me of his suffering at the hands of humans. Then I went home and turned on my air conditioner. Speaking of warming, it takes a lot of energy for me to preach my nihilist crusade to you right wing neocons. But it's better for me to keep wasting energy so I can preach armageddon to you skeptics, even though you are not listening. I am a prophet of doom, you need not question my credentials.
Posted by: Jeff B. as David Mathews on March 6, 2007 09:11 PMAs such, these Politically Incorrect books should serve you well ..."
You will only listen to the scientists that support your point of view, who have an ax to grind for the environmentalist community. There are reactionary, scientifically illiterate socialists like yourself - pathetic people who buy into political correctness in an attempt to mask the truth with half-truths.
Posted by: KS on March 6, 2007 09:21 PMYou try so hard! I know that you really are. But ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. Your words are nothing but the flounderings and misguided ramblings of a complete neophyte.
Fin.
Posted by: Geoff Morse on March 6, 2007 09:41 PMEither that, or he's a genuine sicko. And he really creeps me out.
Posted by: starboardhelm on March 6, 2007 09:50 PMDr. Dr. Allegre has now changed his tune, In September he said that the Antarctic is gaining ice and other global warming concerns "come from natural causes." He also said that: "The cause of climate change is unknown . . . [and] there is no basis for saying as most do, that the science is settled."
Allegre is also a preeminent socialist. That should swing some big meat with you.
OK, how about paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson? He sez: "There is no meaningful correlation between C02 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame." he goes on to detail C02 levels 450 million years ago versus today. Patterson also says that there " . . . is a very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such as changes in the brightness of the Sun."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén (Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Sweden) says that ". . . the mass balance of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off." Which, according to him causes more iceberg calving. He also says that "A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future."
Dr. Dick Morgan (Climatology Researcher at the University of Exter) says that Canadian Arctic ice since 2001 has ". . . seen a steady increase to near normal conditions." This also goes to the Polar Bear thing. There are more of them now than 25 years ago. They aren't threatened (just because some eco-goofballs want them listed doesn't mean they are threatened).
Dr. Roy Spencer (Principal Research Scientist at U of Alabama) sez that Gore's point that 200 cities in the American West set all time temp records ". . . is also misleading." and goes on to say that recent U.S. temperatures are " . . . not unusual."
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Lab at Cook University, Australia simply has said: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
Carter also said recently about Gore: "The man is an embarrassment to US science . . . a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based in junk science."
All of these guys are non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group experts with no dog in the hunt (read that money to loose).
So Davey, these are some of the scientists I listen to. I think that it is you who is listening to the wrong people.
Posted by: G Jiggy on March 6, 2007 09:58 PMI've got two questions. Since when did polar bears become a beloved American icon? And how does this dolt Inslee propose to reverse global warming?
You are not going to reverse global warming by trading in your SUV for a Prius. You do by dying in great numbers and rather quickly. Of course Inslee wouldn't go for this solution, he would lose all his subjects, I mean his constituents.
To power lusters everywhere the global warming scam is their dream come true. They know they can't do a damn thing about it short of eliminating man from the earth, but they're going to milk it for all its worth. Just look at the Goracle. He was a tedious, washed up bore a few months and now he's Presidential material. I'm sure this resurrection from ho-hum oblivion was not lost on Inslee.
Posted by: Bill K. on March 6, 2007 10:09 PMWe have a theory today that works on the assumption that we are on a one-way climate trip to higher temperatures. This theory ignores mountains of scientific data from ice cores and ocean sediments that document numerous climate shifts, both upward and downward.
Climate have fluctuated significantly over the past approximately 2 million years with periods of ice streatching as far sount as Olympia and with arctic ice far depleted from what we see today.
Amazingly the lowly polar bear has survived it all. In fact all the various arctic life forms we see today have survived these massive climate shifts. How did they do it? They adapted!
A 1/2 degree increase in average global temperature over 150 years represents a fairly benign rate of change compared to the tens of degrees per 100 years that are interpreted to have occured at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago.
There is even reasonable evidence that temperatures were much warmer about 8,000 years ago than today.
Oh, yeah! Polar bears can swim! Up to 50 miles even!
I say to Inslee .. Do Your Homework!
This whole story about the polar bears is based on a photo you saw of bears sitting on an ice floe. The photo was taken on an arctic expedition in high summer .. when arctic ice melts during the 24-hour long sunny days. This even happened in the ice ages. Ever been to Alaska?
The bears will survive without Congress providing even more protection than the already substantial protection they recieve from the US, Canadian, Norwegian, and Russian governments who closely monitor their populations and habitats.
Posted by: deadwood on March 6, 2007 11:27 PM> All of you right wing wackos have faith in the techno god, but the damage is already done, it's too late. You obese Americans are on a collision course with extinction. Even pointing out the fallacies in my arguments won't prevent the end of your ravenous world. Your fate is at hand.
> It was a lovely day here in Florida. I went for a walk down to the beach where I buried my head in the sand for a while. Then I went to a zoo to speak with a manatee. He told me of his suffering at the hands of humans. Then I went home and turned on my air conditioner. Speaking of warming, it takes a lot of energy for me to preach my nihilist crusade to you right wing neocons. But it's better for me to keep wasting energy so I can preach armageddon to you skeptics, even though you are not listening. I am a prophet of doom, you need not question my credentials.
Finally, Jeff, you have said something intelligent. I have waited a long time foe this. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 7, 2007 04:04 AM> All of these guys are non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group experts with no dog in the hunt (read that money to loose).
> So Davey, these are some of the scientists I listen to. I think that it is you who is listening to the wrong people.
Okay, J Giggy, here is a question for you:
1. Are you suggesting that Global Warming is not occurring?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 7, 2007 04:08 AM> I've got two questions. Since when did polar bears become a beloved American icon? And how does this dolt Inslee propose to reverse global warming?
Polar bears are beloved. Of course, the public loves Polar bears. If this is the best consevatives can do no wonder George W. Bush ranks as one of America's worst presidents.
> You are not going to reverse global warming by trading in your SUV for a Prius. You do by dying in great numbers and rather quickly.
The full scale of conservative stupidity is on display in the above sentence:
Give me my SUV or give me death!
You know, Bill, obese Americans don't really need SUVs, 4000 sq.ft. McMansions, a thousand-and-one cheap consumer products from Wal-Mart, two thousand items of clothing, etc.
Obese people can affoes to make sacrifices. But Americans have now become offended by even the thought of making a sacrifice.
Americans are an entitled, irresponsible, morbidly obese, mindless hyperconsuming bunch.
But this won't last forever. America's prosperity and world dominance will come to an end. Americans will have no choice except to learn to walk again.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 7, 2007 04:16 AM> Amazingly the lowly polar bear has survived it all. In fact all the various arctic life forms we see today have survived these massive climate shifts. How did they do it? They adapted!
Polar bears adapted but Homo sapiens do not.
Why does the concept of sacrifice terrify conservatives so much?
Does anyone here actually believe that patriotism means burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible?
Do Americans really love their SUVs more than they love the living world?
Are Americans so fat & lazy now that they are incapable of walking?
Are Americans so addicted to consumerism that they cannot sacrifice the materialistic obsession?
Americans who find it impossible to make sacrifices will have no choice when America's economy collapses and the American people become impoverished & deprived.
Imagine how your life would change if there was no gasoline at the gas stations .... that's America's future.
all told, just as much a climatologist as Young Danny with his guitar. wonder why Madonna the Mystic hasn't also weighed in on this topic? another credible, erudite source on the world's issues. tucked away in her tiny mansion & super energy-efficient estates.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 7, 2007 04:45 AMTell that to your Gods Al Gore and John Edwards. Gore has a 10,000 sq. ft. mansion that uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average household uses. John Edwards just built a 28,200 sq. ft. home in the Carolinas. How much energy is that monster of a house going to use?
Until you answer these question and hold your Gods to the same standards you hold everyone else here, I'll assume you are nothing more than a lousy, stinking hypocrite.
Posted by: Interested Observer on March 7, 2007 05:36 AMhowever, when citizens in China or India or the East voluntairly tie the ball and chain of Kyoto onto THEIR behaviors, then I will too. they are given a pass on cleaning up their messes, while we are self-imposing yet more restrictions out of some twisted, anti-survival "noble" notion. it's too one-sided and therefore not in our national interest.
if we are to suffer & cut back, then we ALL suffer, not just targeted nations--like ours especially targeted by the world's leftist socialists who have historically despised our freedoms, progress & betterments given the world to share.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 7, 2007 05:45 AMI see DC has "another' snow problem and Mass set low temps since the 50's.
Keep talking Dave.
When talking about Mass die-offs. Why don't you jump first.
Come on dude, be a leader for once!
How long do you reckon DM would survive in nature?
Posted by: JCM on March 7, 2007 07:16 AMThis is typical of what I have come to expect from David Mathews. David Mathews trys to set up a straw man as the opinion of others and then knock said straw man down to the cheers of David Mathews. First of all there is not a single verified example of Macroevolution ie. trans species evolution in other words there is not one shred of evidence that ANY species, be it flora or fauna, having morphed from one species to another. What Darwinism/Macroevolution relies on is "consensus" opinion of insiders and a hostility to any opinion that does not agree with the foreordained conclusions.
Is it any wonder that David Mathews would head off in this direction? Not to me it isn't, I had actually been anticipating it for some time. Actually the Anthropogenic GW model is taken straight from the Macroevolutionist play book.
On another note, perhaps he would care to expound upon this statement credited to David Mathews:
On the consequences of stopping animal research: "Don't get the diseases in the first place, schmo." -- David Mathews
Posted by: JDH on March 7, 2007 08:02 AM
"Andrew Cunanan, because he got Versace to stop doing fur." - David Mathews reply when to Genre request for "Men We Love"
Posted by: JDH on March 7, 2007 08:08 AMBut let me be clear Dave, this is not to say that we shouldn't be resonsible stewards and do things like pursue market demanded alternate forms of energy (I'm a big fan of nuclear to replace coal fired for instance) and drive around in more lifestyle appropriate transportation. Contray to what the left believes, people of a conservative bent don't like people peeing in streams any more than the next guy.
The is a also a body of evidence that suggests that a bit warmer climate would be a good thing.
Cry wolf once I'll try to help, but cry wolf again and I won't listen.
Posted by: swatter on March 7, 2007 09:40 AMBut let me be clear Dave, this is not to say that we shouldn't do things like pursue market demanded alternate forms of energy (I'm a big fan of nuclear to replace coal fired for instance) and drive around in more lifestyle appropriate transportation and help the third world be good stewards of their environment too. Contrary to what the bellicose left believes, people of a conservative bent don't like people peeing in streams any more than the next guy.
You know, there is also a body of opinion that suggests that a bit warmer climate by a few degrees would be a good thing.
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2007/03/07/3708299.html
"I love this planet, always will, but unlike Suzuki and Gore, I don't believe humans are the drivers of climate change and I have interviewed many climate scientists whose peer-reviewed reports back that up.
What's more, I am 99% certain that I have a smaller carbon footprint than Suzuki. My only home is much smaller than his beach-front mansion in Vancouver. I know that because as a teen and young adult, my friends and I used to party on said beach and sometimes saw Suzuki wander about in his yard."
Posted by: JDH on March 7, 2007 09:58 AMHow long do you reckon DM would survive in nature?
I'm putting my bets on Mother nature. Say two to three days before a bear or in his state a gator gets him.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 7, 2007 10:03 AMOcean temps may be cooling:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/03/05/an-error-in-the-2007-ipcc-statement-for-policymakers-on-the-2005-global-average-radiative-forcing/
"We observe a net loss of 3.2 (±1.1) × 10**22 J of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005. Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (of the Earth's total surface area)....
Dave, I know you're a black-and-white kinda guy, but you've got to accept the fact that there are subtleties to nature... just when you thought the earth was warming for sure, the ocean appears to be cooling...
Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 7, 2007 10:10 AM"In 1995, Professor Paul Crutzen won the Nobel Prize for helping to explain how the ozone layer is formed and depleted.
Partly as a result of his work, world governments took action and banned the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) - chemicals used in fridges and aerosols - that were thinning the ozone's presence over Antarctica.
Now the chemistry professor has a solution to mitigate global warming.
He believes that sulphur particles similar to those erupting from volcanoes could act as a natural cooling device for the planet, by creating a "blanket" that would stop the Sun's rays from reaching the Earth."
He is as full of crap today as he was back then. why is it that the prophets of doom get a pass when their precdictions turn out to be B.S? Could it be because their presciptions fit an agenda? I say that it is exactly that.
What, exactly, is the correct temperature/CO2 saturation level for the planet Earth?
Posted by: Jack Burton on March 7, 2007 11:48 AMWhen the second law of thermodynamics exerts its influence and the universe achieve equilibrium, then I'll have those figures for you.
Posted by: JCM on March 7, 2007 12:08 PMhttp://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/index.html
I themn tried Birds global warming and got this - Earlier springs with warmer temperatures over the past 30 years have prompted a ubiquitous North American bird species, tree swallows, to begin laying eggs, on average, a week or more earlier. But whether these harbingers of global warming are being adversely affected by changing weather patterns isn't clear, biologists in New York, Wisconsin and California report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS).
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/02/10.24.02/global_warming.html
This was getting fun so I tried bunnies global warming and holy cow, I never expected this but - New species ... giant horned bunnies the size of small elephants
http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/19990208warming2.asp
Got to go for now, but the possibilities are endless.
Posted by: David Mathews
No! *You*, David, you would rather remain ignorant than hear anything contrary to your faith -- environmentalism. You tremble in fear at the words of your High Priest Al Gore. You bow down to Earth, your god. You pay indulgences of carbon offsets or ease your conscience by driving a Prius to help offset your guilt -- and sin.
No, David, you are the one spewing your religion down our throats. Stop denying it isn't a religion just because you don't step into a building some day of the week to worship Mother Nature.
Posted by: SD on March 7, 2007 12:22 PM#73 - #98
You people are talking in circles.
No one here denies that Global Warming is occurring. From that standpoint, the argument is settled.
So if we are not arguing about the reality of global warming, exactly what are we arguing about?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 7, 2007 02:36 PMI base this on my research into both sides of the issue. My opinion has also been somewhat influenced by the tactics displayed by the Catastrophic Anthropogenic GW supporters and their not living as though they truly believed what they are saying.
Don't try to set up a straw man opinion and claim that it is mine. I won't allow it. I have too much experience with the left to fall into that trap. You may think yourself enlightened but are too clever by half to even defend your side of the argument. You have also failed in your "past Utopia" worship. Nothing you say is fresh, it is easily shown that what you prescribe has failed repeatedly. Your society is mean and dirty beyond comprehensive and would do far more harm to the natural environment than the American model. This is not only theory, the last century provided us with many examples of what to expect from your prescription for what you see as ailing mankind and the plant earth. The American model is much more tennable than is what you describe as being the way to organize society in ordet to live in a clean environment.
Posted by: JDH on March 7, 2007 02:51 PMI don't see us having an argument. I said the globe is warming and you do agree.
We must get past this one point before any sort of argument can occur.
I say the globe is warming. You say the globe is warming.
If we agree about this much, that's great. But if we don't, I need to find out what you believe is actually happening on this Earth.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 7, 2007 02:56 PM> NO you damned moron I DO NOT BELIEVE the earth's temperature is warming, I believe it is fluctuating, as it has been doing since time began.
No one disputes that the Earth's climate fluctuates, JDH.
Would you kindly describe the present behavior of the Earth's climate over the last one hundred years?
In other words: Is the Earth becoming warmer or colder?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 7, 2007 03:14 PMI am not asking a difficult qurestion, am I?
In your opinion, according to the evidence which you have investigated, has the Earth's temperature gotten warmer or colder over the last century?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 7, 2007 03:37 PMhttp://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/covers/issues/2007/0312.html
Posted by: JDH on March 7, 2007 03:41 PM> Based upon my research I would say that the earth's Global average temperature lies within the bounds of what it has been historically. It looks as though the warming and cooling cycles are about what one would expect based upon our understanding of history.
You are speaking in a terribly vague and ambiguous manner, JDH. For that reason I have no choice except to conclude that you have reached a conclusion which you would rather not express.
There's isn't any argument with there is agreement. Isn't this always true?
The conservatives know that global warming is occuring but they'd rather not say it. How then is there any argument between us?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 7, 2007 03:51 PMSure... From around the turn of the century to the early to mid 1940's, there was a slight amount of warming.
From about 1945 or so to around the mid 1970's the trend was for cooling, prompting various news reports of an impending Ice Age.
From the 1970's to 2005, the trend was for warming.
These "trends" have all been a fraction of one degree Centigrade, in my understanding. Also, measurements have gradually improved since the turn of the century...
Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 7, 2007 04:17 PMAround 1999, for some reason, he start posting a bunch of arguments on athiest's websites berating them for not believing in God. As with now, his argument style is jab, feint, and change the subject before getting to any substance.
Some time in mid 1999, it appears that the athiests got so tired of him that they added him to their "fundies" list... meaning that he couldn't post to any more athiest website. After this, Mr Mathews starting spamming (in excess of 400 that I could find) various religion oriented websites with posts that look very much like this:
In article , "David Mathews"
> wrote:
>>Hello,
>>You are invited to read "Zen Comments on Life" on my home page:
>>http://www.geocities.com/athens/agora/3958
(google dmathew1@tampabay.rr.com for more).
I saw a couple of references to "baal sagoth" or something like that which lead me to believe that he's just a satanist (maybe he believes in that chaos stuff)... Really though, it looks like he just likes to think of himself as important. He was pretty hard on Clinton during the time of the impeachment, then he went silent after the athiests shut him down until sometime last year, when he started with the crap hes been spewing here.
If you need to know more about Mr Mathews, feel free to search Google on his Email (which I got from his *lame* website).
So Davie, did I miss anything?
Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 7, 2007 05:02 PMI did get into some arguments with the atheists. That is true. And I have invited people to visit my website, too. That much is also true.
I am pleased that you take such an interest in me.
As to that other stuff ...
> I saw a couple of references to "baal sagoth" or something like that which lead me to believe that he's just a satanist (maybe he believes in that chaos stuff)...
I have no idea what you are talking about.
> He was pretty hard on Clinton during the time of the impeachment ...
I am also uncertain about what you are speaking about.
> he went silent after the athiests shut him down until sometime last year, when he started with the crap hes been spewing here.
Which reveals very little.
> If you need to know more about Mr Mathews, feel free to search Google on his Email (which I got from his *lame* website).
I am always open about my activities. I don't say anything which I would not say.
> So Davie, did I miss anything?
You missed a lot, but you did work very hard.
> Have any of you guys noticed a similarity of the David Mathews line of reasoning (or lack there of) to trying to discuss any thing with your wife during a particular few days of each month? At least with my wife it is transitory... good God this guy is like a eternal PMS version of the Eveready Bunny.
I can see why your wife finds you so charming, JDH. Uneducated, uninformed, devoutly ignorant, but God's gift to your wife.
How's the weather, JDH?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 7, 2007 05:39 PMIf you read your sources carefully (and I know that's a lot to ask for an ill-informed conservative such as yourself) you would know that the Bal Sagoth reference is an atheist's website and that the conversation is so old that the website is now defunct.
Incidentally, this particular atheists' conversation was inspired by material on my website. So far as I can tell, I was not a participant.
Any more questions?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 7, 2007 05:53 PMWell, I can see that discussion has degenerated in the same fashion that all such conversations degenerate. People run out of things to say and forget the entire subject matter and then all that is left is futile personal attacks.
Did you hear what Ann Coulter said about John Edwards the other day?
The Global Warming issue is settled. Your viewpoint lost. That's the only reason why you are all so angry. That's the reason why you waste your time dredging up conversations from 1999.
Your viewpoint has lost but your behavior will not.
Nature will settle this issue for you. Those things which Americans are unwilling to sacrifice -- Nature will deprive us of them all.
Until that time comes, keep on shopping. Keep your unhappy little minds distracted, too.
And JDH, God bless your wife! She must be some sort of saint.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 7, 2007 09:01 PMGlobal Warming is settled. So is your sex life.
Does your mama wash your undies?
BTW, do you type with your left hand or right hand?
Bye, Bye.
You're the weakest link.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 7, 2007 09:46 PMYour posts do nothing but tell us that "for obese Americans, it's already too late".
But you know what I find really interesting ol' Davie?
This whole Fatalistic "crusade" you seem to be on started only a few months ago. Something in your little mind must have snapped.
I mean, if something as critical as the end of civilization was upon us, then why would you even bother with a post like this one:
Hello,
Don't subject yourself to needless stress about Y2K or waste your money in
purchasing survivalistic products. The Y2K will not bring about an end to
civilization or economic and political meltdown of the western powers.
Relax and enjoy the new year, because the advent of the new millennium is a
time for hope, not a time of desperation.
http://www.geocities.com/athens/agora/3958
You are invited to read "Y2K Madness" written by Charles Murray on my home
page, and "The End of the World: Now Certainly Known" written by myself.
Thanks,
David Mathews
Dave, if its too late now, what changed in 7 years?
You're just jumping on a bandwagon, and "preaching" death and destruction, because you think people will listen to you. People are listening Dave, and the fact that you continue to ignore all the clear evidence that's been presented tells us something... but its not what you think...
If you had this same message 8 years ago, you'd have at least a small shread of credibility... but telling people that the millenium is a time for hope, then 7 years later saying that because of Global Warming, its too late tells us that you just jumped on the bandwagon... you know nothing about which you speak.
Come back in 20 years, and then proclaim yourself an expert... don't worry though... we'll still be here :)
Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 7, 2007 10:10 PMTo which the interminable David Mathews replied:
Polar bears adapted but Homo sapiens do not.
Mr. Mathews, you are EVER the denier! I cannot BELIEVE that you deny evolution! Clearly if you listen to science Man will Evolve - like the polar bear - to survive the climate change! How can liberal treehuggers be so scientifically ingnorant to deny evolution and adaptation of an entire species?
Tsk, tsk!
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on March 7, 2007 11:03 PMI still say the polar bear is no American icon.
Anyway I've been wondering why you haven't emigrated to North Korea, the anti-America. To you it should be paradise on earth.
Think of it. North Korea has no SUVs or even private cars, no WalMarts, no corporate farming, no supermarkets, no consumer society and best of all, no MacDonalds! Is this heaven or what!
As a result of this lean, mean society there are no obese North Koreans. Well maybe Kim Jong Il is a little portly but I wouldn't mention it. Years of American oppression have made the North Koreans a bit sensitive about their beloved leader. And years spent in a re-education camp can really take the zing out of life.
You could start out in a collective farm laboring from dawn to dusk and then sit down a feast of a bowl of rice and a fish head. You may think you're slim now but just watch that body fat melt away. Any one over 90 pounds is just too fat!
But all work and no play would make Dave a dull boy. So once a month you would be bussed into beautiful downtown Pyongyang for an anti-American rally. While in Pyongyang marvel at lack of traffic, the lack of air pollution, the lack of stores, the lack of restaurants, the lack of ... well you get the idea. All trappings of a consumer society anyway.
When you are finally allowed to go back to the West, if ever, you will be lean and minus a couple comrades who couldn't keep their yaps shut, but charged up by Democratic Socialism. Try not to stop at the first McDonalds though.
Posted by: Bill K. on March 7, 2007 11:20 PM> Dave, if its too late now, what changed in 7 years?
The Y2K problem is altogether different from the global warming - resource depletion - overpopulation problems.
The Y2K problem had an easy solution and therefore it was solved.
The pollution problem, on the other hand, has a difficult solution which demands substantial sacrifices. Americans are unwilling to make these sacrifices, the Chinese and Indians refuse to make sacrifices either.
Hence a catastrophe is unavoidable.
I would have hope regarding humankind's future if human nature had changed with the new millennium. But the 21st century has revealed that humans remain violent and destructive and selfish and foolish beyond measure.
If there was any hope whatsoever for humankind's future, I would tell you. But there is not.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 8, 2007 03:51 AM> Mr. Mathews, you are EVER the denier! I cannot BELIEVE that you deny evolution! Clearly if you listen to science Man will Evolve - like the polar bear - to survive the climate change! How can liberal treehuggers be so scientifically ingnorant to deny evolution and adaptation of an entire species?
American's don't adapt to the environment, they adapt their own personal environment to suit their own comfort. Hence the need for air conditioners in the South and heaters in the North.
Humankind is following an anti-evolutionary path. Each and every other species accepts the environment in which it lives but humans refuse to suffer the indignity of living with the weather. Humans always complain about the weather.
Civilization cannot adapt to climate change, either. Civilization has placed hundeds of millions of people and $trillions of property in harm's way along the world's coasts. When the oceans rise all of these things will become swallowed by the sea and millions of people will need to find somewhere else to live.
Civilization also suffers from dependence the world's diminishing natural resources. When the oil, coal, and natural gas are all burned away humankind will find itself deprived of both fuel and electricity.
We are living in the terminal phase of human history. Civilization undoubtedly is coming to an end. If there was any hope at all I would tell you.
> Anyway I've been wondering why you haven't emigrated to North Korea, the anti-America. To you it should be paradise on earth.
Those who want to address America's sins must remain in the United States of America & engage in political activities here.
By the way dave, did you see. We just set a record for FEB, 34th coolest month in 113 years.
wow what say you dave.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 8, 2007 06:44 AMAgain, I'm going to ask... you seem to fancy yourself a prophet, which one is correct, #1 or #2?:
1. "Relax and enjoy the new year, because the advent of the new millennium is a
time for hope, not a time of desperation." - David Mathews
2. "Americans are an entitled, irresponsible, morbidly obese, mindless hyperconsuming bunch.
But this won't last forever. America's prosperity and world dominance will come to an end. Americans will have no choice except to learn to walk again." - David Mathews
Surely, we couldn't possibly go from a "time of hope" to a "time of global disaster" so quickly.
Sounds to me like you're just changing the message to something you think will sell - well, sorry, but nobody here is buying.
(Actually, quite honestly, if there are any dedicated liberals reading your posts, they're probably getting a full taste of the nonsense they're pushing - I imagine its giving them a good picture of how looney they are, so thanks, keep up the good work).
> Surely, we couldn't possibly go from a "time of hope" to a "time of global disaster" so quickly.
You are speaking in an absurd manner. Hope is not a guarantee. Hope is just hope.
And, yes, my opinions can & do change based upon the evidence & my own evaluation of the alternatives. I am not dogmatically attached to any viewpoint.
My changing opinion of the future is in large measure determined by the preponderance of evidence. History suggests that all empires have an end, the United States is not exempt; history suggests that all civilizations collapse, the present global-technological civilization is not exempt.
> Oh, and Davie, if you stick around for me, there are several more courses of your own words I'm serving up for ya... yummy!
I am here. Ask whatever you wish.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 8, 2007 10:46 AMHumankind is following an anti-evolutionary path. Each and every other species accepts the environment in which it lives but humans refuse to suffer the indignity of living with the weather.
But David repeatedly argues that man will meet his fate due to the indulgence of his reasoning capacity, and ability to change his environment as opposed to accepting it as non-human animals must. And he bears that out by his own acceptance of technology as a means to live a comfortable life in his climate.
But then how did man's population grow, and overcome disease, food scarcity, difficult climates, natural disasters, etc.? Was it not by man's ability to adapt and change the environment, as opposed to simply sitting there and suffering?
The fears of a lack of resources to provide for the current population are proven false by that very population. And especially so in that a smaller percentage than ever before of the population actually needs to focus on production for survival. The rest can focus on how to do it better, faster, more comfortable, cheaper, using less energy, cleaner, etc. And even if there was a catastrophic event, the mere fact that there is such a large human population, would be all the more likely to allow at least many more of us to survive, and then build again as conditions are more favorable. And in fact, history shows that man has survived catastrophe better than many other species, because of his ability to change his environment. And each time, his population has grown bigger and faster than it had previous.
David's biggest mistake is not understanding that populations grow because of the favorable conditions which allow them to survive and even flourish. Man is both evolving in his ability to jump higher, run farther, think better, etc. and buoyed by the favorable conditions that he can create in his environment. A hotter day to a cow might mean extinction, but to a man, it means greater use of the sun to grow crops, and a need to better insulate his house. We have both evolution, and the ability to mitigate hurdles working in our favor.
At 6 Billion and growing, and having doubled since Paul Ehrlich's infamously false predictions of the 1970s, it's looking like mankind is actually doing quite well thank-you-very-much, and that we will have the means to survive in greater numbers than at any other time in human history, no matter what our environment throws our way.
David is simply wrong, and demonstrably so over time. Enjoy the environment around you, that you, and other hard working and rational humans have created. And observe that accepting faith in a paucity, that leads to future doom, is even more of a hunch than our more than likely path of creating new and better means to producing what we need to survive and thrive. Likely, because demand is the best reason for supply.
Enjoy your American lifestyle, because it's proof that using your mind and not emotions of fear or faith to guide you, will give you the best results.
> History suggests that the earth's climate is cyclical.
Agreed. No dispute here.
> History suggests that the warming trend that has been recorded over the past decade or so is "normal."
I have no idea what you mean. Does pollution have no impact whatsoever upon the climate?
> History suggests that David Mathews is not only dogmatically attached to every viewpoint he espouses, his viewpoints are not backed up by evidence and his predictions are always wrong.
I am opposed to all forms of dogmatism, whether found in myself or others. Evidence for my views are abundant, I have presented them here on numerous occasions.
My predictions are not often wrong. I have only made a small number of predictions in my life.
But the future of America & civilization is not a prediction. All nations & civilizations follow a natural, inevitable life cycle.
> Would you like that I should continue ad infinitum?
If you have anything at all to say, say it. That's the wisest course of action in any conversation.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 8, 2007 01:14 PM> But David repeatedly argues that man will meet his fate due to the indulgence of his reasoning capacity, and ability to change his environment as opposed to accepting it as non-human animals must. And he bears that out by his own acceptance of technology as a means to live a comfortable life in his climate.
Yes, this is my viewpoint. The air conditioner/heater appears like the most profound demonstration of humankind's weakness compared to the animals. How is it that the blue jays and lizards can survive both the heat & the cold without energy-consuming world-polluting technologies but humankind cannot?
And, yes, I do use both the air conditioner and the heater. I have reduced their use considerably over the last several years, but I still use them.
I like to spend a lot of time outside and get acclimated to the weather. For that reason the air conditioner is used only when it is absolutely necessary.
> But then how did man's population grow, and overcome disease, food scarcity, difficult climates, natural disasters, etc.? Was it not by man's ability to adapt and change the environment, as opposed to simply sitting there and suffering?
Humans have adapted and changed the environment. All such changes involve a tremendous consumption of natural resources & fossil fuels. So humans burn 31+ billion barrels of oil a year, and millions of tons of coal, etc.
Humans have attained 6+ billion population and continue to climb this mountain to 9+ billion within fifty years. This population is unsustainable under any circumstances, and it is especially unsustainable under present circumstances.
The Earth is already displaying plenty of evidence of failing under the strain of humankind's insatiable appetite. If humankind keeps on pushing the red line the biosphere will collapse and humankind will suffer an apocalypse.
> The fears of a lack of resources to provide for the current population are proven false by that very population.
This is an absursd principle. Just because a mountain climber can summit Mt. Everest don't imagine that the climber can inhabit the summit. Those high elevations are called the death zone for a reason.
The human species is presently inhabiting an unsustainable death zone, too. By loading the planet down with so many humans the ecosphere will collapse, rendering life impossible for the vast majority of humankind.
> And in fact, history shows that man has survived catastrophe better than many other species, because of his ability to change his environment. And each time, his population has grown bigger and faster than it had previous.
Given that Homo sapiens have only existed for a little over 100,000 years and that the vast majority of species are over a million years old, the above claim is not supported by the evidence.
> At 6 Billion and growing, and having doubled since Paul Ehrlich's infamously false predictions of the 1970s, it's looking like mankind is actually doing quite well thank-you-very-much, and that we will have the means to survive in greater numbers than at any other time in human history, no matter what our environment throws our way.
Do you believe that the Earth could successfully & perpetually sustain a human population of 12,000,000,000? Are there no limits whatsoever?
> Enjoy your American lifestyle, because it's proof that using your mind and not emotions of fear or faith to guide you, will give you the best results.
The best results? How is that at all possible? The Americans that I see on a daily basis do not appear either healthy or happy. Maybe Americans are suffering because of the unhealthy demands & pace of the American Way of Life.
Plenty of Americans use drugs (both legal & illegal) just to keep them going through the day. Maybe this should tell us something?
First, David completely acknowledges that he is a product of our modern life, and that he would not renounce his lifestyle, even though he feels guilt to the point that he unnecessarily limits himself, while there is no sign that he need do so. If indeed we were nearing a greater point of scarcity, the price for continuing our way of life would go up to the point that David would be forced to change, but it has not gone up, and in fact, it has gone down. The cost of living adjusted for inflation is at one of its lowest points, and that's because we've become so efficient at providing for basic needs, that anyone here in America can have an incredibly wealthy and comfortable lifestyle as compared with the vast majority of time humans have inhabited the earth. And the same is true in every country, to the degree of that country's freedom. Even Indians living in slums in Mumbai are living better today than they were 30 years ago, with a longer lifespan, greater access to food and healthcare, etc. Otherwise, the population would not have been able to grow as it has.
David arbitrarily then asserts, that 9 Billion is the magic population max number, and then wonders if there are any limits? So right there he concedes that he does not know the population limit. But think about it, David's assumption is based on nothing. He assumes that we will run out of coal, oil, etc. without knowing whether that is indeed true, and much more importantly, when that might be. Let's assume for a moment that there is a finite amount of coal, gas and oil under the earth, and that there will be no further discoveries of those fuels, or any possibility that the earth replenishes them on its own (both of which are currently possibilities being researched by scientists that wonder why oil reserves often appear greater than in the past when old oil wells are visited, etc.) But I digress, based on the assumption that there is a finite limit, the question then becomes how much do we have left? That answer if far from known, and thus we cannot know how long we would have to go along as we are now, and we cannot know how much we will choose to use other, already proven and abundant fuel technologies such as uranium, and we cannot know that we might not discover something else that is entirely new and better than fossil fuels, in the remaining time that we had left to use them up. David is making a huge assumption here. There's no reason to believe that any of the above mitigation might not come to pass. Yet he states with authority that there is a limit. That's a fallacy. The absence of knowledge of a limit does not constitute a limit. Especially in a large and dynamic system.
As a side note, most population experts agree that the earth's population will top out at about 11 Billion based simply on maximum life-span of humans at any given time vs. the period of that life-span where it is possible for procreation. 11 Billion is less than double where we are today. Even if we assume all resources are fixed, as is unlikely by what I stated above, adding one more person next to every other person (assuming we not make any attempt to spread out) would not constitute an unsolvable crisis. As David rightly points out, if we had to live less, we certainly could. And even half of what we have now in the US per person would not demonstrably change our lives, but would allow for a huge population increase. The reality is that the earth more than capalble of sustaining human life out to the natural cap of expansion. David wonders if there are no limits? Well flip that around David, if there are limits, then they will become obvious when we hit them. The population cannot grow if it is limited. But that also does not mean that it will shrink massively when it hits its apex. Of course there really is a limit to how big the human population can grow, because we do have a finite lifespan, but David probably won't be willing to acknowledge that fact.
And then David issues another fallacy. That humans have been around for roughly 100,000 years, does not at all mean that we won't be one of the longest surviving species, it simply means that we only started 100,000 years ago. Given that humans can do many things to adapt, and we can exploit other species and materials as needed for our own survival, it's likely that in the long term, we will be the longest surviving species. We are king of the jungle, because we have the ability to use our brains in a way t