Mrs. Gregoire in Friday's Seattle Times: "It's time to get serious about climate change"
Here in Washington, we are experiencing the effects of climate change already ... Our state's glaciers have lost one-third of their volume since 1950. The snowpack in the Cascades is declining...Yes, it's time to get serious. That means examining the science and ignoring the politicians who lack scientific training and exploit the "climate change" bogeyman to justify expanding government control over the economy.
Take, for example, claims about the "shrinking Cascades snowpack". This page and this page are starting points to indicate that the science is new, evolving, unsettled, full of uncertainties and rife with debate over definitions and methodologies, let alone conclusions. How much is the snowpack really declining? How much is attributable to human activities? There are no clear answers, and little foundation for any rational cost/benefit analysis to justify the sweeping regulations and wealth transfers that Mrs. Gregoire and her ilk are advocating.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 21, 2007 04:25 PM | Email ThisAnother tax scheme put forth, with cherry-picked science behind it. Sounds like another Global Warming swindle in the making...
Posted by: KS on April 21, 2007 05:30 PMhttp://canticleforleibowitz.blogspot.com/2007/04/where-was-al-gore-when-greenland-got_13.html
Posted by: Bob Leibowitz on April 21, 2007 06:08 PM(Just kidding, for anybody without a sense of humor.)
Posted by: stu on April 21, 2007 07:03 PM"2,000 and 4,000 years ago, the Alps were covered by much less ice than they are today. Tree trunks and fragments of turf crushed by the glaciers have melted out of the Alpine glaciers over the past few years. During Roman times the glacier tongues were located at least 300 m higher than they are now."
"Around 1850 the Alpine glaciers reached their greatest extension since the last Ice Age. Evidence of this 'mini-Ice Age' can be seen in the fresh, steep moraine ridges which surround our Alpine glaciers."
"The postglacial period - the last 10,000 years - has been marked by five climatic cycles. Each lasted 2,000 years with rapid changes from colder to warmer or warmer to cooler weather."
In other words, climate change is natural.
Posted by: LesLein on April 21, 2007 07:03 PMI am glad that Stefan brought this subject up. There was a relevant article about the already-evident impacts of Global Warming upon the fragile ecosystems of South Florida in the Miami Herald:
"The warming of the planet means Florida, with 1,200 miles of heavily populated and vulnerable coastline, is feeling real-time effects that are foreshadowing bigger consequences:
• Sea levels are rising twice as fast as once predicted, eroding shorelines.
• Higher temperatures are shifting tropical conditions farther north.
• Oceans are more acidic.
• Seas are hotter.
• Droughts may be increasing, while periods of intense rainfall are farther apart.
"While the long-range effects are likely to affect our grandchildren, the near-term effects are whittling away at our environment with the power of spring tides.
"Sea levels are rising twice as fast as early computer models predicted, says Brian Soden, climate change scientist at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. New calculations are estimating a three-foot rise by the end of this century, he said.
"A real concern is that the models are underestimating the rate of rise," he said. "If we have another decade of [satellite] records, we may have a better idea."
"On a barrier island, such as Miami Beach or the Florida Keys, a one-foot rise could put water 200 to 2,000 feet inland, Wanless says."
***
And so forth ... you really should read the entire article. Florida's entire coast is in danger.
For those residents of Seattle who would like to appreciate the impacts of Global Warming and other human destructive activities upon their own neighborhood, I encourage you to watch the PBS Nature program:
The Pacific ocean's coral reefs are dying. I don't imagine that the SUV and all of humankind's technological civilization are worth the price of destroying the Earth's coral reefs.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 21, 2007 07:45 PM4th and 5th generation fast-neutron nuclear reactors; that are passively safe (or at least as safe as nuclear power is likely ever to be; short of fusion power (which may be solved in the next 50 years.... or may not) ); that burn up 85-90+ percent of the energy in nuclear fuel instead of the paltry 5-6 percent that is burned by current light-water reactors; and that if run in breeder configurations could provide all the electrical power for the entire US for perhaps 150+ years starting with just the ''spent'' fuel in existing plant cooling ponds and left-over cold-war nuclear warheads.
For just a small sample of info on this subject, see:
http://nuclear.energy.gov/neri/neNERIresearch.html
http://www.ne.doe.gov/genIV/neGenIV1.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelnuclear.html
For those who may be interested in more depth, see also past issues of Scientific American:
December 2005
July 2006
September 2006
How much ''global warming'' will be reduced or even how much the rate of temperature increase will decrease even if we went all out to implement Generation-IV and V reactors is a whole 'nother question. But if you want to reduce CO2 emissions, that is the one technically feasible and relatively cost-effective way to do it.
So why isn't the looney left in favor ??.....
Why, because it's not politically correct, of course; doesn't ''fit'' anywhere in their agenda play-book; and because some of the technology you cannot give to nations who don't already have the capability to produce nuclear bombs (but the US, the UK, France, Russia, and China already have all the bombs they want; throw in Japan and most of western Eurpoe and you've covered a huge chunk of global CO2 emissions); i.e.:
It's not ''fair''; because all nations will not share ''equally''.
SIDEBAR: Good link in 11 by Bob Leibowitz.
Posted by: Methow Ken on April 21, 2007 07:51 PMThe worst thing about ignoring human caused climate change is the fact that if the retarded global warming deniers are wrong, as they usually are about most issues, 1/3 of the Earth's population will have their homes underwater before long.
I know reality, the future, and science, and stuff like that do not fit inside a con's anti-reality pea brain. Hell, millions of them think the world is only 6,000 years old, and we are only biding our time till the rapture comes. Buncha freaks.
Maybe they should replace their party symbol. I think the Elephant should be replaced by a straight jacket. Better yet, a prison uniform. Either one would be more fitting, that is for sure.
One thing the GOP has going for them. They can still say they are not as bad as the NAZIS......
Posted by: Facts on April 21, 2007 07:53 PMFor a quick discussion, see also wikipeida, at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle
(with the usual caveat and caution about depending absolutely on wikipedia).
> How much ''global warming'' will be reduced or even how much the rate of temperature increase will decrease even if we went all out to implement Generation-IV and V reactors is a whole 'nother question. But if you want to reduce CO2 emissions, that is the one technically feasible and relatively cost-effective way to do it.
No, Methow, no.
I am not in favor of nuclear reactors of any type under any circumstance.
Americans must make sacrifices. Americans will have no choice except to make sacrifices.
No to Nuclear: Today, Tomorrow, Never.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 21, 2007 08:11 PMI rest my case:
His response is thoroughly typical of the left-wing eco-extemist luddite camp:
Never mind the science, technology, and engineering facts:
They are against all nuke power of any kind anywhere for any reason because.... well, just because... and because it is heresy to their dogma that we could produce massive amounts of cost-effective nuclear power while maintaining a healthy economy and achieving a huge cut in our CO2 emissions. We might even retain our position as the #1 economy in the world, and I expect the lowest-common-denominator lefties would REALLY hate that.
Posted by: Methow Ken on April 21, 2007 08:30 PMI am glad that you read my post. Very good.
> They are against all nuke power of any kind anywhere for any reason because.... well, just because...
Now, Methow, is it at all possible that those people who are opposed to nuclear power might have some good reasons to reject this option?
I fear that the conservative techno-God isn't going to save us. Jesus might (or might not) save us, but the techno-God cannot help but fail.
You say that these nuclear power plants are safe. I will ask, "Forever?"
Nuclear isn't clean power, either. The mining and processing of uranium ore involves the generation is some really nasty stuff which I would rather not leave as an inheritance for the next thousand generations of humankind.
I am in favor of Americans making substantial sacrifices. I am not in favor of destroying the rest of Nature for the sake of a few more decades of American hyperconsumer decadence.
> We might even retain our position as the #1 economy in the world ...
I have got some really bad news for you, Methow:
America is not going to retain its #1 status under any circumstance. America's days as a Hyperpower, Superpower, Empire ... are numbered.
America has squandered its fortune and exhausted its natural resources in a fifty-year party of capitalistic hyperconsumeristic decadence. Look at how fat Americans have become.
Although the stock market is flirting with 13,000 and might even reach 14,000, America's days are numbered. I suspect that America's economy will collapse suddenly -- perhaps inexplicably -- at some point within the next twenty years, maybe within the next five years.
America's great economy is treading upon the air. China could pop our bubble very easily. A bad day in the Middle East could easily do so, too. A major hurricane destroying the oil infrastructure around Houston ...
There are plenty of very bad things which could destroy America's economy suddenly. But if America is fortunate and none of these things happen, the American economy will still continue its decline to oblivion because this is a natural and inevitable outcome.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 21, 2007 08:48 PMWe have just emerged from the little Ice Age.
The slight "global warming" forgot to include the southern hemisphere.
The early twentieth century warming was more rapid than the more modern warming. In between which was cooling.
The Medieval Warming Period was warmer than today.
This is a swindle of the American people. They want to put corporate America on her knees and stop or prosperity and Global Growth!!
If you think industry is leaving the USA today, just wait until Barbara Boxer pushes through federal legislation on global warming. C-SPAN April 24th 2007. Another show trial for the media by the Democrats.
"You say that these nuclear power plants are safe. I will ask, "Forever?"
Nuclear isn't clean power, either. The mining and processing of uranium ore involves the generation is some really nasty stuff which I would rather not leave as an inheritance for the next thousand generations of humankind."
Nothing is forever - there are no guarantees in this world except death and taxes. You just don't want to get over it - wuss !
The next paragraph cited by DM is standard cherry picking from the no-nukes crowd. Once again, you show your ignorance and pomposity and clearly do not understand the overall production of nuclear energy. Virtually all of the spent nuclear fuel can now be recycled - did you know that ? 60-Minutes showed this a few weeks ago. Europe uses it widespread, especially in France - there are 85 nuclear power plants in operation. Like it or not, that is what will be left to future generations and thankfully DM won't be here to whine and complain about it !
As anyone who has been in the Cascades or up to Paradise on Ranier during the winter can tell you, we no longer have much of the white stuff during our recently globally warmed winters.
Its such a shame too not being able to ski in July like we used to do before our winters were so drastically globally warmed.
And I also miss those wonderful sleigh rides we often had in the Puyallup Valley during spring when the wheather warmed up after those harsh NW winters.
Well at least now that the glaciers have receded we can travel by water up or across Puget Sound.
And since so many of us are from Florida and California these days, maybe its not so bad after all.
Posted by: deadwood on April 22, 2007 12:40 AMDoesn't the material at the 101 site refute the claims you made @21? Not that the counter claims made there are especially convincing.
Hey, "Fact," what did you carry? And why wasn't it good enough to stop an attacker? Care to debate me re: caliber, ammo type and stopping power?
Didn't think so, coward.
He also didn't answer my question re: why didn't he provide paid time off for his employees if he thought it was a good idea.
"Facts" is another fraud, a limp dick poseur.
Look up poseur, "Facts."
It should be in your vocabulary.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 22, 2007 01:31 AMg-warmng makes sense--restrict & chain yourself down in a Kyoto-like self-flagellation as you watch the balance of the world go about its business building wealth and pass you by. you'll be second-rate and poorer, but feel damn good about your noble self. feelings. better than facts.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on April 22, 2007 03:50 AM> ... as you watch the balance of the world go about its business building wealth and pass you by
Wealth isn't everything, Jimmie. Those who would destroy their planet for the sake of their wealth will soon lose both their planet & their wealth.
Isn't it a pity that after four billion years of evolution & ten thousand years of cultural evolution & after walking on the moon ... the vast majority of humans are addicted, materialistic, self-destructive, violent, and easily brainwashed by advertising.
In other words: Humans aren't an especially intelligent animal.
Americans are going to lose their wealth. That much is certain. Americans are going to lose all of the "essential" luxuries. Will you mourn losing the automobile?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 22, 2007 04:19 AMAn Accounting of Daily Gun Deaths
Which reveals that on an average day in 2004 there were 81 gun deaths.
Altogether, guns killed 29,569 people in 2004.
So the theory that guns makes Americans safer is a myth.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 22, 2007 04:39 AMThe mainstream media in partnership with the political left and a few scientists that are doing the selling job of "Man Caused Global Warming" when in fact it cannot be scientifically proven that Man has affected the atmosphere at all.
In fact, there are many other factors that are causing the current warming trend: activity on the surface of the sun, a warming Earth's core, and by golly, maybe that's just what Nature does. It warms, then it cools (remember the 1970's?). Just like the weather, the climate fluctuates over long periods of time.
David Mathews, This whole "Man is Bad and Destroying the Earth" mantra that you, the MSM, and the politcal Left is selling: We Are'nt Buying It.
Frankly, for buying it, you are the ignorant one. Apparently, you ARE easily brainwashed by advertising.
Posted by: Easycure on April 22, 2007 06:07 AMFirst, in #36, your point is ludicrous. Your argument is silly. Guns don't kill people David. Someone must load it, aim it & pull the trigger. Also, you fail to even acknowledge that gun ownership saves lives. Just think if someone at Norris Hall--Virginia Tech were packing that fateful morning. Instead, they have a "Gun-Free Zone" and look what happened. Do you really believe "Laws" can eliminate all guns David?? What would that cost to enforce? It would require a Police State....plus of course, repealing the 2nd Amendment. Not likely.
How many more crimes would there be David if only the Bad Guys have guns??
Gun Control ain't your schtick. Perhaps one of my NRA brethren can pay you a visit down there in your Florida special place? I'd say stick to the Environment David, but there too you repeatedly fail to recognize relevant FACTS.
David Mathews--types want to control as many facets of our day-to-day life as possible because David Mathews feels only he has the key to life on Earth.
David, do you really feel life on Earth is all there is? You sound like one of those Unitarian Universalists.
Thanks. That's the real reason the left wants to take draconian measures against global warming. They want to tell the rest of us how to run our lives. If they weren't using global warming to push socialism it would be something else (in the 1970s it was the upcoming Ice Age).
Posted by: LesLein on April 22, 2007 06:59 AMAl Bore is now installing solar panels on his home... Yeah Al home come now, why not 20 years ago.
I'll turn off my heater when you move into a 800sq ft house. But until then, shut your mouth!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 22, 2007 07:47 AMThen I will believe they aren't just blathering idiots and actually believe the nonsense they are spouting. Then I will look at the science (or lack thereof) of the global warming scare.
Posted by: janet s on April 22, 2007 08:57 AMHere in 2007 there is no method by which an accurate and meaningful average global temperature can be represented. Imagine how lousy temperature data was in 1907.
The earth has no anus (though listers here can think of one) or under-tongue area.
The inventory of the mass of glacial ice is not adequate. Very COLD clear weather does not add to the mass of glaciers which grow ONLY by adding snow.
COLD clear weather allows for direct evaporation (sublimation) of ice and the shrinkage of glaciers and continental ice packs with NO warming required. People here in temperate Seattle are not familiar with ice leaving the streets even though temperatures above don't exceed the freezing point of water.
I have never seen this phenomenon addressed in the debate.
The assumption of one hundred year temperature curves relies on very shaky data.
And I'm sure Gov. Gregiore is offsetting her 75 yard drive to work by unplugging her cell phone charger when she's not actually using it to charge her phone. Or maybe she's buying carbon offsets from herself, just like Al. Either way, Stefan should apologize by buying the Governor (and the rest of us fighting to save humanity, led by our favorite troll) room temperature beer (refrigeration burns lots of unecessary carbon, after all) with all the money he's getting from the oil companies to be their shill.
Jus' sayin.
Posted by: Orrin Johnson on April 22, 2007 01:36 PMThere is no need to rehash all of the same arguments regarding global warming. We have discussed these numerous times and the only really effective conservative counterargument is: "Conservatives are scientifically illiterate, therefore Global Warming cannot occur."
From the standpoint of science, this issue is settled.
From the standpoint of politics, this issue will become settled in 2009. Political Global Warming denial will die with the end of the Bush presidency.
From the standpoint of the uninformed & disinterested public, this issue will never become settled. Conservatives continue to deny evolution a century and a half after Darwin.
There is no need to argue back and forth over the same denials and affirmations. Those who continue to live in antiscientific fantasyland will find reality imposing itself upon them in an unpleasant and unfortunate manner.
Lots of things which change in America once George W. Bush has returned to his ranch in Texas.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 22, 2007 02:20 PMHere is another news story from Florida which describes the drastic impacts of Global Warming upon my own local area (Tampa - St. Petersburg):
"Rising ocean levels and temperatures and increased variability in weather patterns caused by global warming could radically affect coastal communities in the Tampa Bay area, according to climate change experts.
"They say that in the next 80 years, the county could be plagued with massive flooding, a significant loss in wildlife, and disastrous bouts of Red Tide that could change the landscape of the area, as well as prove detrimental to the local tourism industry.
"Based on a projected 15- to 20- inch rise in average sea levels during this century, the study found that nearly 50 percent of critical salt marsh and 84 percent of tidal flats would be lost. The area of dry land is projected to decrease by 14 percent, or 174,580 acres, and roughly 30 percent of oceanfront beaches and two-thirds of all estuarine beaches would disappear.
"In Pinellas, where about 54 percent of the county's total area is made up of water, a 14 percent decrease in dry land means the barrier islands that hug the mainland could be flooded, as well as much of South Pasadena, Seminole and St. Petersburg.
"Landmarks like the Don CeSar Beach Resort in St. Pete Beach and the Redington Long Pier in Redington Beach would be underwater."
***
Which is to say: Many of the beautiful places which I visit on a regular basis will be destroyed by a sea-level rise of 15-20 inches. Florida's abundant diversity of wildlife will also suffer tremendously because these wetlands are vital to their survival.
The United States of America will lose trillions of dollars worth of property with a sea-level rise of 15-20 inches.
And ... if Americans do not begin making substantial sacrifices to their world-polluting lifestyle right now the seas will rise a great deal more than 15-20 inches. New York City might become the 21st century's New Orleans. Miami might become the 21st century's Atlantis. New Orleans will disappear beneath the waves forever.
That's the price that America will pay for the foolishness of this generation.
Deadwood is the only one that picked up on the posts I made that shows the vast amount of resources that is used to counter the claims that 97% of CO2 is natural and 3% is man made. The “Global Warming” advocates are on an all out assault to force the issue on the American people as example to the continuous post that you make on opposite ends of the USA to influence other to your way of parroting!
Maybe someday Florida will have a big earthquake... or... maybe Ms. Gregoire will rush to fix it all... What did happen to the concept of God???
Posted by: ljm on April 22, 2007 03:17 PMThe plates of the continents push the land up, thus mountains. The beaches are eroding from the waves and tides of the seas! Demwitts hasn't any logic only patriots Senator Boxer!
Posted by: HW on April 22, 2007 03:40 PM> I personally find it hilarious that DM would post about how evil guns are. After all the blathering about how he can't wait for the human race to go extinct ...
It is your behavior which is driving humankind to extinction. You are in favor of extinction because you don't care about the consequences of your own behaviors.
ljm has something to say, too:
> Maybe someday Florida will have a big earthquake...
Maybe there is something about Earth's geology that you simply don't know. Earthquakes are not going to solve the problem of rising sea levels.
Only a conservative would seek a natural catastrophe to solve a human-generated catastrophe.
> What did happen to the concept of God???
Judged on the basis of the behavior of conservatives (if not by their words) the concept of God died a long time ago.
You conservatives have abandoned Jesus & Jehovah and now your gods are named: Technology, SUVs, big fat bellies, capitalism, and the American flag.
Where has God gone? You people killed God when you destroyed His creation by covering the Earth in asphalt and filling the atmosphere with pollution.
God won't have anything at all to do with you until all of these other gods have all failed. Certainly they will fail. God will patiently wait for your humiliation.
> Science is never solved
A perfect example of scientific illiteracy.
Okay, HW, here a some questions for you:
1. Is the Earth flat?
2. Does the sun orbit the Earth?
3. Is the Earth less than 10,000 years old?
4. Are humans and chimpazees related?
5. Pollution: Good or bad?
Okay. Let's see what's settled.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 22, 2007 03:49 PMDo you drink bottled water?
Posted by: Chris on April 22, 2007 04:36 PMStop talking through your ars ! Conservative acknowledge God more than you and your ilk - I have stats to back that up also, if you care to defend the indefensible. Liberalism and Socialism are godless religions that are attempting to control thought with Political correctness and the thought police. The perversion of free society continues with those factions.
Posted by: KS on April 22, 2007 04:36 PM> Do you drink bottled water?
No, I do not, and I never have. Bottled water is an example of the extraordinary wastefulness of the consumer culture combined with the extreme stupidity of the consumer.
David, I really want to stay in tact to keep you from falling off the left-side of the Earth. Other than me, who do you really have in your life of any importance??
David, it's time to confess you are part of the Unitarian Universalist movement (akin to a nasty bowel movement).
At least one thing you can take great pride in David and that is the 2nd Amendment.
David, haven't you figured out that YOU are the reason for the 2nd Amendment. You & your Marxist pablum.
Congratulations David!!
The 2nd Amendment is a tribute to YOU!!!
You may not know beans about climatology, self-defense, the US Constitution, chemistry, hydrology, and Florida real estate, but you are SO RIGHT about the bottled water thing.
Who in his right mind would pay for water, when treated, flouridized water is available out of any tap or spickot for free? Bottled water is for yuppies, which may explain some angry responses to this from some SoundPolitics.com readers (uh, Seattle = yuppies, you know what I mean). Many people could fill up their gas tank with precious fossil fuels each week with the amount of money they spend wastefully on bottled water. Not an SUV, by any means, but at least the tank on my MotorPecan.
BTW, y'all (in case you are not into reading the fine print) all of the common brands are bottled at the same location in New Jersey on the Pasaic River. You can find the site on Google Earth if you zoom in where you can read the exit signs off the NJ turnpike (put up layers for both Expressways and Superfund sites and you will easily be able to locate the bottled water facility). No problem, glad to help any time!
You rock, DM! Keep up the good work. Only thing ... just don't write about global warming and guns ... you don't know jack....
> You may not know beans about climatology, self-defense, the US Constitution, chemistry, hydrology, and Florida real estate, but you are SO RIGHT about the bottled water thing.
It is good that we agree about one thing.
> Only thing ... just don't write about global warming and guns ... you don't know jack....
Global Warming and guns, I didn't know that these two subjects were somehow related.
Do you want to know my opinion of guns? I hate them. I would prefer that none existed, anywhere.
I am in favor of the absolute elimination of guns from the Earth. I'd like to see guns go extinct.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 22, 2007 06:15 PM"Do you want to know my opinion of guns? I hate them. I would prefer that none existed, anywhere.
I am in favor of the absolute elimination of guns from the Earth. I'd like to see guns go extinct."
David, pull yourself together. If we didn't have guns, then knives would be the weapon of choice (like the 12 year-old Taliban sympathizer who hacked off the head of someone who he believed betrayed the Taliban).
If you ban guns and knives, then folks could use fists. Perhaps you would then propose cutting off everyone's hands???
Folks could also use Organic Garden Tools like shovels, hoes & pitchforks as weapons. Do you propose banning Organic Garden Tools??
David, David, David--
All the other ego's are laughing at me, taunting me for having such a moron for my "better half".
WHY David, WHY do you have to emit such foul smelling rhetoric??
Any ego, even one as big as yours, can only tolerate so much abuse.
Guns are abhorrent.
I am in favor of the elimination of all guns and the extinction of the gun culture.
This is simply not negotiable.
Any more questions?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 22, 2007 06:54 PMOne more point. You ask a common-sense question:
> If you ban guns and knives, then folks could use fists. Perhaps you would then propose cutting off everyone's hands???
Let me say, first, that there is no doubt whatsoever that Homo sapiens are the most violent animal which has ever evolved on the Earth.
Back before there were guns, humans killed each other with swords and knives. Back before there were any swords, humans killed each other with stones. Back before humans figured out how to kill each other with stones, humans were killing each other with their bare hands.
What a terrible, miserable, pathetic, bloody, self-destructive, suicidal species!
Is it any wonder that this particular primate has destroyed an entire living planet and left a polluted, desolate wasteland in its wake?
Here is a little bit of good and bad news:
Human violence will persist as long as humankind continues to exist. What this means is: Human violence will most certainly come to an absolute & eternal end.
Any objective person observing the Earth would conclude without reservation that the Earth's plague of Homo sapiens is currently involved in a global act of self-extermination.
Not only are there more than enough nuclear weapons to eradicate humankind from the Universe, humans are destroying the environment which renders the Earth hospitable to human life.
While humankind has (as of yet) possessed enough wisdom to avoid extinction-by-nuclear-annihilation there is plenty of evidence that humans are not wise enough to avoid extinction-by-ecological-annihilation.
A species which works so hard at self-extinction will soon discover that these efforts have succeeded.
Needless to say, the average American is obese, oblivious, scientifically illiterate, and irresponsible enough to keep on shopping right up to the moment that this world comes to an end.
Too bad for America. Too bad for humankind. But the sun will keep on rising and the Earth will keep on spinning regardless.
Nature's doesn't care about the survival of Homo sapiens. God doesn't care, either.
If you want humankind to survive you ought to devote your efforts towards that goal. Otherwise the cause of survival is lost.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 22, 2007 07:35 PMAlso, we don't want your opinion on guns. We are all still having a hard time absorbing your unique views on this whole Global Warming/Global Cooling/Global Temperature Stagnation deal.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on April 22, 2007 09:22 PMYou are mistaken in suggesting that guns and global warming are not related. These are two examples of humankind's extreme foolishness and violence.
Conservatives love guns & pollution. Conservatives love SUVs & obesity.
Conservatives love landfills & smoggy skies.
Is it any wonder that this world is such a mess?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 23, 2007 04:54 AMHmmm, lets see here. Lib's I.E. Al Bore and his jets and large HOMES. Kerry and his wife... Jets LARGE homes. Many movie & rocks stars... Jets and LARGE homes.
Yeah keep talking David. LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 23, 2007 06:23 AMHere's a little news that ought to concern the gas-guzzlers of America:
Gasoline at $4 Coming to a Pump Near You, Unfazed by Rising Tab
April 23 (Bloomberg) -- Whether it's $50 to fill up your Prius or $130 for the Ford Expedition, $4-a-gallon gasoline is coming to a pump near you.
Fuel prices are rising at a pace not seen since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita knocked out a third of the U.S. oil refining industry in 2005. Gasoline consumption is climbing twice as fast as last year and will accelerate when summer travel begins late next month.
``Just as we used to think $3 a gallon was an impenetrable barrier, now it's $4,'' said Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business in College Park and former chief economist for the U.S. International Trade Commission. Gasoline at $3.50 is likely, Morici said, and a conflict with Iran or any event that disrupts crude supplies may push it to $4.
Spending on fuel in the U.S. consumes half as much household income as in the early 1980s, which means gasoline would need to reach almost $6 a gallon to have the same effect on the economy as in 1981, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas."
***
America is entering a period of crisis in regards to the price of gasoline and the supply of oil. While it is altogether possible that we will see $4 a gallon this year it is virtually guaranted that Americans will face $6 a gallon within five years.
Undoubtedly the American economy will suffer.
Supposing something really terrible happened this year (such as a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico or civil strife in Nigeria), the automotive civilization might die for lack of fuel.
Americans are living at the very edge of the abyss and yet remain in hyperconsumer fantasyland. Who is going to tell the American public that our American Way of Life is coming to an end?
Who is going to tell all the obese SUV-drivers of America that they are going to have to walk?
Americans are so wasteful that they are going to get the fate which wasteful people deserve. Those who have burned away the Earth's oil resources as if there is no tomorrow will discover that they have no future.
So it goes.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 23, 2007 06:55 AMConsider for a moment their rational. ON the one hand students are not learning adequately as demonstrated by tests contrived by liberals. The answer of course is to eliminate the tests.
On the other hand climate may be warming, perhaps. Although I am old enough to remember when the climate was cooling, perhaps.
Cooling or warming the same gloom and doom was prophesied in some cases by the same people. And the same demands were being made. History repeats.
The public schools in Washington are unable to produce students that are capable of passing tests in acceptable numbers. The political leaders of Washington are challenged in scientific areas including math, physics,engineering.
In both cases the solutions will be additional resources of citizens (sacrifices) demanded by political leaders to fuel their pet projects regardless of value. In both cases the additional resources will have the same impact that gasoline has in putting out fires. A spectacular conflagration harming all that live in the state.
When the fires burn down, our pockets emptied, the next generation will say that we didn't do enough to stem the rising tide of ignorance.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 23, 2007 08:18 AMNext morning, Dave Matthews opines:
"You are mistaken in suggesting that guns and global warming are not related."
Woah, we have a contradiction. Ohhh, no, circuits frying here ... Dave what's happening to me? I smell smoke .... electrical, type B fire ... HAL, what's happening .... pffft, ouch, !$#%#, Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do, I'm so crazy, just for the love of you ...*
You're breaking up, Dave, you're breaking up! Dave, once a top-notch blogger-bot also known as Steve Austin, we can rebuild him, we have the technology. Nah, f_ck it, why bother, he's a dick.
* TM 2001 - A Space Oddity, in case you young uns don't get the reference.
YES IT IS, COMRADE DAVE!
"Who is going to tell the American public that our American Way of Life is coming to an end?"
YOU ARE, COMRADE DAVE!
"Who is going to tell all the obese SUV-drivers of America that they are going to have to walk?"
YOU ARE, COMRADE DAVE!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
WAIT, WHAT WAS THE MIDDLE THING AGAIN???
.
Sea levels are not going to rise 15-20 inches this century. In fact, Antartic sea levesl have been lowering, and this year the Arctic icepack is staying around longer due to colder weather than normal.
Don't listen to the hype.
Can't we ban this Dave Mathews troll. He is just ranting. If Dems are so right, they now have the votes to change things for the "better". For some reason it doesn't get done...
Posted by: Mark L on April 23, 2007 09:15 AMhttp://www.american.com/archive/2007/april-0407/on-earth-day-remember-the-humans
Posted by: thecomputerguy on April 23, 2007 09:57 AMDid you see the recent article by the founder of Greenpeace where he advocates strongly for nuclear power? I could hardly believe my eyes, but a glimmer of sensibility pierced his brain there. So take heart, there is hope for liberals.
Posted by: ferrous on April 23, 2007 03:08 PM> If Dems are so right, they now have the votes to change things for the "better". For some reason it doesn't get done...
There is a lame duck president impeding progress on this issue, Mark. Once he is gone our nation will begin taking Global Warming seriously.
We just have to wait until 2009. Everything will become better in 2009.
The fridge shorted out back in ought-6, when the global warming really started to kick in and the water first came in the back door. However once we realized we could catch catfish in the walk-in closet, we knew we'd be alright. When the water gets up the the level of our flat-screen TV (which is so far still working), we hope to club some stray manatees with the halogen (environmentally friendly) lamp in order to enrich our meager diets.
We'll be OK, I guess ... but Dave, you've got to get people to change their ways BEFORE 2009. Help us Dave Matthews - you're my hero.....
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on April 23, 2007 08:58 PM...Once he is gone our nation will begin taking Global Warming seriously.
We just have to wait until 2009. Everything will become better in 2009.
Well, I guess you're just about done with us then, aren't you?
I mean, either of the two possible outcomes of the election will mean that we probably won't be seeing any more posts from you:
If Conservatives maintain the Presidency, and regain either house of Congress, it will mean that your predictions are utterly wrong, then, according to Deutoronomy 18:20-22:
"But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word which the Lord has not spoken ?'- when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him."
(of course, nobody here would ever dream of putting anybody to death - not for being an idiot and a false prophet anyway)...
And if the dems do take the White house and keep both houses of Congress, then Republicans will be irrelevant, right? I mean, according to you, things will get better, and there won't be any more need for your postulations and prognostications, now will there?
Posted by: thecomputerguy on April 23, 2007 09:46 PMSome of the Bible's most esteemed prophets made predictions which have failed. So I am not so worried about the outcome of the 2009 election.
"Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah; and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, 'Thus the Lord of hosts has said, "Zion will be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem will become ruins, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest."' Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the Lord, and the Lord changed his mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them?"
(Jeremiah 27:18-19)
But in this case, I imagine that my prediction has only a slim chance of failure. Who are the Republicans going to elect, anyway?
John McCain. Ha!
We will have to wait until 2009. If my prediction does come true and there is a Democrat in the White House, you will know for certain that a prophet has spoken to you.
When gasoline is $6 a gallon and the U.S. economy threatens to collapse, you will know that a true prophet has spoken to you.
When civilization has collapsed and trees form their own traffic jams on the eroding remnants of our nation's highways, you will know that God has warned you.
When our species has gone extinct and Nature repopulates the Earth with millions of new species replacing all of those which were lost to the human catastrophe, you will know for certain that Charles Darwin was right.
But you need not worry about Heaven or Hell or the Fate of your soul ... none of these things exist for Homo sapiens. God wouldn't spend eternity with humankind. God has about as much in common with the rocks of the ground as He has with humankind.
When we are gone, we are gone forever. When we are gone forever, we are also swiftly forgotten. When we are gone and forgotten, it is very much as if we had never existed in the first place.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 24, 2007 04:29 AMIn high regard this Mathias is held,
as the wisest in his own mind,
and throughout the land thunder shall roll,
mostly out of his behind,
Man, man, your time is sand,
your ways are leaves upon the sea,
I am the eyes of Nostradamus,
all your ways are known to me.
Man, your time is sand,
your ways are leaves upon the sea,
I am the eyes of Nostradamus,
all your ways are known to me.
A True cosnervative would ask a simpler question. Why not have our government sponsor an impartial, scientific debate, in public, so we >ball can make decisions?
For conservatives to call this a liberal plot is as inane as claiming that vaccination or fluoride or pubic sewers are liberal. BTW, The great scientist, Virchow, is considered a socailist by some because he fought German conservatives ot create a sewage system for Berlin!
As a Jeffersonian Jew, I decry any non scientific approach to such an issue. Bushist comingling fundieism and science endangers us all. On the other hand, I do worry about Al Gore. he means well but he is simplistic.
So, why not have a REAL PUBLIC debate on the issue between scientists so the PUBLIC can make up tis mind?
WWJD?
(What Would Jefferson Do?)
Posted by: seattlejew on April 24, 2007 08:06 AMWe've been having a debate for a long period of time - on this web site*, and obviously many blogs written by intelligent people all over the country. Where have you been?
If you say "reading the newspapers" maybe that would explain it. You see, they claim "the debate is over" or sometimes "even it we don't know any science" - which we don't cause we're reporters - "but, we'd better cut down on man's creation of CO2 just in case" That's like, "yeah, the science may not be settled, but we better start living under the sea right freakin' now, cause the sky may be falling. Not sure, but don't be a luddite - get with the program!"
No, you can't have a live debate on the science of climate in two hours in front of non-engineers or scientists. These things are not settled at week-long conferences, see. The modeling of the climate is not complete; there are loads of unknown factors; a computer model will spit out loads of garbage in accordance with the math model and initial/boundary conditions programmed in.
There is indeed a lot to study and debate in a scientific setting over the course of years, but the politicization of this Man-Made-GW has gone way too far now. It's too late for the proponents to back down - they've got their miserable lives and brand new careers riding on this thing.
Hey, BTW, nobody thinks this is a plot. Left-wingers are not smart enough to develop such a plot of which we do not speak of ;-} Anyhoo, it's more like anyone with common sense and scientific input on the "wrong" side of this issue will not get quoted in any MSM, the scientist will not get the grant $$, and the left-wing who support this have never learned to shut up for any length of time.
I use "left-wingers", not "liberals" as true liberals are like the Thomas Jefferson you mention - libertarians, that is.
* Obviously with the exception of a certain Mr. Matthews, who doesn't not answer questions, but instead poses many.
A True cosnervative would ask a simpler question. Why not have our government sponsor an impartial, scientific debate, in public, so we >ball can make decisions?
Very insightful observation. While it is not hosted by the Goverment, there is a group that conducts regular debates on topics like this:
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/
They regularly host debates on current issues.
Full coverage of the debate (video and audio) can be found here:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/intelligence-squared-climate-debate.html
I would recommend anyone interested in the subject review the material and watch/listen to the debate - it is very interesting...
Posted by: thecomputerguy on April 24, 2007 12:23 PMI am listening to the complete debate (90+ minutes). What did you gather from it?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 24, 2007 05:42 PMIf the pro-global warming side has better arguments, they should bring them out.
It is very nice to hear both sides of the argument given side-by-side. I have no objection to hearing both viewpoints, but I notice a distinct trend of the left to try to stifle discussion... when you hear both arguments in the same forum, it goes a long way to explaining why - and the results of the vote of the audience bear this out.
Posted by: thecomputerguy on April 24, 2007 08:36 PMScientific conclusions are not reached by means of public debate. Pretty much by definition, the public is ignorant & uninformed prior to the debate, and no one can receive a scientific education (even in the matter under dispute) within a ninety-minute timespan.
Plenty of creationists have won debates. Creationists often boast about their debate victories.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 25, 2007 04:45 AMLike, he said, thecomputerguy, most of the public doesn't know enough science make a decision on "the fate of the world", as they see it after 90 min. of discussion. This is before you even take into account that the people IN the debate don't know enough.
If the science was solid, at that point there would be no debate - scientists can check each others' work. Real science is not like psychology or any of the BS social sciences. You are either right or wrong, and it's clear to see as the numbers don't lie.
What we have right now, is a lack of understanding of all the factors that relate to long-term climate changes. In fact, there are probably many important factors that haven't even been put into the models.
The math models that purport to model the whole climate of the Earth are crapola at this stage, and the scientists know it. I think all of the mis-leading, doomsdaying talk comes from reporters that cannot read a scientific paper. They are too ignorant to be able to. thecomputerguy reminds me of one of these reporters.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on April 25, 2007 05:07 AMNice try.
The audience of these debates is not the "uniformed public"... the people who attend these things do quite a bit more than 90 minutes of research before attending them.
> If the science was solid, at that point there would be no debate - scientists can check each others' work. Real science is not like psychology or any of the BS social sciences. You are either right or wrong, and it's clear to see as the numbers don't lie.
The above is a misrepresentation of science. When dealing with complicated subjects (such as climate or the operation of the human brain) there never is an unambiguous "right or wrong" conclusion upon which all scientists would agree.
Absolute truth belongs to philosophy and religion, never science.
But you are right about one thing: "the world may indeed be coming to an end!"
Regular gasoline is already above $4 a gallon in San Franscisco and prices continue to rise. The most intense phase of summer driving in still several months ahead and there is little reason to doubt that the Gulf of Mexico will receive several major hurricanes this year:
In other words, $6 a gallon gasoline is a distinct possibility in the near future. If not this year, maybe the next. Undoubtedly within five years we will see $6 a gallon.
This world is approaching a major transformation. The automotive age is approaching its end. Any nation excessively addicted to oil will find itself in a world of pain soon.
I wonder how long the United States of America will endure after the automotive age has come to an end?
The future is bleak. Prepare for trouble.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 25, 2007 10:47 AMThe reason things are ambiguous, as I wrote above (I guess for nothing) that there are many factors in any climate-variation model that are just not known well enough to really go in the models yet.
It'll a be a long time ...
.... well not it the End Of the World as we Know It comes, meaning another intelligent statement by Dave Mathews.
I'm not holding my breath on that un, actually I feel confident enough to go ahead and invest in some computer-tech stocks (so you know I plan on living a long life - though it does seem shorter the more I time on this damn keyboard trying to explain science to clowns ... ) Oh, Lordy, I've got to get some more sunshine!
See yaaaaaa!
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on April 25, 2007 10:53 AMSo you are an engineer? Well, I am impressed.
Unfortunately, Engineers are not scientists.
Undoubtedly ... you are aware of this fact. Yes?
You say, "I feel confident enough to go ahead and invest in some computer-tech stocks ... "
Excellent. I just wonder how soon before these stocks become so much worthless paper? Your dollar bills will become worthless paper, too.
This world is in bad shape. Technological civilization is a complicated machine which won't operate so well in a post-peak oil world. A day will come when Americans will mourn the loss of food (from the grocery stores and restaurants) a whole lot more than they will mourn the loss of gasoline and automobiles.
Five hundred years of technological civilization has given humankind a 6.5 billion population, gadgets with near-divine powers, an obesity epidemic, a perpeutally-addicted public suffering from a perpetual, insane franzy of consumerism, polluted air, polluted land, polluted oceans, global-scale warfare, the nuclear menace, uncounted thousands of species extinct or near-extinct, and a living planet transformed into humankind's own special sewer.
Humankind will lose all of the benefits of technological civilization within a handful of centuries and the future will inherit the sewer, a depleted planet, a polluted planet, a planet with radically-altered climate, a planet which cannot possibly support a human population exceeding 200 million.
Billions will suffer. Billions will die. Nature's won't care. God won't perform any miracles to save humankind from Nature's apocalypse.
Homo sapiens will likely go extinct. Such is the price that humankind will pay for human foolishness and human destructiveness and human evil.
Too bad for humankind.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 25, 2007 11:48 AMFor those who still remain in technological never-never land, a little taste of reality:
"We all know the world is finite. There number of atoms is finite, and these atoms combine to form a finite number of molecules. The mix of molecules may change over time, but in total, the number of molecules is also finite.
"We also know that growth is central to our way of life. Businesses are expected to grow. Every day new businesses are formed and new products are developed. The world population is also growing, so all this adds up to a huge utilization of resources.
"At some point, growth in resource utilization must collide with the fact that the world is finite. We have grown up thinking that the world is so large that limits will never be an issue. But now, we are starting to bump up against limits."
Our World is Finite: Is This a Problem?
Simply stated: If capitalism is a mighty train, the finite Earth is the cliff that this train shall plunge down to its ultimate, inevitable demise.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 25, 2007 12:22 PMAlso, the water in house is starting to reach my internet device. Will it shock me - it's only co-axial cable, so only so many amps will flow through. I don't know whether to cancel my service, call the government to protest this bad sea-level rising thing, start using one square of toilet paper at a time, or just ride this whole thing out in the attic.
If I ride this out in the attic, I need to know exactly how much more the sea will intrude into my abode, Dave? Do you know this number? Hurry please with this information, Dave you are my ........
... Did you ever know you are my hero?
... just like the ones we used to know(can't remember that line).
... I can fly higher than the sea level,
... cause Dave Mathews is the hot air beneath my wings..... ohhhhhh da,da daah, dit dahh
BTW, the difference between Engineers and scientists is engineers have to get the answers right, as lives sometimes depend on it. Scientist just publish their stuff and hope for the best.
Buh - bye
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on April 25, 2007 03:42 PMhttp://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=ebd65ed3-80c2-441b-98ca-c4fbc7233e96&p=1
I especially like the little story on page 2 about Al Gore's Climate mentor:
Before he died, Roger Revelle co-authored a popular paper saying, 'We know too little to take any action based on global warming. If we take any action it should be an action that we can justify completely without global warming.' And Gore's staffers tried to have his name posthumously removed from that paper claiming he had been senile. And one of the other authors took it to court and won. It's funny how little coverage that got.
> Engineers and scientists is engineers have to get the answers right, as lives sometimes depend on it.
Engineers are not infallible by any means.
In this case, especially, you are promoting a path which will lead to billions of humans dying. Reckless behavior often leads to tragedy.
Reckless behavior with an entire planet leads to the apocalypse.
You ask:
> So, should I dump the stocks or not?
Hold on to your stocks forever. I really am not concerned about your money.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 25, 2007 07:07 PMThere was also a great program that was aired in the UK The Great Global Warming Swindle
It is a little over an hour in length, but it does a good job refuting a lot of the misinformation that Al Gore and his ilk have been putting out.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on April 25, 2007 07:18 PMDavid Mathews,
OK, so hold onto the stocks. I appreciate the tip. Now I have some options on stocks in H+K, Remington, FN Manufacturing, Smith + Wesson, Wesson Oil (oops, what the ?? Editor), Taurus, Glock and a few other gun manufacturers. Oh, and an investment in the Ted Nugent fan club - author of such material as "Catch Scratch Fever" and "God, Guns, and Rock n Roll"
Also, I own stocks in every auto company that makes large SUV's, not these silly-looking "cross-overs", some Halliburton, some shares of Krispy Creme, McDonalds, Men's Large and Tall shop, South Florida Pave-over-the-county Asphalt (AND Concrete) Co.
Do you think I should keep these? From what you are saying I should probably hold onto the gun stocks, as we all can use more guns, but what about the others, Dave?
Awaiting your reply,
I remain,
Dave Lincoln (up to my ass in sea water)
Hold on to all of your stock.
Your money is your own concern. A sick planet with 6.5 billion humans is my concern.
The Earth is suffering from a human plague. Nature's techniques of defeating plague species are harsh and horrendous.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 25, 2007 08:11 PMDo you think we will all get wiped out by a big strand of Nature's Dental Floss, Dave? In a way, that's scarier than the flooding going on in my house.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on April 26, 2007 04:14 AMYou may live to see how Nature resolves the problem with the Human Plague. If you do, you may wish that you did not.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 26, 2007 07:35 AMIf you are saved, you will be OK come Hell of High Water. Hell has been prophesized about by many prophets of the Old Testatament, but the true Prophet of the High Sea Levels, the great Algorachiah is, unfortunately, and idiot. Even though the water level is now up to my drawers (both clothing and the file one in my desk), I still don't believe that ugly bastard.
Jesus said "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor" (Book of Matthew 13:57). Since we don't know where in Florida you live, whould we consider the world wide web your hometown? If that is so, I can understand the way people are dissing you on this site.
Nah, I don't know, I thinks it's maybe, just maybe cause you're a freaking moron.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on April 26, 2007 08:03 AMWait and see.
The Human Problem will receive its resolution in the 21st century, likely within your lifetime.
We'll see how this world holds together with 9,000,000,000 humans and 400,000,000 obese Americans and 1,000,000,000 cars.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 26, 2007 08:07 AMNow, as far as the world goes, population stabalizes for a country when the country is developed. Asian countries are coming along, but Africa is a freakin riot, Alice.
Any solutions to these big social problems come only from the free market and enlightened freedom-oriented individuals .
All you do, Dave is bitch, bitch, bitch, but I see know solution ideas coming off your twitchy keyboard fingers. Is it that you've given up on the world? You keep writing posts that make it seem that way (the latter). As, loads of people have written you in the many replies you don't read, why are you bothering to tell everyone about our evil ways, when all is lost anyway?
I don't see you point in writing all our posts. You're not gonna be able to say "I told you so", cause you're gonna be 20' under water at the time that the ocean is just barely lapping up to Western Ave in Seattle. I'll be up in the SeaFirst building keeping my feet dry and reaching for the stars**
** Kasey Kasem for reference
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on April 26, 2007 09:35 AM