Breaking news from ancient Egypt: "NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records".
Maybe the last few ice ages weren't prematurely terminated by over-reliance on the internal combustion engine after all.
Al Gore, call your office!
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 21, 2007 10:03 AM | Email This"By Jan Lopatka
REUTERS
5:38 a.m. March 21, 2007
PRAGUE - Czech President Vaclav Klaus said on Wednesday that fighting global warming has turned into a a 'religion' that replaced the ideology of communism and threatens to clip basic freedoms.
The right-wing president, a free-market champion, wrote to the U.S. Congress that adopting tough environmental policies to fight climate change would have destructive impact on national economies.
'Communism has been replaced by the threat of an ambitious environmentalism,' Klaus wrote in response to questions from the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce...."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070321-0538-czech-environment-.html
Posted by: WVH on March 21, 2007 10:43 AMAnd Babs Boxer used the occasion of announcing his testimony to solicit donations (some thing illegally) for her next campaign.
Posted by: swatter on March 21, 2007 11:41 AMFor almost a month, I demanded that someone, anyone, point me to the primary scientific papers ("1165 scientists") on which the IPCC paper rested.
Finally, someone posted links to two articles from the "Journal of Climate" that he said conclusively show the link between human generated CO2. I think that one of these papers is the lynchpin of the IPCC report because the "90% percent" term appears here.
I found and downloaded those papers from a King County Library online database and prepared to read them. The first statement in the abstract that caught my eye is "greehouse gases and SOLAR IRRADIANCE changes are found to have contributed...". So, of course, they simply lumped solar changes and CO2 together -- meaning that one or the other could have nothing to do with the majority of temperature change (my guess, of course, is CO2).
And this is probably the best of the best papers that the whole IPCC "report" was based on!
Posted by: John Bailo on March 21, 2007 12:03 PMAnother 174 posts later....
Posted by: ArmyMedic/Vet on March 21, 2007 12:15 PMMIT Professor Richard S. Lindzen
Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 21, 2007 01:33 PMScience argues that the temperature of the Earth without the Greenhouse effect would be 0 degrees F. The result of CO2 in our atmosphere adds 59 degrees F for an average planetary temperature of 59 degrees F.
Science is claiming that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased from 280 PPM (parts per million) to 380 PPM. Alarmists argue that these levels have never been higher in the last half-million years and that CO2 levels of this level, and increasing, spell doom.
So again, not being a climatologist, I have to wonder where the complete effect is of a 36% increase in CO2? In simple terms, if 280 PPM has resulted in a 59 degree F increase in the Earth's temperature, why wouldn't another 36% increase in CO2 result in a further increase of 21 degrees F? But the alleged planetary increase is just ~1 degree F.
Alleged evidence of increasing CO2 levels above the magic 280 PPM go back nearly 200 years. But why have planetary temperatures not been in a steady increase since the beginning of that increase in CO2? Why has science argued in just the last 100 years of global cooling and colder temperatures while CO2 has been consistently increasing with growing worldwide industrialization?
What if historical CO2 levels have been the cart behind the temperature horse, and current CO2 increases are simply the result of industrialization, but with little real effect on global temperatures? In other words, two separate causes for CO2, with one being a natural link between temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere, with a second component being man-influenced increases in CO2 without any "real" effect on temperature?
I too believe that global warming - and global cooling - is the result of fluctuations in solar output. Recent articles point out that Mars has seen a planetary temperature increase that compares to Earth's, but there is no identified reason why Mars would see an increase in CO2 or other cause, if not simply attributing that planet's increase to increased solar input.
The sun is the most influential source of energy in the Solar System and is an inconvenient source of energy for the Global Warming advocates. An even more inconvenient reality is that the sun's output varies over time, and not measured in just years, but centuries, or even millenniums.
But while measured CO2 in the atmosphere may be the result of increased industrialization and burning of fossil fuels, measured temperatures, themselves coming under assault as impossible in our dynamic and variable atmosphere, don't reflect much of a change when considered in an atmosphere with an alleged 36% increase in CO2.
In the end, I can't help but consider the messenger when looking at alleged crises like Global Warming. The political benefits of this issue for Democrats and leftists aligning to this crisis are monumental. The willingness of the left to grasp this crisis with so little real certainty also attacks the credibility of their arguments and the alleged crisis.
I just heard Al Gore refuse to commit his own lifestyle to the changes he calls on others to make. I heard him talking about Carbon offsets and his being a carbon-neutral household. He uses more than others, and buys unused credits to justify his excessive use. He's a hypocrite, but the champion of the Global Warming cause.
So in summary, if CO2 is accountable for 59 degrees F of Earth's temperature, why hasn't a 36% increase in that gas caused a commensurate increase in global temperature? If it had, this whole argument would have been moot for a hundred years by now, and Democrats wouldn't be using it to create the climate of fear they accuse everyone else of doing.
Oh, and please don't fire back with the easy rebuttal that the effect of the CO2 is delayed for decades, or even centuries. That I won't buy.
Posted by: MJC on March 21, 2007 01:34 PMThere has also been speculation that the sun cycles affect climate more as the magnetic field starts to reverse. The last time the field reversed it brought an end to an ice age. I am sure little Al would have been standing on one of the North American glaciers telling his fellow cave people that the world was warming and civilization as they knew it would end.
I find it interesting that none of the MSM outlets are touting the BBC documentary as an important part of the debate. Heaven forbid the peons actually have access to the facts.
Posted by: Burdabee on March 21, 2007 01:41 PMhttp://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca
GORE REFUSES TO TAKE PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE
WASHINGTON, DC - Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge" today to consume no more energy than the average American household. The pledge was presented to Gore by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, during today's global warming hearing.
Senator Inhofe showed Gore a film frame from "An Inconvenient Truth" where it asks viewers: "Are you ready to change the way you live?"
With the eco-goofballs hammering the global warming drum, pointing an accusing finger at the simple act of living - aided by teachers, schools and other authority figures, is it no wonder that we have the highest numbers of depressed children in the developed world? Why get up in the morning if the planet is going to hell in a hand basket? Why be productive if it will all be under water in a few years?
This is, once again, the insidious rot and destruction that liberalism brings to society as a whole. Motivated by envy and hate - all for the sake of control, nothing more.
If you check out the methane page (another evil greenhouse gas), you can see today's levels are about the same as those 400,000 years ago. The cavemen must have been eating a lot of beans.
It's no surprise Al won't practice what he preaches. RFK Jr. won't either. When RFK Jr. was on the Hannity and Colmes show about environmental hypocrisy, he finally admitted he was leaving right after the show on a private jet.
Posted by: Budabee on March 21, 2007 02:12 PMThere was also a great article in Science Daily the other day, that shows how scientists have now pointed out that it's not only physically impossible to "take the Earth's temperature," but also mathematically incorrect. Read the article by clicking here.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 21, 2007 02:20 PMOh, and please don't fire back with the easy rebuttal that the effect of the CO2 is delayed for decades, or even centuries. That I won't buy
______________________________________________
To bad, because others do, and they study this.
I guess we can agree to disagree.
First of all, I doubt that you'd argue that because someone studies something and comes to a conclusion that it is settled? Never mind that much of science is funded to find the conclusions its sponsors' wish. Unfortunately, much of the scientific world is like the courtroom, where lawyers can find an expert who will testify to anything in court the lawyer wants, huh?
If man-made Global Warming didn't exist, who'd fund its research and all those thousands of scientists studying its catastrophic consequences? If it was found to be non-existent, who'd fund its continued research, putting all those scientists out of work?
Who would have invited Al Gore to testify, or go to his movie?
But what is the magic about trapping heat energy. The argument is CO2, water vapor and a couple other gases in the atmosphere absorb energy so it can't escape. Because there are more of these gases than before the plague of mankind, the temperature of the planet is rising. But if it can't escape, and its been occurring for decades as CO2 has been increasing for more than a century, then why is it science thought the planet was cooling just 30 years ago? Doesn't it seem convenient that Global Warming proponents have an answer to that too? Not unlike their claims that Global Warming can cause extreme cooling, more snow, less snow, more hurricanes, less hurricanes, etc.?
How much of this entire Global Warming hysteria could be the result the false premise that we can measure the temperature of the planet? What happens to all the theories related to CO2 if that magical worldwide measurement is high by a degree or two? And let's say that we finally have figured out how to measure the global temperature; what are we comparing it to?
If the left woke up tomorrow and suddenly figured out how they could benefit by debunking Global Warming, it would only be a matter of time before they'd have lists of thousands of scientists backing that position.
The only thing I'm demanding is that we don't destroy economies, drive people out of their cars, hurt American industry, and reward one political party for scaring us to death until we are certain what we're doing. Because wouldn't it be ironic that in trying to make things better, we actually made things worse. I know, the left lives that reality every day, but I'd like to avoid it for something on this scale.
Posted by: MJC on March 21, 2007 03:19 PMThe above conversation is pretty impressive: The sun has a pretty large impact upon the climate.
Uh ... yeah. I agree. The sun does have a pretty tremendous impact upon the climate.
Now that we agree about that, I have some questions for you:
1. Is the Earth warming?
2. Does human behavior have any impact whatsoever upon the climate?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 03:23 PMOne more time,
1, yes, the theory in some circles is that the earth may be going through a warming cycle
2, it is currently unknown how much, if any, impact human behavior has on climate
Does that answer your questions?
Posted by: dan on March 21, 2007 03:32 PM> , it is currently unknown how much, if any, impact human behavior has on climate.
That's impressive, Dan. You did answer the questions.
Now, here's another:
3. Do you consider our lack of knowledge (the "unknown" above) a license for humankind to continue polluting the planet and destroying the environment?
and one more ...
4. If pollution is generating Global Warming, don't you agree that we should stop polluting?
Thanks.
3, there is never a reason to wantonly pollute the planet. America began to realize that some 50 years ago. Through advanced technologies and recognition of new markets, alternative processes began to be became economically feasible. China and India will reach that point,too. Mostly through the means of capitalism and innovation, not solely through government legislation.
4, PROVE to me, without a shadow of a doubt, with 100% consensus among the whole scientific community, that pollution is creating global warming and I'll consider the question at that time.
Posted by: dan on March 21, 2007 03:55 PMThese are serious questions addressed to an audience which is clearly not serious about this issue. Dan should answer those questions if he is bold enough to speak.
I am presently watching Al Gore's testimony:
Committee on Science and Technology
You should do the same. You might learn something, but only if you have the capacity to hear.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 03:57 PMThe United States of America is the world's greatest polluter and has been so for the last fifty years.
In other words: Capitalism and innovation have failed to solve this problem.
Now the problem has become much worse because China and India have decided to join the Pollute-the-Entire-Globe party.
How are we going to solve this problem, Dan?
Or will we just allow the problem to fester until Nature resolves the issue on its own terms?
You then ask:
4, PROVE to me, without a shadow of a doubt, with 100% consensus among the whole scientific community, that pollution is creating global warming and I'll consider the question at that time.
You clearly are phrasing the challenge in a manner which is impossible to fulfill. 100% proof and 100% consensus does not exist on any subject.
To ask for 100% proof and 100% consensus you are behaving in an irrational and unscientific manner.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 04:03 PMSince this is a global warming topic, and David has not spouted irrelevant comments, we can't call responding to him "feeding the troll" (yet).
David,
There is a fundamental flaw in your line of questioning.
to wit:
3. Do you consider our lack of knowledge (the "unknown" above) a license for humankind to continue polluting the planet and destroying the environment?
You are engaging in a logical fallacy here. It is called false dichotomy with a smidgeon of begging the question.
The counter question is:
Do you consider our lack of knowledge (the "unknown" above) a license for destroying the economies of various countries and causing greater levels of poverty?
When you have an unknown, you cannot simply assume that cutting energy use will be completely without negative impact. You have to weigh both the postive and negative impacts.
Let's say you were suffering from malaria. I tell you that rat poison will cure you. You ask for proof, but I reply, that you have no proof that it does NOT cure it, and since it COULD (according to my theory) cure you, you should take it just in case it WILL work.
As for your question number 4, the debate is not whether we should reduce pollution to stop uncontrolled global warming. The debate is whether, a) CO2 WILL result in catastrophic weather, and b) if it does will we be able to stop it even if we wanted to.
Your queston in #4 suffers from another fallacy. You have not yet established that CO2 will result in catastropic climate, so it is irrelevant at this stage.
However, the answer to part b) is that even if it WERE, even GW alrmists agree that nothing we do will have any real affect on the CO2 impact and the supposed warming effect, so it is actually a moot point.
Try your questions again.
Also, have you sold your car and unplugged your AC? Will you make a public energy ethics pledge to reduce carbon output below the world average?
Posted by: Eyago on March 21, 2007 04:14 PMThere is no logical fallacy in my question:
Humans are polluting the Earth and destroying entire ecosystems right now without knowing what sort of consequences arise from such actions.
This is a matter which is beyond dispute. Conservatives are well aware of the existence of pollution (on a massive, global scale) and environmental destruction (also on a massive, global scale).
You ask:
> Do you consider our lack of knowledge (the "unknown" above) a license for destroying the economies of various countries and causing greater levels of poverty?
My answer: Yes. Emphatically: Poverty is better than death. Right?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 04:40 PMMichelle Malkin came up with another good one: "Gore-bage".
Posted by: starboardhelm on March 21, 2007 04:49 PMI couldn't ask for a better demonstration of how ill-informed conservatives are about this subject (Global Warming).
Conservatives are in desperate need of an education in science, starboardhelm. Is it any wonder that humans have transformed the Earth into humankind's sewer?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 04:56 PMYou need to study logic a little more extensively.
with your statement:
Humans are polluting the Earth and destroying entire ecosystems right now without knowing what sort of consequences arise from such actions.
You have changed the topic of discussion. Zinc from polluting mines in Tennesee, such as the ones Al Gore received roylaties from, is a kind of pollution and there is a particular impact to the environment, but that is not the question.
The question is whether CO2 emmissions is going to affect the climate in a calamatous way. You posed your question which created a false dichotomy. You cannot then try and "rescue" your question by generalizing to all pollution. In effect you are saying pollution is bad so all efforts must be made to stop pollution even if we do not know if the pollution is harmful. That is an untenable postion to hold in and of itself. If you want to degbate that, we need to start all over with a different set of questions. Let's focus on CO2 for now, if you don't mind.
Your second response is even worse for creating another false dichotomy.
You again are begging the question that since the pollution effect is unknown you equate failure to respond to it as equalling death. That is not established. Since the effect is unknown, it cannot be also KNOWN to cause death, so we no longer have a choice between poverty and death. Back to the logic drawing board for you.
And since death is absolutely immenent in YOUR mind, where is YOUR vow of poverty? Your own lack of commitment to the solution you espouse contradicts your own argument.
If you won't do it, neither shall I, nor anyone else for that matter. We are truly all doomed, and it is entirely your failure to lead that will be the result of our doom.
> You have changed the topic of discussion. Zinc from polluting mines in Tennesee, such as the ones Al Gore received roylaties from, is a kind of pollution and there is a particular impact to the environment, but that is not the question.
The pollution of mining is relevant to this question. Human behavior on the Earth is on trial here.
Zinc mines are not exempt from consideration. Mines are a major source of pollution & environmental degradation.
I'd much prefer that all mining operations cease forever. That is how horrendous mining is to the environment.
> In effect you are saying pollution is bad so all efforts must be made to stop pollution even if we do not know if the pollution is harmful.
That is exactly what I am saying, Eyago. If you want to debate this point, we can.
> You again are begging the question that since the pollution effect is unknown you equate failure to respond to it as equalling death. That is not established. Since the effect is unknown, it cannot be also KNOWN to cause death, so we no longer have a choice between poverty and death. Back to the logic drawing board for you.
Undoubtedly, we don't know the outcome of our behavior. Ignorance is unavoidable when speaking about the future.
Plenty of people smoke but no one can say for certain that they will die specifically from smoking. Yet there are compelling reasons for discouraging people from smoking.
> And since death is absolutely immenent in YOUR mind, where is YOUR vow of poverty? Your own lack of commitment to the solution you espouse contradicts your own argument.
I am in favor of poverty, but this is a national problem which demands national sacrifices.
The United States of America must make substantial sacrifices or it will suffer the consequences. Among those consequences: Poverty.
Here are two paths which both lead to the same destination. America will become impoverished. Either our poverty will come by our own conscious choice (sacrifice) or involuntarily (and horrifically).
Choose wisely.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 05:24 PMThe information down to #20 was very good and all made great efforts with the knowledge gathered.
The information by Chris Mathews boy David is totally of base. I suggest that we not answer his pollution crap. We all know of the advances the USA has made to clean up our air and we do need to work on China and other to clean up their enviroments.
The non political scientist that are not supported by governments or political agendas does make since.
Posted by: HW on March 21, 2007 05:26 PM> I suggest that we not answer his pollution crap.
Spoken like a true conservative. Are you pro-pollution, HW?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 05:59 PMHere's a little reminder that humans are busy destroying Nature:
Uganda approves destruction of protected rainforest
The Ugandan government has approved the clearance of thousands of hectares of protected rainforest for a sugar plantation, a state newspaper said on Wednesday.
The government is set to seek parliament's permission to clear around 7,000 of 30,000 hectares in Mabira Forest Reserve, east of Kampala, before handing it over to Uganda-based Mehta Group for sugar cane farming, according to state-owned New Vision newspaper.
Prime Minister Apollo Nsibambi directed Environment Minister Mary Mutagamba to seek permission from parliament to withdraw the identified portion of forestland from a list of government-protected rainforests, it said.
Officials said President Yoweri Museveni was keen on expanding the country's agricultural and industrial base in a bid to boost his donor-dependent economy.
"This is the proper way of utilising the resources. It is easier to relocate the forest by planting trees elsewhere than to relocate a factory," Museveni's spokesman Tamale Miriundi told AFP.
***
Think about the last statement for a moment: It is easier to relocate the forest by planting trees elsewhere than to relocate a factory.
Don't you know ... these trees won't be replanted. Uganda is going to eradicate its environment for the sake of money and corporate interests.
This is the sort of suicidal foolishness which has characterized human behavior over the last five centuries at an ever-accelerating rate.
The ultimate outcome of these behaviors is not known but there are good reasons to believe that they are also not good.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 06:22 PMEnough of your phony propaganda bathed with intellectual dishonesty !
Posted by: KS on March 21, 2007 07:02 PMDo you have some specific objection to the statements above?
Engaging in an intellectual discussion about science on a conservative blog is unlikely. Where's the beef, KS?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 07:25 PMCall Al Gore, earth may be the cause of global warming. I wonder how many carbon off-sets the fungi are buying? Just in case.
Posted by: Elaine on March 21, 2007 08:31 PMA question that has been bothering me and I have wished to ask you, how will the man-made CO2 emissions that are warming the globe help the Muslims (who you defend so valiantly), who are already in a deafening heat and will probably be the first to die when this global warming really starts to kick off (our miner canaries, if you will), but who are also the biggest "harvesters" and exploiters in the cause of global warming? It seems simple enough that if the Middle East is uninhabitable, most of the oil consumed by the world won't be available because people will die trying to pump out the oil that feeds the Muslim network. For self-preservation and as a world saving gesture, shouldn't the peace loving Muslim Middle East voluntarily refrain from selling their "death"? How do you justify and defend the illogic of supporting both oil and Muslims?
Posted by: Elaine on March 21, 2007 09:03 PMDid you actually read the article which you referenced?
Conservatives and science don't mix very well, do they? The level of scientific ignorance here at SoundPolitics is alarming ... especially considering ... you people do vote.
Hard to imagine America's government acting in a wise fashion when the American public has such a horrendous disinterest in reality. Americans choose to live in a cocoon of fantasy and would rather imagine that the Universe caters to their own insatiable appetites.
It is a pity to think that these people feel entitled to wealth, privilege and a leisurely consumerist lifestyle. Americans will mourn when they discover that America is bankrupt, powerless and suddenly impoverished!
Elaine, you need to open your own eyes. Your world is crumbling away right under your own two feet.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 09:10 PMI have decided over the last couple of days that you are in fact a spokesman for the oil industry. Only someone hellbent on reverse psychology could come up with the logic you possess and still be able to feed themselves.
I welcome your input at SP. It is pleasurable. It makes me want to put gas fireplaces in every room in my house and take my neighbors Prius to the next Monster Truck show.
I hope you can retire soon on the bonuses you must be receiving from driving oil sales. Your Muslim brothers (and sisters if they mattered) must be proud.
Posted by: Chris on March 21, 2007 09:19 PMThose are some ill-informed questions:
> how will the man-made CO2 emissions that are warming the globe help the Muslims (who you defend so valiantly), who are already in a deafening heat and will probably be the first to die when this global warming really starts to kick off (our miner canaries, if you will), but who are also the biggest "harvesters" and exploiters in the cause of global warming?
Needless to say, under all possible scientific Global Warming scenarios the deserts of the Middle East will not become so hot as to kill the inhabitants of those lands.
> It seems simple enough that if the Middle East is uninhabitable, most of the oil consumed by the world won't be available because people will die trying to pump out the oil that feeds the Muslim network. For self-preservation and as a world saving gesture, shouldn't the peace loving Muslim Middle East voluntarily refrain from selling their "death"?
The Muslims of the Middle East should not sell oil to the West -- especially the United States of America -- for many good reasons. I suspect that a day will come (within forty years) in which the Muslims cease exporting oil altogether.
I wonder how much gasoline will cost then? Driving is going to become prohibitively expensive and America's consumer culture is going to collapse. We will suffer tremendously.
Oh well. Too bad for America.
> How do you justify and defend the illogic of supporting both oil and Muslims?
I don't support oil. I am opposed to oil altogether.
I do support the Muslims. The Muslims are people, too. They are identical in every sense to you or I. Their children are cute, their women are beautiful, and their life has an intrinsic value which transcends any differences of religion, culture or custom between us.
The Muslims will survive the end of oil. American consumer culture will not.
> How about actually rebutting the article without resorting to insults.
Okay, Elaine, let's try this again:
Would you kindly tell me what the article is saying and relate it to the subject of Global Warming?
I don't imagine that you actually understand the article. I suspect that you don't. Please demonstrate otherwise.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 09:23 PM"NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records".
This guy get worse as the night progresses and is a pest! Ban the bumb! DM is brainless!
But this is as misleading as its science is unsettled.
True, the mean surface temperature of Mercury is 166.86 degrees Celsius (with swings of up to 600 degrees C) while Venus maintains a steadier average of 456.85 degrees on the same scale. And, Venus's atmosphere is, indeed, comprised 96% of CO2 while Mercury has no significant atmosphere at all. On the surface (so to speak), this might lead to the conclusion that CO2 levels alone are responsible for heat capture.
Yet, Mars has a CO2 percentage similar to that of Venus and its mean temperature is an extremely cold -87.5 degrees Celsius.
The difference -- which Gore neglected to mention -- is that the atmospheric density on Venus is 90 times that of Earth while Earth's is 100 times that of Mars. On top of which, another contributor to the so-called "Greenhouse Gas" effect on Venus is the presence of an extremely thick bank of clouds primarily comprised of sulfuric acid, NOT CO2.
Now consider that Earth's atmospheric volume is but 0.0360% CO2 and compare its mean temperature of 15 degrees Celsius to that of its neighbors on each side. It would certainly seem reasonable to argue then, that an atmosphere's density, rather than its CO2 volume, would represent the greater probable impact upon its temperature.
Without co2 the earth's surface would be 140 degrees.
Posted by: HW on March 21, 2007 10:17 PMImagine you pour a nice cold glass of beer (or pop). Take a sip. OK, take a few, but leave some for the experiment. Nice and fizzy and refreshing, isn't it? Now put what's left in the sun and wait for it to warm up, a half hour or so. Take a sip now. Is it still fizzy? No? That's because all the CO2 has escaped into the atmosphere!
This is an amplified version of what happens when seas and lakes warm. In beer and pop, the CO2 is held in solution by pressure as well when it's in the container, so the fizziness will eventually dissipate even under refrigeration once it's poured. But the basic principle is the same -- cold water holds more CO2 than warm.
It's true that all gases are more soluble in cold water than in warm. But this effect is particularly large for gases like CO2 that undergo specific reactions with water.
So, when the earth's waters warm, a disproportionate amount of CO2, in comparison to the major atmospheric gases, is released.
This is a simplfied explanation of why the scientists who hypothesize that the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is an effect, not a cause, of periodic global warming, have a dang good case.
And why beer, sadly, just might be a major source of human generated atmospheric CO2.
As such,CO2 is not a byproduct or pollutant but and intended result of energy production, the more efficiently one combusts a hydrocarbon, the more one produces. This is one reason why advocates of "energy efficiency" as global warming solution haven't quite perfected their argument.
Posted by: HW on March 21, 2007 11:16 PMEnough with the insults. Enough with trying to digress off onto Islam and other topics way off thread. This is a warning from the guy who can delete posts.
Posted by: Randall Parker on February 19, 2007 10:11 PM
I've ended the exchange between E-P, Bob, and David Mathews. Just deleted several posts.
Posted by: Randall Parker on February 20, 2007 07:01 PM
FYI: Dave Mathews has been banned from The Oil Drum. The sudden lack of trolling was immediately obvious, and later the staff confirmed it.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet on February 20, 2007 07:55 PM
> Why don't you now explain the why, how and where I am wrong?
Okay. In post # 38 you claim:
> Call Al Gore, earth may be the cause of global warming. I wonder how many carbon off-sets the fungi are buying? Just in case.
The article which you linked makes no such claim:
" As atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise, scientists have counted on the ground beneath our feet to soak up some of this greenhouse gas. But fungi living in the soil could throw a wrench into that plan, according to a new study, which finds that the microbes could actually cause soil to lose carbon to the atmosphere.
"Plants grow faster as CO2 levels increase, taking up more carbon from the air. Scientists have suggested that this might in turn cause soils to soak up excess carbon as well by accumulating more root matter."
In other words: The scientists have discovered that the soil will not absorb the excess carbon dioxide pollution that humans are pumping into the atmosphere. With increasing carbon in the atmosphere the fungi decomposing the soil become more active and thereby actually release more carbon, making the pollution problem worse.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 22, 2007 05:01 AM> What makes the mommie earth crowd think humans are any different in the desires to do the same thing only at a higher level?
Humans are a great deal more destructive than the bees and ants.
> After all, we are just using earths resources for our comfort, safety and dining pleasure just like the critters do. If termites emit more CO2 than humans, then what we do to the earth can't be that far off the path of natures ways.
Have you actually looked at the Earth, HW? Humans have transformed the Earth into humankind's sewer. The termites are not as terrible as the humans.
> Is that too tough a concept for you DM?
The concept is not tough, but look at this world ... Primates are bad for a planet's health!
Posted by: David Mathews on March 22, 2007 05:07 AMI'd be very happy to discuss with you the issues and problems that surround pollution in general - but only on a discussion of pollution - not on a discussion of global warming.
What you're doing here is exactly why you are being considered to be banned. You don't know anything about Global Warming, so you want to change the subject to pollution, and draw everyone into another topic. I'm quite sure that if someone were to follow your lead, you'd probably just change the subject again when you got trounced.
If you don't understand the difference between the global warming debate and a pollution debate, I suggest you go out and educate yourself first, before you try to take control of a thread. And yes, these are two seperate topics. There may be some relationship between the two, but again, you are a guest here, and you need to behave yourself as one.
In the meantime, I would say this consitutes "strike one", in this thread, does it not?
Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 22, 2007 07:14 AMI so agree, but after seeing some of the websites that david m has been banned from (3) He didn't take the hint there either. 0-:
So don't hold your breath.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 22, 2007 08:03 AMEssentially, David Mathews simply lies about everything; until he can actually back up that single statement he made his words are worth less than the photons carrying them to your eyes. Everything he posts is a lie...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on March 22, 2007 08:19 AMA great article ran in Science Daily the other day , that I linked to above. It shows that not only is it physically impossible, but mathematically incorrect to try and assign an average temperature to the dynamic nature of the earth's climate. It's possible to take local temperature of a relatively confined system like the human body, but impossible to do so with a dynamic system as massive as the earth. And especially with our relatively few measuring points.
So, instead, Al Gore relies on the emtotion of a comparison of a child to the earth. Just like other forms of environmentalism personify animals and use other such emotional games, so does Global Warming.
Al Gore is afraid of logic and reason. And that's why he's limited himself to friendly venues where he controls what's said, as he did yesterday in his congressional testimony. When confronted by real scientists, and challenged to a real debate, he always cowers (as he did recently when challenged by Bjorn Lomborg.) There is no rational basis for Global Warming, so its adherants must twist position papers of the IPCC, and hide from debate to keep their swindle alive.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 22, 2007 10:54 AM> You don't know anything about Global Warming, so you want to change the subject to pollution, and draw everyone into another topic.
Let's see ... the pollution issue is separate & distinct from the global warming issue?
That's quite remarkable, computer guy. Pollution has everything to do with this issue. What do you think is being excreted by those power plants, factories, and the rear of your car?
Why do you suppose that California's air is so smoggy? I remember standing at Sequoia National Park and looking West and seeing an ugly brown layer in the atmosphere. That's pollution, you know, and it is a terrible thing.
Global Warming is a byproduct of humankind's massive pollution of the Earth's atmosphere.
So we are going to have to talk about pollution. Too bad for your viewpoint, but this is just reality.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 22, 2007 12:18 PM> When confronted by real scientists, and challenged to a real debate, he always cowers (as he did recently when challenged by Bjorn Lomborg.) There is no rational basis for Global Warming, so its adherants must twist position papers of the IPCC, and hide from debate to keep their swindle alive.
Jeff, somehow you seem to forget that your viewpoint is a distinct minority from the scientific standpoint. The above argument sounds familiar to me ... reminds me of scientific creationists and flood geology.
Jeff, your viewpoint represents unscientific irrationality and nothing else. Too bad you are confused about your place in the Universe.
May you gain a scientific education, Jeff, because you need it.
> f your baby had a fever you would take it to the doctor....WTF kind of logic is that
Well ... JDH ... the alternative viewpoint is for the parents to take the child to a faith healer or pray to God for a cure.
You know, that is exactly how the unscientific irrational conservative masses approach this issue: God gave a primate the Earth so that the primate could consume, destroy and pollute everything!
"God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good." (Genesis 1:31)
Posted by: David Mathews on March 22, 2007 12:28 PMThe article is about Global Warming, and research that points to a cause. You can choose to listen to the source of the info (NASA) or ignore it, but if you're discussing on this forum, you need to stick to this topic. The discussion is whether or not mankind's 3 percent contribution of CO2 is causing the planet to warm up. This is what the IPCC report discusses, and that is what we're talking about right now. We may bring up various other types of pollution in another discussion, we may not (there are probably other places for you to go for that - assuming you haven't been banned there yet), but if you want to keep a voice here, I recommend you stay on topic.
We'd like to have a rational and intelligent conversaion about this issue... but instead, you seem to need to change the subject to something else. I believe from your need to change the subject, it is safe to infer that you are conceeding the point of the original article, is it not?
Your argument about pollution is a common logical fallacy known as a "straw man" argument. It is barely a tangent of the original discussion, And we're not going there. Nobody likes pollution David - especially noise pollution like what you're spewing forth here.
Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 22, 2007 12:49 PM
The subject of pollution and global warming are related in the same sense that humans and monkeys are related. The IPCC report is devoted to determining the impact of human generated pollution upon the Earth's climate. I am astonished that you have missed this point.
Here is the reason why pollution & global warming are related:
"According to the widely accepted view, at current production levels proven coal reserves will last 155 years (this according to the World Coal Institute). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) projects annual global coal consumption to grow 2.5 percent per year through 2030, by which time world consumption will be nearly double that of today. Meanwhile, coal remains the most environmentally damaging of the conventional fossil fuels. While it produces a quarter of the world's energy, it is responsible for nearly 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, principally carbon dioxide (CO2). Efforts to sequester carbon could theoretically reduce that environmental burden, but coal is still problematic for other reasons. Sulfur, mercury, and radioactive elements are released into the air when coal is burned and are difficult to capture at source. Coal mining often destroys landscapes, and recently very fine coal dust originating in China and containing arsenic and other toxic elements has been detected drifting around the globe in increasing amounts."
( Richard Heinberg - Burning the Furniture )
Actually, you should read the entire article because the implications are substantial, serious and fast approaching. Technological civilization is going to die within the next two centuries, and perhaps sooner (considering humankind's bad habit of making bad situations much worse by the foolishness of greed, violence and warfare).
Yeah ... the human story does have an end. That is why we all should begin making substantial sacrifices now rather than maximizing future suffering.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 22, 2007 01:10 PMWhat we're talking about is reduction of CO2. Your article is all fine and dandy... but its talking about reducing our reliance on Coal. In order for me to start down the path of discussing this with you, we'd need to change the subject, which we're not going to do.
Are you even capable of discussing the original article? If not, why are you here?
Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 22, 2007 01:27 PMGW became the magic bullet of the environmentalist because after years of sounding the alarmist bell, they finally had what they thought would wake up the world and scare them into ceasing their voracious appetite for environment-destroying energy consumption.
David does not bother to defend GW specifically because that is not the point. He beleives, like many others, that man is destroying his environment. This is indisputible and central to their platform. That is why GW is adopted without scrutiny by this crowd. Facts became superfluous to the central point: It affirmed their already pre-held belief that man's industrialization is destined to destroy the world. It is also why any attempts by others the dispute this is met with outright condemnation and name calling. To dispute this is to call into question the religion of the environemntalist: Earth is sacred, and man is the enemy of the earth. "Listen" closely to the language of David and others and how opponents are labeled as evil and how they are ostracized. It is also why you cannot have an actual debate with them. The issue was never about the "facts", it was simply that if the facts did not measure up to their belief, then the facts must be in error and more study will demonstrate the rightness of their central doctrine.
Afterall, the evidence is obvious. Man changes his environment, and anything manmande is inherently inferior to the natural world. No amount of logic counter to that will make a difference because everything is measured against the underlying belief that manmade changes to the environment are inherently evil.
It is also a very inconsistent beleif system since none of the adherents are actually willing to live the life they believe is 'righteous"
Posted by: Eyago on March 22, 2007 01:49 PMHave all the fun we want kicking the Goracle in the nuts, but what good is done debating the results of the growing body of evidence from the study of climate change to the effect of proving the case for industrial inaction? What good is to be done applying the same effort to what we do know to be true to the effect of cultural, technological, and commercial leadership?
Posted by: Acid Brain on March 22, 2007 02:50 PM> He beleives, like many others, that man is destroying his environment.
That is absolutely true, Eyago. Humans have destroyed the environment, eradicated entire ecosystems, driven species to extinction, and polluted the entire globe.
Humans have transformed the only living planet in the Universe into humankind's sewer.
But this is only a temporary affliction for Nature. The ultimate outcome of all of this destructive behavior is extinction. Homo sapiens will go extinct, Nature will restore all of humankind's damage, erosion will wipe away all memories of humankind's existence from the surface of the Earth, and the Universe will go on very well without us.
When I look at the Earth and examine the last ten thousand years of humankind's history, the conclusion that I draw is: This is what happens when an entire species goes suicidal.
Humankind is one sick primate. We are violent across the entire scale of Nature. We are enemies of every living thing, including our own kind (i.e., see Iraq). We have developed the tools of planetary nuclear genocide and we have also polluted the entire globe and interfered with the natural processes which have served to render the Earth hospitable to human life.
I think the problem of human foolishness will be resolved by Nature via the extinction of Homo sapiens. Humans clearly are not wise enough to avoid the catastrophes which are fast approaching. Humans aren't even wise enough to figure out some means to cease killing each other.
Humankind is a species on the brink of extinction. Humankind's behavior indicates that the species prefers extinction to sacrifice.
There's no hope whatsoever for humankind. A species lacking in wisdom and morality and restraint is utterly & absolutely hopeless.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 22, 2007 03:12 PMThere's no hope whatsoever for humankind. A species lacking in wisdom and morality and restraint is utterly & absolutely hopeless.
And you want to waste your precious little time on earth making us all know this very pertinent fact. Well, you have told us and told us, ad infinitem. I think you have served your purpose. You can hit the showers, your work is done here. We are truely tired of your self-loathing tirades. I will dabate facts, but I am not interested in theological diatribes of damnation.
But first, tell me you have sold your car, and all your possessions and moved to the Amazon jungle to live with the few humans that don't seem intent on destroying mother earth. They are the true acolytes and should be revered by you and your kind. If you have not, then you, Al Gore, John Edwards, the hollywood elites and many others are simply false adherents to a discredited faith. You are killing mother earth more than I am, and you can't seem to save your own soul but will condemn mine to perdition.
Posted by: Eyago on March 22, 2007 04:32 PM> And you want to waste your precious little time on earth making us all know this very pertinent fact.
This very pertinent fact is a most important message specifically because people must know that the apocalypse which is coming is a byproduct of humankind's own foolish, destructive, suicidal behaviors.
Don't blame God for the suffering which is coming. Don't blame Nature, either. Humans are responsible.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 22, 2007 04:47 PMSeems like Davie is a little low on his meds today... might want to double-check the dosage.
TIA
thecomputerguy
Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 22, 2007 04:57 PMIf you had terminal cancer would you want your doctor to tell you, "Don't worry. Everything is ok. You might live forever."
The doctor is legally and morally bound to tell you the truth about your health and future prospects whether you like the message or not. The doctor is not in the business of painting a rosy picture or deluding you into believing that a "miracle" cure is going to materialize just in time to save you.
If you have terminal cancer and are facing death, the doctor will tell you. You will not appreciate the message. You might hate the doctor, curse him/her out, insult him or merely deny the message ... but it is not the doctor's responsibility to care how you might emotionally respond to the diagnosis.
Humankind is in this condition today: Homo sapiens are suffering from a terminal illness. The prospects for a "cure" diminish with each passing day because humans really do value today much more than tomorrow.
At some intuitive level, I suspect that humankind senses that the end is coming. How else to explain the extreme urgency to do everything today?
Humans don't plan or make any provisions for the world a thousand years from now. At some level, perhaps, we sense that there is no future whatsoever for humankind.
Otherwise humankind's behavior over the last five centuries makes no sense whatsoever. Is it possible that humankind is deliberately extiminating itself from the Universe? Or has humankind become drunken and insane with power, energy and technology?
Those familiar with the Bible and other Scriptures know that the universal ancient expectation was that human history would end in tragedy, in an apocalypse.
How did they know?
They didn't know. Essentially this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Given humankind's sinful, evil, violent tendencies the human story can only lead to one destination: Massive, unprecedented suffering sufficient to eradicate Homo sapiens from existence.
Read the book of Revelation and tell me what you gather from St. John's vision. Humankind is not on the path to utopia. We are transforming the Earth into Hell.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 22, 2007 05:57 PMI would put the intellectual discussion about science from this blog up against any left wing blog. Show me the link ! and the left wing intellect about science ! (its an oxymoron). I see plenty of left wing emotion, feelings and half-truths on their blogs.
Q: Where are the facts to support the global warming hysteria ?
A: In the big black hole of the universe.
Don't blame God for the suffering which is coming. Don't blame Nature, either. Humans are responsible.
I think you need to read your scriptures more often. Open up the Bible of naturalism, turn to the book of Evolution, chapter 6, verses 8-29. In there you will find that man EVOLVED, and the mechanism for that evolution was SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. that means brother David, that the very mechanisms that made us what we are today, the ability to manipulate our environment to fit our needs, is simply the dominant genetic trait by which nature stumbled upon so many years ago that produced this accident of humanity. Therefor, we are not the creaters of our own past, present NOR future but simply the accidentental byproduct of genetic mutation. In effect, we are entirely natural and whether our parasitic nature eventually destroys the host on which we attached ourselves or not, it is, in fact the most natural of process and t makes no logical sense to attempt to subvert nature herself by trying to undo millenia of natural selection inbreeding.
As for your doctor analogy, it is worthless in that light. The best you can offer Dr. David is that you can tell the patinet that one day he will die, time and cause unknown. Life, is in fact, terminal. but sense you can't be more specific than that, there is little value in your diagnosis.
Posted by: Eyago on March 22, 2007 07:12 PM> I think you need to read your scriptures more often. Open up the Bible of naturalism, turn to the book of Evolution, chapter 6, verses 8-29. In there you will find that man EVOLVED, and the mechanism for that evolution was SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. that means brother David, that the very mechanisms that made us what we are today, the ability to manipulate our environment to fit our needs, is simply the dominant genetic trait by which nature stumbled upon so many years ago that produced this accident of humanity.
I am glad you brought this up, Eyago.
The scientific account of humankind's future is just as dismal as the Scriptures. According to science and supported by the geological evidence: Homo sapiens will go extinct, just as billions of species have already gone extinct.
And: From the standpoint of evolution, there isn't any special significance attaching either to the survival or the extinction of Homo sapiens.
From the standpoint of evolution, Homo sapiens are just an animal, a species of primates, and fated to suffer the same fate as all of its immediate ancestors (extinction).
The message of science and religion unite in this one respect: Humankind has a dismal future.
Too bad for humankind.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 22, 2007 07:24 PMYou can't believe anything David says, even about living in Florida. He's lied, made statements he refuses to back up. Ignore the liar, even if he tries to talk about how we're all gonna die...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on March 22, 2007 07:52 PMThe message of science and religion unite in this one respect: Humankind has a dismal future.
yes, yes. We've heard all this before. What new stuff have you got for us today? Nothing? Then move on. There are other people out there that must hear that they (or more likely distant descendents of theirs) are doomed.
This adds nothing to the debate, so I think that anything else you post will be redundantly redundant at this point.
Posted by: Eyago on March 22, 2007 07:56 PM> This adds nothing to the debate ...
This information adds truth and perspective to the debate.
Those people who smoke certainly would rather not hear about cancer, but unless they hear this bleak message they won't have any reason to break their addiction.
I think that Americans won't begin to make sacrifices until the conserist delusions are interrupted by the harsh reality of the consequences of this lifestyle. Or Americans won't ... our addictions own us and our culture actively encourages the addictions to continue forever.
Extinction is more profitable than survival.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 22, 2007 08:18 PMAre you saying that earth can't change, only man can change?
I haven't been hanging out waiting for your response but I am looking forward to my very personalized response....Hello, Elaine....... It's almost like seeing my name in lights! For a knuckle-dragger like me, it's all I've got.
Posted by: Elaine on March 22, 2007 10:37 PMWhat I am saying is that the Earth is changing and that human nature cannot. Humankind has been afflicted with this particular destructive-violent insanity for the last ten thousand years and our species will not recognize the danger inherent in our illness until it is too late and our fate is sealed.
The Earth is changing and with these changes humankind's existence is extinguished. If only our species had made wiser choices in the past, or if it were possible that our species could make wise choices today.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 23, 2007 04:27 AM"THE END IS NEAR"
Posted by: dan on March 23, 2007 08:09 AM* The humanoid Cylons are the leaders of the Cylon empire and the revelation that these infiltrators can perfectly mimic human form, even down to the internal organs and lymphatic system
* Many of the new Cylons also follow a monotheistic religion. Religious fanaticism partially motivates their genocide of humanity, and despite their origins, the Cylons believe themselves to be spiritual beings
* Many of the human-form cylons also share a religious belief -- in this case, monotheism. The Cylons' monotheism seems to share many of the characteristics as the Western monotheistic religions: belief that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, that He/She will one day deliver divine retribution, and that He/She intervenes in the secular world.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=inDepthNews&storyid=2007-03-23T123943Z_01_N20346167_RTRUKOC_0_US-CUBA-HAVANA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
This is what the champions of Kyoto would prescribe for the entire population of the world. I don't want anything to do with it.
Posted by: JDH on March 23, 2007 11:59 AMI don't think you understand what JDH was trying to say.
Kyoto would make much of the world look like Cuba if we followed it's path.
Ok, if we stop all production of most everything because of GW. Like Kyoto would do. It wouldn't take long for our homes and cities to fall apart.
Pretty much like Castro has done to Cuba. Goverment can't fix all problems in life.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 23, 2007 01:53 PM> We're arguing with the little guy on the corner with the sandwich board that says;
> "THE END IS NEAR"
Needless to say, dan, you are afraid of a lot of things. Conservatives are as fearful as the man on the corner: Have you heard what conservatives are saying about illegal aliens and the average Muslim?
But the reality is that predictions of the end are common because all things do come to an end. Sometimes the end comes gradually and sometimes it comes suddenly, but eventually the end always comes.
Our American lifestyle is the unhealthy activity which will ultimately bring sorrows to us all. Should we push this limit until the biosphere fails or is it wiser to make sacrifices now which might alleviate the sufferings to come?
You decide which course you want to take. Choose wisely.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 23, 2007 02:21 PM> Cancer patients generally don't run around screaming constantly about their lack of immortality. Usually they try to beat the disease, and succeed or fail.
A very good point, Acid Brain. This is exactly what I am encouraging you to do.
If you wish to avoid the horrors which are coming you ought to make sacrifices. The American Way of Life is unhealthy, destructive and unsustainable ... this is exactly what you must sacrifice.
Otherwise you are like the cancer patients who are so addicted to cigarettes that you continue to smoke even after you have been diagnosed with cancer.
Those who want to live must live differently. the sacrifices must occur nationwide and globally.
If you want to fight against this illness this is exactly what you must do.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 23, 2007 02:26 PM> talk more about the horrors that are coming.
Consider this, thecomputerguy:
A century ago, in 1907, how would a person react if someone had predicted that Europe would explode in two world wars followed by a Cold War and that in the process over 100 million people would die.
How do you suppose that a person from 1907 would react to such news?
Optimists would deny it and even pessimists would express doubts. No one really knows the future, but we all should know that really bad things have a tendency to happen whether we expect them or not.
The Earth is going to have 9+ billion humans by 2040. The United States of America will have 400+ million citizens by that time.
If something bad happens under those circumstances it will amount to an apocalypse.
Just as a category 5 hurricane impacting Miami today would generate a national catastrophe. A hundred years ago, a small catastrophe. A hundred years before then perhaps no one would even have noticed.
For that reason, I encourage people to behave with restraint, living carefully. When resources are stretched to their limit and beyond even minor events can lead to major suffering.
Should we value our prosperity, wealth, luxury and conveniences more than the survival of future generations of humans? We shouldn't, yet we do.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 23, 2007 03:39 PM> but how is a local disaster like you've mentioned going to lead to the destruction of mankind as you've predicted
Small problems can lead to horrendous consequences. For example, mechanical failures which are inconvenient at 30 mph can lead to a horrible accident at 65 mph and could potentially lead to death at 100 mph.
Little problems at 2 billion become significant problems at 6 billion and could attain apocalyptic scale at 9+ billion.
There are plenty of vital systems which can break down in catastrophic fashion. Those levee failures in New Orleans provide some hint of the havoc which can result from small failures.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 23, 2007 04:14 PM> in 1905, in New York City, the looming disaster of the future was what to do with the mountains of horse dung being produced daily on the city's streets. The pile would be as big as the state of Vermont by the year 2007!!!!!
Oil solved the above problem. On the positive side, no mountain of dung; on the negative, global scale pollution ... you know, Climate Change.
By solving one problem humans have generated something much worse.
Besides all of this, you do know that New York City does generate a mountain of trash, don't know? That trash is toxic, too, and not biodegradable like dung.
Oh well, pick your poison.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 23, 2007 04:18 PMFor those who want to hear another voice warning of approaching dangers threatening our species this century, listen to this segment of today's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer:
Paul Solman talks with Indian activist Vandana Shiva
The impoverished are suffering, the biosphere is suffering, and humankind's survival is not guaranteed.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 23, 2007 04:49 PMThere is no motivation by and large of people who want to reduce the impacts of Anthropogenic induced Global Climate Change to reduce humanity to a mean and brutal existance. Unless you consider things like hybrid cars, coal sequestering, minimal waste systems design, high cafe standards, clean air, clean water, et al... all brutal. How many industries made it through the Clean Air Act? Most. Are we better off having done it? Is it costly? Perhaps at first, but keep in mind the first automobiles were prohibitively expensive and only for the very wealthy until Ford figured out a new trick. The cost of doing nothing is far higher in the long term. Defending not addressing climate change is a bit like telling the early explorers that they will fall off the edge of the earth looking for the new world, and that it will be a colossal waste of the crown's money.
Posted by: Acid Brain on March 24, 2007 06:37 PM> The motivation of some who make the case Catastrophic Anthropogenic GW and the prescribed "cure" seem to me to be a desire to have all of humanity reduced to a mean and brutal existance.
This is silly, JDH.
1. 2,000,000,000 humans are already living a "mean & brutal" existence. These are the impoverished people who are essentially invisible to capitalism and the prosperous hyperconsumers of the West.
2. With resource depletion, humankind has no choice except to suffer a mean & brutal existence in the future. Twenty years from now, when gasoline is $12 a gallon and rationed, how pleasant do you suppose that life if going to be in the United States of America?
3. Global scale pollution which generates climate change and ultimately floods the world's coastlines will also have the impact of bringing about a mean & brutal existence for future generations of humans. When Miami, New Orleans, and parts of New York City are underwater ... Americans will become very poor.
This present life of consumerism & luxury & obesity cannot endure forever. It is best that Americans begin making sacrifices now rather than face the full impact of Nature's fury.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 24, 2007 08:16 PMYou claim that Americans consume 25% of the worlds resources (which we'll let stand for the moment).
You also claim that by the year 2040, there will be 9 billion people on the earth, and that will strain the system to the breaking point.
But since Americans only consume 25% of the resources, what would Americans reducing their consumption really amount to?
And since Americans (I mean those born natively in America) are current below 0 population growth, according to your scenario, it won't really matter now, will it? Percentage-wise, as the population of the rest of the world grows, our percentage of the total consumption will decrease as well... and if as you say, the system won't support 9 billion people, what would Americans reducing their consumption to match levels of the rest of the world do? Really, according to your belief system, it will only buy a few decades, as population continues to grow... according to your system, the world is screwed regardless of what Americans do...
As a matter of fact, you could say that we would be doing the rest of the world a favor... after all, if the system is going to crash, wouldn't it be more humane for it to crash with a 9 billion population, rather than with say an 11 billion population?
Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 24, 2007 08:43 PM> But since Americans only consume 25% of the resources, what would Americans reducing their consumption really amount to?
"Only" 25%? When 300 million people consume one fourth of the world's resources that constitutes a crime against humanity.
America's won't have any choice about reducing its consumption, either. There are forces already active on the Earth sufficient to cut off America's gluttony in a moment.
For example, the moment that other governments realize that American dollars are worthless paper there's a pretty good chance that they will cease exporting their valuable raw materials to us for that paper.
Otherwise, the forces of resource depletion will serve to stop America's gluttony dead. When there is no more oil left to export the American consumers will discover that there is no gasoline at the gas stations. Life will change, that much is certain, and not for the better.
> And since Americans (I mean those born natively in America) are current below 0 population growth, according to your scenario, it won't really matter now, will it?
America's population is expected to rise from 300 million to 400 million over the next several decades, so it will really matter.
If there are 400,000,000 Americans and gasoline costs $12 a gallon, I'd say that here is an ideal recipe for civil unrest. Especially if the economy goes into a depression and suddenly 25% of the population is unemployed.
> As a matter of fact, you could say that we would be doing the rest of the world a favor... after all, if the system is going to crash, wouldn't it be more humane for it to crash with a 9 billion population, rather than with say an 11 billion population?
You have your numbers, wrong. The population crash isn't the drop from 11 billion to 9 billion. More likely than not, when the human population crashes it will mean that population drops from 9 billion to 500 million.
Such a drop would involve plenty of Americans dying horrifically, too.
That's why America ought to begin making substantial sacrifices now while it is still possible. America needs to adopt an entirely new lifestyle, culture and set of values.
The American Way of Life is dying. At this point, we are faced with the choice of making extremely painful sacrifices now or otherwise suffering an apocalypse.
Choose wisely.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 24, 2007 09:01 PMDoes the earth know the difference between American polution and Chinese polution? Won't the globe react exactly the same? And I am wondering what you are doing to stop/slow down the bomb attacks in the Middle East. Those bomb attacks are causing massive amounts of CO-2 emmissions compared to the square footage they effect. The children that are burned up must be emitting unacceptable levels of carbon.
Posted by: Elaine on March 24, 2007 09:47 PM