Discussions
Climate Change & More-On Global Warming Religion
Posted by globalgirl • 12/28/07 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Tags: agenda, climate change, earth, environment, gaia, gaia-capitalism, global warming, planet, religion, virgin earth challenge
NOTE: This is a continuation from the original thread: "http://www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/gore-climate-change-is-it-religion
In this thread, I'd like us to address the following:
Where do WE go from here? What is the agenda behind the global warming movement? What is fact vs fiction?
Please label your responses so we can easily track the responses (GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE, SOLUTIONS, AGENDAS, RELIGION, etc).
Read and comment on my latest blog post, "The Virgin Earth Challenge, Gaia-Capitalism, & Religion": globallyminded.com/Blog/files/Virgin-Earth-Challenge,-Gaia-Capitalism,-&-Re...)
User Comments
-
LABEL = a little of all of it. 8^)
OK, I get to open up the new thread!
First off, I'll try to keep brevity in mind here. Global warming as a crisis is bunk. Its being proved day after day as more and more REAL scientists come out of hiding to add their 2 cents from their particular fields of expertise.
Should we be doing better on/with the environment? Of Course! Recycle, reduce, reuse, etc. That is simply common sense. But I don't have any faith whatsoever, that "legislation" will be the changing factor. All legislation on climate will do is destroy the environment, not help it.
In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources." Bingo! Save the planet by being smarter, not by collapsing the entire western civilizations economies.
Ok, did my part to kick this off. Jump on in the water of discussion folks.
John
Hoopy Frood Dude
hoopyfrooddude.blogspot.com/-
We are called to steward the earth. We will never be able to "save the planet". No human can do this. We can, of course, be more faithful and wise with how we steward the earth's resources. We can and should act on the 3R's - reduce, recycle, reuse - oh and one more appropriate 'R' for this season - regift!
-
What are Ronalds credentials in this matter? Any?
I think I will take the advice of the CSIRO before that of a politician.
-
-
Anyone hear of the Virgin Earth Challenge? www.virginearth.com/?
Richard Branson recently won the UN Citizen of the Year Award for his eco-advocacy. Branson and Gore are both on the bandwagon, spreading their propaganda or, better stated, "global warming fear campaign".
This is VERY interesting to me as it continues to tie together the relationship between Gore and Lovelock and Lovelock's "Gaia Theory" now conveniently called Earth System Science!-
Hey Kat!
I read some of that report from the link you provided. It sounds like a bribe to make someone or group produce something, anything, to further their fear mongering cause to "Save the Planet" because as we know from watching CNN, our "Planet is in Peril", right? LOL
Yeah, if the Lord ever decides to take this planet from us, I hope I am no longer living to see our planet exlode into tiny little pieces.
Honestly, why is Al Gore only talking and not doing something himself to preserve the Earth he loves so much, "Earth in the Balance", right, his balance.
(Raising my hand with an answer) I know why he is doing nothing, I know, I know. Yes Mom of Twin Girls, what is your answer. Because Mr. Al Gore and elitist of his ilk are doing their best to brainwash us lemmings into submission. He is trying to control our every move and "playing on our fears" about a "Planet in Peril" is the only way he and his elitist buddies can reach their final goal. A One World Government. Because, we all know there really is no LEFT vs RIGHT? Right? This is all but a show for the masses. Washington has to create chaos in order to divert our attention from what they are really doing, reducing the population. -
I've been busy all day and away from my computer. I am fascinated no one commented on my post! People must not want to see.
I will post more about my point tomorrow. -
I read it. It wasn't compelling to me in any way. -
As I said in my recent blog post, man will never be able to save the planet. We are not saviors. I find it fascinating that people are not listening to the words of Al Gore, Richard Branson and James Lovelock, all judges for Virgin Earth Challenge. I have this info on my blog, but I am going to go ahead and post it here:
The following are excerpts taken from my latest blog:
globallyminded.com/Blog/files/Virgin-Earth-Challenge,-Gaia-Capitalism,-&-Re...
The Virgin Earth Challenge, a joint partnership formed by Richard Branson and Al Gore, is a prize of $25 million for "a commercially viable design which results in the removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases so as to contribute materially to the stability of Earth’s climate." There is a panel of five judges - all "world authorities" in their respective industries: Al Gore, Sir Crispin Tickell, Tim Flannery, Jim Hansen and James Lovelock. Interestingly, the birth of the Virgin Earth Prize* is one of a several initiatives investing in renewable energy research, development and production as part of Virgin Group's "Gaia Capitalism" project and a $3 billion dollar Clinton Initiative pledge (Sept 2006).
Amongst many intriguing issues related to this initiative, is why Virgin chose the term "Gaia Capitalism"? Gaia or Gaea, a term from ancient Greek mythology, means earth goddess and mother of Cronus and the Titans in ancient mythology. Capitalism, or private enterprise system, is an economic system based on private ownership of the production and distribution of goods. I think it is very interesting that Branson and his group would coin "Gaia Capitalism" in light of what both words mean and the agenda of Gore, Lovelock and friends. More and more, I see the hardcore preaching of global warming rooted in a cult-like, enviro-religion of worshiping the so-called mother earth instead of the Creator God.
According to Wikipedia, "The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis that proposes that living and nonliving parts of the earth are viewed as a complex interacting system that can be thought of as a single organism. Named after the Greek earth goddess, this hypothesis postulates that all living things have a regulatory effect on the Earth's environment that promotes life overall."
We are called to steward the earth, my friends, not to save it. We will never save this earth.
I have more info on my blog post. -
it's all very interesting -
I think so too.
I like to know what is BEHIND a movement, thought, action, belief, law, etc.
If we understand the core, we can begin to see the issues more clearly. -
when you know who's at the core, you probably wouldn't post on the Internet about it :-)
-
I want to...
-
what difference does it make?
it's like people that read about Hitler, why waste time on it, it depletes energy and for many people creates fear
In quantum physics the observer impacts on the experiment -
Very good point. This is why discretion is important. I don't talk too much about things I find...most people don't want to hear because they find it is better for them.
However, the truth really does set one free. -
the sort of truth you are talking about is not necessarily freeing, it can bind peole with fear
-
Interesting thought.
Don't you think much of the world is being indoctrinated into the fear of global warming and its implications (threat of disease, food shortages, lack of non-renewable energy, etc)?
Let's look at CNN's recent "Planet in Peril" or Gore's statement of a "Planetary emergency" and "moral and spiritual challenges".
There are more fear based comments being thrown around (and I have quoted them on my recent blog - specifically the judges for Virgin Earth Challenge - they are propagating a MAJOR fear campaign, pointing fingers at each of us and telling us we are in danger, etc).
This is creating FEAR.
My probing is a means for me to reclaim peace and wonder and not buy into the doomsday preaching that is spreading like wildfire.
I don't want to create fear - I want to dispel, squelch, and bind it. -
replied email
-
-
-
Ditto
-
-
Global Warming as a crisis is bunk? Global Warming is a fact; that it may be a crisis waiting to happen is not disputed by any real scientists. Perhaps you meant to say that human involvement in global warming - AGW - is disputed by a very small number of scientists. Most of whom are reliant on data that is dubious at best, fraudulent at worst.
I would personally never quote Ronald Reagan, purely for personal reasons. I wouldn't wish to be associated with a chap who knew very little about what happens on planet earth, whose economic policies will have catastophic consequences for generations to come, and someone who is essentially a bigotted second rate actor.
As for GW being a religion...if it is then everything involving a thought process is a religion. My belief that Japanese cars are better than American cars is a religion. My preference for Friends over Cold Feet is a religion. Yawn.-
Oh good, I was wondering when the environmental dogmatists would show up. I would love to see you back up most of these sweeping statements, Gary. (Although, I'm with you on not quoting Reagan for pretty much any reason, especially scientific.)
You say: "That it may be a crisis waiting to happen is not disputed by any real scientists."
Well, on a charitable reading, you aren't really saying anything here besides maybe possibly climate change could some day conceivably be a crisis, which, no of course no serious scientist will reject this statement, nor do any of the level-headed people involved in this thread.
What IS bunk is the doomsday scenario promoted by Al Gore and company, which is rooted in an incorrect and fallacious understanding of the C02/climate change relationship.
This has taken hold in the public imagination because he had a nifty slide show, but it really is not science. The global warming "consensus" is a myth. This sort of academic bullying and dogmatizing in the face of clear fact what makes environmentalism parallel a religion.
Serious scientists reject this sort of thinking out of hand. There is no good evidence in support of apocalyptic sea level rises or any of that nonsense. Plug the right variables into the right computer simulation and you can have the world looking like whatever you want in ten or twenty years, but it doesn't make it true. They can't even predict what the weather's going to be tomorrow. -
POLITICS, ECONOMICS
Certain similar sentiments were once expressed about Abe Lincoln as president, and if my memory serves me right he was even described as a dictator and an ape, or some similar primate, in a New York newspaper during the Civil War.
As for Reagan's economic policies, more people across all social strata fared better under his presidency than they did under Clinton's. Under Clinton's presidency, the rich became fewer but wealthier. This was the analysis and conclusion of the GAO ... I need to clear my throat, excuse me ... under Clinton's presidency.
Better to focus on the evangelism of Mr Gore & Company, Ltd and their two new testaments, and avoid Mr Reagan. :-) By the way, did you read that private papers in Reagan's own hand were found and read, and the final conclusion after reading and examining them was: 'brilliant', 'a genius'.
But back on topic, for the life of me, I can't figure out who Mr Gore & Company's new god is, unless it's Money, perhaps? You suppose it is? -
A definition of religion:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Taken from The American Heritage Dictionary.
Basically, it's your world view. How the world works, why it works that way, and who (if anyone) is responsible for setting it in place. Also the moral grounding based on that world view. What you see as right and wrong. And so for those zealously devoted to Global Warming it is a religion. They may not admit to that, but it is, or at least part of a larger religion.
Of course, by this definition, atheism is a religion, where as I'm sure several people will argue that it is just the opposite. That is to say, an absence of religion.
I'm not really sure where I stand on that. I think perhaps it is a religion. A religion that believes that religion is pointless. -
brigid: I can see where lots of people see atheism as a religion, and I think this is a disconnect between people who have faith (in the spiritual sense) and people who don't. There's a great quote by Don Hirschberg: Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
-
Many points to disagree on.
Heres a list of almost 20,000 in the USA alone who disagree maybe they don't have real PHD's, Real scientists so if einstein disagreed with Bohr he wasn't a real scientist? Makes you sound like a kid in grade school.
www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm -
@GensSlub3:
GREAT link! THANK you! Having taken a comment break from this thread, I had to respond to your comment! Where have you been? Welcome! Please continue to add!
This segment is taken directly from The Global Warming Petition Project Home Page: www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Here is an article worth a read: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm)
Also, an analysis worth a read: Diagnosing Al Gore: Truth in the Balance
sitewave.net/news/MaryEllenGilder.htm -
In addition to the links about the Petition Project, here is a video DEFINITELY worth viewing:
The Global Warming Myth - Dr Noah Robinson - Telecosm 2007
Phd in Chemistry from CalTech - Watch video: www.discovery.org/v/30
PLEASE watch this video.
-
-
@garyd
Nope, didn't even remotely mean human only involvement. Global warming isn't exceeding any temperature variation that hasn't already existed at a previous era in earths history. Greenland is called GREENland for a reason. Palm trees have been dug up in the artic circle. The antarctic shelf has doubled in size. The dark ages were approximatelly ten degrees hotter than it is now. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occured BEFORE world war 2.
Mount St. Helens' eruption put more crap into the air than the sum total of all mankinds historical existance.(The total energy output, was equivalent to 400 million tons of TNT - approximately 20,000 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs.) And it's not the only volcano to pop it's top during mankinds existance. Man made involvement? Nope, it's natural cycles which have been occuring for millenia, and will continue to do so for millenia.
Here is one of the not-real scientists, myprofile.cos.com/glrmc. Here is his lecture.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno
A handful of more not-real scientists:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk
www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro
Here is the dubious and fraudulent data; erm, I mean the data that the IPCC used and was then used by the dissenting ranks to dissent global warming.
www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf
www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NAS.M&M.pdf
www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf
www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf
www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM-W05-background.pdf
By the way, since this has "supposedly" been such an issue for a couple decades now, why didn't gore bring it up while he was hanging around as the VP? He had the white house platform then to speak from about it. hoopyfrooddude.blogspot.com/2007/11/ive-said-it-for-while-now-gores-in-it.h...
As I said before, sure we should be taking better care of the environment, but no need to destroy our economy trying to live up to standards that no other country in the world will have to measure up to. Especially since China is actually a bigger poluter than America is.
John
Hoopy Frood Dude
hoopyfrooddude.blogspot.com/-
Did you ever read "Footprints of the Gods" by Graham Hancock?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprints_of_the_Gods
Book: www.amazon.com/Fingerprints-Gods-Graham-Hancock/dp/0517887290
He has some very interesting data in his book, similar to the palm trees found in the arctic... -
Wow. You really did your homework. And it's nice to see someone else notice the Mt. St. Helens thing. (I didn't mention the details of its energy output, though. Nice touch.)
Wonder what the output was for Krakatoa? I think that one may have been bigger than St. Helens. -
@Unfettered:
We see his religious preference differently. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. In the end, we never do know the heart of man. Only God does. However, our words can be lip service but our actions, practices, and behaviors (over the long haul), will eventually reveal our true ideological foundation.
-
-
I know people would rather argue about what scientists supposedly say, rather than read what the scientists actually say. But in the off chance someone is REALLY interested, here's some (read...SOME not the ONLY) statements from the scientific community:
APS (American Physical Society): www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science): www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0218am_statement.shtml
AMS (American Meteorological Society): www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html-
Did you actually read any of those yourself unfettered? If so you seem to be taken in by fallacious reasoning, in fact these articles all prove our point. The only facts presented in them is that "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring." Nobody disagrees with this.
But what does not follow, and what they present no evidence for, are the catastrophic predictions them draw from this fact. How do you not see this? -
yhc: Did I take an opinion on which side was right? Yes, I read them. Where did I state what my opinion was and why do you assume you know it and can argue against it?
-
Ok, you got me there. I guess I assumed you were on the other side because of the sarcasm. My fault, sorry to jump to conclusions, seems like I do that a lot:)
-
There was no sarcasm. I took part in the last debate up to the point where it became hysterical claims about Gore's supposed paganism and the HAARP project in Alaska controlling the weather.
I routinely see people arguing about what is good science or bad science without understanding science at all, or even citing any. I think this is pointless. I'm not on either "side". Science is only strengthened by healthy debate and skepticism, but I don't see these threads as being either: just a whole bunch of supposition and finger pointing, for the most part.
By giving links to the positions taken by members of the scientific community, I was trying to provide a better basis for any global warming debate rather than "religion" or "fear tactics". -
"I routinely see people arguing about what is good science or bad science without understanding science at all, or even citing any. I think this is pointless."
Ok, so we do disagree. And I have a very healthy understanding of what good science is, thank you, so let's not rehash all of that.
The point of this discussion is rather to determine where the good science ends and the dogma of Al Gore and those types begins. But you seem happy to ignore all this, so I'll move along to more productive lines of conversation. -
yhc: Once again, you've put words in my mouth and then told me I'm wrong. I agree with you about what the point of these threads are. Since we're talking about "where good science ends", I find it extremely helpful to cite scientific opinion. By all means, find some productive conversation rather than misconstruing other opinions and claiming they're too ignorant to understand yours, or are choosing to ignore things, when you exhibit that same behavior in almost every post you make.
-
There are nut cases on both sides, so let's try to play nice, 'kay?
By they way, thank you very much for the reference links, Unfettered. -
brigid: My pleasure! Here's another great one with TONS of various categories linking to data. Not all of it is very accessible to the public from the point of view of being useful to anyone without a science background, but there's some great stuff here nonetheless:
gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html -
@Unfettered:
"Gore's supposed paganism"
Why does it bother you that Gore may very well be a pagan? Most of our world leaders worship "other gods". Understanding their position helps to understand their framing. Given Gore has become a global icon for global warming, such examination of his belief system is prudent. Gore has said many words (and I have copied a few on this thread) stressing quite fervently of the spiritual implications of global warming. -
globalgirl: It bothers me because he doesn't say he is, only his detractors. The only evidence you provided for this only listed Gore as talking about where the word Gaia comes from. If he were a pagan, that wouldn't be a problem for me at all.
-
-
John said: "Global warming isn't exceeding any temperature variation that hasn't already existed at a previous era in earths history."
yhc said: "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring."
Neither has addressed the real issue that is incontrovertible - that these things have NEVER happened with well over billion people living on the planet. Many of those 6 billion live in low lying coastal areas and many more depend on global trade for their 'daily bread'. For the first time in history, in the current era, a drought in the middle of the USA can affect the caloric intake of China. A few bad years of crops in Mexico can affect food supplies halfway around the world. So, THIS has NEVER happened in prior eras. This is unique to our times.
Humans have spent most of history in nomadic bands that could pick up and move with the changes in the season and shifts in climate. We don't live that way anymore.
Sitting around debating what role humans have played in climate change does a disservice to humanity since the real issue is what we are going to do about this change that is occurring, perhaps completely naturally if you want to believe that, is NOT the same as past changes. It is changing faster than scientists had predicted, and we have more people at risk from changes in weather pattern than at any time in the history of the planet.-
That should have read: "well over six billion people living on the planet"
-
Climate change happens with in every era, tech. Why do you think the wooly mammoths went extinct? Even more recently, during the revolutionary war era there was a "little ice age" affecting the planet. Like that famous painting of Washing crossing the iced over Delaware river (which it hasn't done in the modern era). Before that is was the Medieval Warming Period.
Climate changes all the time. And nobody is disputing that the are real environmental problems like overpopulation, topsoil erosion, etc. as was mentioned in the previous thread. The problem at the heart of this discussion is that the global warming hysteria is overshadowing these. I think you ought to read the previous thread, tech. -
I did read it, and contributed to it. You still haven't addressed the fact that when Washington crossed the Delaware (10 miles from my house) the majority of the world was not entrenched in cities with modern sewage and water systems and completely dependent on food supplies from miles and miles away. Back then most people got there food (with the exception of spices) from local farming - their own or local farmers. It's only been in the last hundred and fifty years that railroads have created food interdependence on national and continental scales.
I don't see ANY hysteria except when it comes to the blame issue that seems to be more interesting to people. Maybe the fact that the problems facing our current world population and economy are too big to fix contributes to that, but who knows. As I've blogged about, overpopulation is the key problem we face since its the root of so many other problems. -
Well it sounds like we agree more than we disagree. But look at your posts: Who exactly is blaming whom?
-
Several dozen of the posts in the old thread involved arguing about whether or not human activity plays a role in climate change. Since at this point we haven't had anyone do more than point at 'authorities' that they feel support their position it all amounts to mental masturbation.
When globalgirl asked about suggestions for the tack to take on the new thread I suggested that we try to avoid that whole issue. The arctic has less sea ice in the summer this year than any time since we have been watching. Thats a plain fact. Glaciers that supply drinking water to hundreds of millions of people are retreating faster than new groundwater is being discovered. Why this is happening is irrelevant. Explaining to people in northern India or in the lower slopes of the Andes who are listing their source of fresh water that this is a natural occurrence won't make them any less thirsty.
Spending one's time shooting down people's beliefs - beliefs founded on reports by groups of scientists on both sides of the issue - seems to be more science as fodder for entertainment than anything real. I prefer taking a more pragmatic approach and moving on to address the results of changes in climate patterns that can be felt, seen, and photographed and not worrying about whether its a natural or unnatural phenomenon. -
CLIMATE CHANGE
@techfun: 'It is changing faster than scientists had predicted, and we have more people at risk from changes in weather pattern than at any time in the history of the planet.'
Climate change has actually been inconsistent, in spite of a rise in temperature. And the history of humans has not been as long as earth's history. However, what risks may be feared by changes in weather patterns is more a fact of stable populations and their current concentrations (this is a factor that has not surfaced yet in discussions).
Historically, peoples migrated for a number of reasons; two were weather and food resources, that go hand in glove.
And regarding, 'changing faster than scientists had predicted', we again wait at the wharf to greet facts 'in half a boat'. -
aliasinkhorn: Regarding 'changing faster than scientists had predicted' - there is no waiting. I am specifically referring to the announced results of data gathered by the IPCC. Their early predictions turned out to have been too conservative and some of the changes they were tracking were occurring at a faster than projected rater. Disappearance of Arctic sea ice in the summer, methane release from Siberian former permafrost summer thaws, and Glacial retreat in Greenland, among others, all meet that criteria.
You can argue whether or not the things they are tracking matter and there may be other things they are tracking that are occurring slower than projected, I can't say with certainty since I am just an observer. The point is that changes that we can track empirically are occurring faster than projected by the scientists tracking them. Until there is another scientific body similar to the IPCC out there I'm gonna go with the conservative estimates they have produced with input from other sources, including the US and UK governments. -
Somehow I doubt that the Swiss got sea salt from their backyards in 1500.
And I must say that modern sewage systems are something of an improvement from the ditches of the Middle Ages. Not to mention the risk of getting pelted with the contents of chamber pots while walking down the street.
I can't begin to imagine what that must have smelled like. -
Excellent points, Techfun, and along the lines of what do WE do in light of climate change and possible dire consequences, specifically: shortage of food, fresh water, resources, problems with trade, etc.
I'd like some discussion posts about SOLUTIONS.
Techfun and others, how do you think humans should respond to the threat of climate change?
1. Organic gardens?
2. Alternative energy (we are YEARS from seeing the implementation of such sources on a global level - so what do we do in the meantime? What will our society look like without oil?)
3. Encouraging homeowners to go green or downsize while choosing green building solutions?
4. Encouraging tele-commuting to reduce eco-footprint for companies and individuals?
5. Corporate eco-responsibility: the installation of solar panels immediately?
~~~~~~~~~~~
WHAT ARE YOUR SOLUTIONS?
-
-
Hmm, no climate change is not bunk. It is affecting real people in a lot of places. Enter island communities disappear in places like Indonesia.
green.yahoo.com/news/nm/20071203/lf_nm/climate_indonesia_islands_dc.html
It is just not reported in mainstream news. We get too see Alaska become warm. It has become so warm that there are boom towns where there used to be ice sheets.
Katrina was not a freak accident like people want to believe.
Arguing about science is rather stupid when you can see the physical events like melting Greenland glaciers, floods, massive tornados, heat waves and other events unfold.
Arguing about whether they are caused by "global warming" is almost a moot point. It is reversing the damage and preventing more damage that is more important.
We would like to think that we shouldn't address "global warming" because it will cause financial devastation to the United States.
Lets look at the real economic results of this.
1) To address global warming Japan and Germany changed their pollution control and gas milage for cars. This means a Japanese and a German car get 40 MPG on average. American cars get 20 MPG.
2) To address global warming Japan and Germany invested in wind and solar power. Japan and Germany went from being second and third in production of solar power and wind to being first and second with the United States coming in third.
3) To address global warming, Japan and Germany invested in more energy efficiency in appliances, their appliances use 30% less energy and cost the same amount. Comparably we are third in this.
4) Pollution control is a massive industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars. When the United States fails to meet the standards which other countries are creating, we cease to be competitive. The United States is effectively handing over the production of pollution control equipment to Japan, Germany, and now Canada.
5) The same goes for public transportation. Canada will take the lead in hybrid electric trains, and Japan and Germany are already far ahead of the United States.
6) I know I sound like a self centered American, but unlike many Americans, I understand the competitive impact which environmental technology brings to industries.
7) If we don't address climate change we will not just become a polluted country, we will become a country that has fallen behind the other industrial powers.-
I think it's so funny when environmentalists talk about Katrina being the direct result of "global warming." Just goes to show the tie to religion yet again. Jerry Falwell said the exact same thing about Katrina, only it was "god punishing New Orleans" for wickedness. Both are about equally accurate. Hurricanes happen, people! It's tragic, but that is just the weather. Not to mention the fact that that city was built below sea level.
And ice melts when it gets warmer. Places that are cold don't stay cold for eternity, the world is a dynamic, ever changing place. You can whine and moan all you want, but it won't transmute your fear of change into a real crisis.
I think you guys ought to be called Environmental Fundamentalist, or Ecovangelicals or something. -
CLIMATE CHANGE, SOLUTIONS
@wehireu, regarding the para,
'Arguing about science is rather stupid when you can see the physical events like melting Greenland glaciers, floods, massive tornados, heat waves and other events unfold.'
it is essential in agreements that all of these events are inventoried with others not listed. Herein lies a proper concern in inviting a common ground for understanding the nature of the problem and, as a result, what can be done and what cannot to effect the climate (change). It has been a challenge for some to include factors and events that occur in addition to the ones listed.
Glaciers are currently a puzzle and scientist are aggressively seeking to understand them in the context of climate change and are developing new hypotheses now. Demonstrating the application of science methodology, all while debates rage. It suggests that some folks are too far ahead of science.
There has been no discussion on teleconnection and its effect on climates (pl), with the exception of Techfun's well remarked note that China's airdung is falling on the west coast. But what is it ALL about? Something is effecting the winter weather in South America and Australian; its getting cold. The chilly cold weather in the US southeast last April(?) destroyed citrus crops - preceeded by a nice, pleasant warm weather. Is this due to teleconnection?
When someone says 'dinosaurs walked here once', they point to the physical evidence, and say. 'look here, here's their tracks in the rock', everyone says 'Wow' and believes him or her. When scientists say 'here locked into these sediments are the patterns of climate change over epochs', there is a proportion of the population that behaves like English is their third language.
And last, I agree with your interest in developing and merchandising products that are energy efficient. It has never been excluded from those interested in the environment or energy resources conservation. But I wont go to market with my vegetables on a pig truck. These products don't belong in Mr Gore's portfolio. If he wants to make a change, let him play Johnny Appleseed and plant trees. -
I would love to have a car with better gas millage and energy efficient light bulbs. If only to reduce my bills.
(See my post in this thread about capitalism and the environment.)
In any case, Global Warming may well be happening. The average temperature of the planet does seem to be going up.
Still, there are anomalies, as .ink. mentioned. Winter came late this year in Minnesota, but it seems to be trying to make up for lost time. It is *cold* here.
-
-
Were all going to die so get over it! The most populated areas of the world don't care about global warming so there's nothing we can do
I'm afraid-
Well, yes. Eventually. But I doubt that boiling oceans and mass extinction is going to do it. (Not this millennium, anyway.)
-
-
"Where do WE go from here?"
I'd like to support the tree farmers. Paper products, furniture, Christmas trees, and such come from trees grown on tree farms. Those farms provide habitat for animals and oxygen. Though I hear that algae is really a much greater source of oxygen then trees and other land-based plants.
I knew pond scum was good for something!
I'd also like to suggest finding commercial applications for more of our wildlife. After all, the American buffalo came back from the brink of extinction because people found out that they meat is leaner than cow meat. (There are a couple buffalo ranches near where I live. They are such cool animals.)
Anyway, if we found things about these animals that could make money I'd bet we could make a serious dent in the endangered species list. (And that is one of the concerns raise with Global Warming, the extinction of species.)
Capitalistic? Maybe. But it's worked before.-
SOLUTIONS
@brigid, you make some solid points. If the UN & Others charge countries for pollutants, the money goes where? It causes me indigestion to imagine.
Already the scientific community has spent approximately 70billion dollars researching climate change - and there is still no convergence on the issue or science. 70 billion dollars for 'debate products', and people go hungry. This is modern civilization?
But if these same creatures support and provide incentives for private, SMEs, and corporate environmental and climate-loving initiatives, I bet air quality would improve in record time. Capitalism isn't a dirty word, it keeps us all employed. An capitalism follows oppotunity. Super! Let it.
(But, I agree, there are some dirty players in capitalism.) -
There are dirty players in any group. It's part of being human.
The point is to make people want to protect the environment by making it profitable for them. A man I heard about had a stream running through his property that used to have a certain kind of rare fish in it. He wanted to repopulate the stream so he did research. He found out that if he did so he'd have to sell his cattle ranch to the state because the cattle would 'pollute the stream'.
Keeping his families source of income was more important to him than the fish, so he decided not to repopulate the stream.
I can't recall what state this was in or anything, I'm afraid. It was a long time ago that I read this story.
-
-
As I posted in my last entry in the previous discussion on this subject, I would like to repeat it as it appears that a number of you had dropped out before the end.
"Since the airmass moves generally from the west to the east across the United States, I propose that measurements of air quality should be made at about hundred mile intervals along our west coast at ground level and at about 2000-5000 feet and the same should be done along our east coast to see how much the US has impacted air quality.
I have never seen this proposed anywhere at anytime.
This would replace opinion with fact."
Everyone seems to be blaming the US for causing the bulk of air pollution yet, to the best of my knowledge, this has not been proven by measurement.-
Well, it HAS been proven that pollution from China has affected air quality on the US West Coast and that Dust from the Sahara is the primary source of the current top soil in Brazil. I suspect this research HAS been done as best as it can but it would need to be for North America as a whole and not the US. Enough clean air coming in from Canada before air reached the east coast would skew things, especially since heavy industry and coal fired power plants tend to be concentrated in the east of Canada and the US.
-
John, Just did a bit of research through Thompson Scientific and research has been done to show eastern North American pollution that can be followed by air craft sampling from North America to the Alps in Europe.
If you read the abstract at www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JD005045.shtml you can get an idea. I am not gonna pay 9$ for the full report but you might be interested since you brought up the US as a source of pollution being something in question. -
It's true that Los Angeles is infamous for smog. I don't know how far that pollution might travel since I'm not in the line of travel. (Minnesota isn't even a fly over state, we're too far north.)
Air's pretty good around here, except when a skunk becomes road kill.
-
-
yhc
You are making a lot of good points.-
Thanks, man!
-
-
Wehireu
We in the US are driving more Japanese and German cars now than ever before. -
Techfun
Good point on air mass movement.
Add measurement stations along the Canadian border also. -
Techfun
If you measure the air leaving the North American continent as a whole, everyone will still blame the US.-
AGENDAS
I do not deny we need to take care of the earth. I am opposed to the global warming fanaticism, making certain men very wealthy (and wealthier), while a widening gap grows between the poor and rich. Global warming is a cash cow for corporations, leaders, and politicians (and some scientists).
Yes, the climate is changing; as it should! Man does need to be faithful with the beautiful earth, I agree!
However, I am opposed to the rhetoric and chatter blaming you and me, while corporate and global leaders (who endorse global warming) are not leading by example (so what else is not new?), jetting around the world in their private jets, driving big SUV's, extravagant mcmansion homes, and electrical everything.
I believe there is a clear agenda going on and most people are blindly endorsing it and not asking questions about motivation and so forth.
-
-
@YHC
"Well, on a charitable reading, you aren't really saying anything here besides maybe possibly climate change could some day conceivably be a crisis, which, no of course no serious scientist will reject this statement, nor do any of the level-headed people involved in this thread."
Read charitably. I've gone through enough GW threads on various forums to appreciate that there are so few level headed people commenting on the subject. I've looked into and read enough of the anti-AGW material to appreciate that it's mostly made up of bunk, one item of which lead to the tone of my original comment - the suggestion that the 'environmentalists' plan to save the world from destruction will lead to the collapse of western civilisation. There is no basis for that. That is real bunk. Much of the anti-AGW movement is based on a global web based game of Chinese Whispers. Give me ten minutes on Google and I could 'prove' that Clinton and Shrub are homosexual lovers and part of a mysterious Skull Club. Which of my sweeping statements do you wish me to back up by the way?
Gore is not 'Global Warming'. Yet his viewpoint seems to be being taken as the last word on the subject, particularly the anti's.
Doomsday? It's absolutely certain at some stage that the changing climate on earth will make much of it uninhabitable by humans. Again. As has hapened many times before. With or without our help. Yet this simple fact (and it really is a fact, one of the few we are assured of) is dismissed as a non starter. By yourself even.
Consensus - if I must allow religion into this, I'd like to point out that ID insists there is no consensus regards evolution, and they keep sticking up lists of 'scientists' to prove it. The fact that Project Steve manages to produce longer lists of scientists, all of whom are called 'Steve' who do support evolution means little apparantly. I don't like 'consensus'; it has little meaning to those who don't agree.-
Damn. That was wonderful. Best post in this thread to date.
-
"Doomsday? It's absolutely certain at some stage that the changing climate on earth will make much of it uninhabitable by humans. Again. As has hapened many times before. With or without our help. Yet this simple fact (and it really is a fact, one of the few we are assured of) is dismissed as a non starter. By yourself even."
Of course I didn't deny this, you even quoted me not denying in your post. There is plenty of evidence that climate change is anthropogenic, not the least of which is common sense. You say that doomsday climate change is absolutely certain, but the real important question is the when. "Some stage"? We're talking hundreds or thousands of years rather than decades.
Come on, did you see An Inconvenient Truth? There is a lot of nonsense being put forward by the fringe environmentalists, and taken as gospel by the unquestioning masses. You may or may not be one of these people, I won't make an assumption either way. But you have to be willfully ignorant if you do not see the fearmongering. Al Gore may not be global warming, or whatever, but the fact is he is mainstream, he did win the Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize, and he is the subject of this thread.
You find me a climatologist/meteorologist list of Steves, and then maybe I will listen to you ID foolishness. What you call the antis are the people who don't submit to the party line on global warming. Without realizing it, you prove my point for me:
You say: "Gore is not 'Global Warming'. Yet his viewpoint seems to be being taken as the last word on the subject, particularly the anti's."
Gore is the one who says there is a consensus on Global Warming, which he represents, and the Nobel Committee and the UN panel on climate change would appear to agree with him.
There is a consensus on the theory of evolution, but as you seem to acknowledge, there is no such consensus with regard the subject of climate change. Gore et al. would lump you right in with us antis.
So what exactly are you adding to this discussion? -
@garydenness
You seem to be implying you are level headed (all of us like to think we are level headed).
However, you endorse Gore's campaign and don't want to look at other issues that may be operating BECAUSE they don't fit into your worldview. Interesting.
-
-
Check out Dr Claude Allegre's opinions(on GOOGLE) regarding GW.
He was France's former Education Minister and also a physicist.
A quote from a review by Jorg Von Uthmann of Allegre's new book, ``Ma Verite Sur la Planete'' (``My Truth About the Planet'')
"As for Gore's French followers, the author likens them to religious zealots who, far from saving humanity, are endangering it. Driven by a Judeo-Christian guilt complex, he says, French greens paint worst-case scenarios and attribute little-understood cycles to human misbehavior."-
Dr. Allegre seems to be under the belief that ice mass balance at the polar caps hasn't changed in 30 years.
Here's an article quoting his editorial (translated into English) directly: epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264835
Here's a popular science magazine's article citing a study that shows quite differently: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060302180504.htm
What I think telling is that the loss of ice mass in Antarctica contributes between 0.2 to 0.6 millimeters annually to a rise in sea level.
If these numbers are correct, and let's take the high number, a little dimensional analysis says that change in sea level due to only Antarctic ice melt equals 0.024 inches per year. It would take about 48 years at this rate to raise the sea level 1 inch.
Without having a way to calculate the rate at which the change in ice mass is, well, changing, I can't offer any better number.
Obviously, there are other glaciers, but still. Allegre seems to be wrong with his assertions, but even using a study showing he's wrong, change in ice mass at the poles doesn't seem to be "catastrophic" -
yes, I was just throwing wood on the fire to see what would happen
and if you want to throw people of track the trick is ' mix truth with untruth', prove the untruth wrong and the truth no longer seems credible, this is agreat technique that is used very often -
Yes, Tony! You are correct! This is the strategy!
-
It certainly is! Whose strategy though, I wonder?
-
@Unfettered:
Why the sarcasm? -
Well it was certainly the strategy of the Inhofe report that I blogged about at blog.techfun.org/400-skeptical-scientists last week.
-
globalgirl: No sarcasm. A serious question. I see agendas and strategies on ALL sides of this issue, whereas some choose only to see agendas on one side or the other.
-
-
GLOABAL COOLING ANYONE?
Kat, Gaia Capitalism, is this anything like Pangea? Just Kidding!
Hey, I get the newsletter from this one radio show I listen to called Southwest Radio Ministries with Dr. Noah Hutchings and this is what one of the points in the newsletter was about:
What Happened To Global Cooling?
The Norman [ Norman , Oklahoma ] Transcript has a letter from Dr. Edward F. Blick, former Professor of Engineering at OU and former Air Force Weatherman and Research Meteorologist at McDonnell Aircraft Co. in its “Letters to the Editor” section. Blick is responding to a letter that implied that the record ice melt of the arctic Ocean this past summer was evidence of global warming. Blick disagrees and cites the record ice formation in The Antarctic. He writes:
In the 1970s the media like the New York Times and Newsweek frightened people about global cooling. We were told the Arctic ice had increased by 12 percent (an area equal to England, France and Italy) and we were facing global cooling and mass starvation. Congress was urged to do something like spread coal dust over the ice in order to melt it. Fortunately Congress did nothing. It’s too bad we don’t have the same Congress! The best available global temperature data for the last 29 years is satellite data. These data show the global temperature is essentially flat…no increase in temperature! If you think education is expensive try ignorance! The global warming crowd, which includes many in Congress, think natural events are unnatural, and want to solve this imaginary problem by socking us with trillions of dollars in tax increases which will cripple our economy and put us in the poorhouse.
**Well, I agree with is assessment, but I also believe our government is brainwashing us by constantly showing Global Warming ads and those CFL lightbulbs that they say will "Save or Planet from Peril". Okay, okay, if being forced to use CFL ligtbulbs when the incadscennt bulbs are phased out in a couple of years, will the Hollywood elite and their kind also be forced to use these lightbulbs too?
Don't you get it! WAKE UP PEOPLE!! The Middle Class, you and me, are going to be no more. That is the elitist agenda..read about it, research it and listen to ALEX JONES online!-
Well, I wouldn't go that far. It's more a matter of human nature. A lot of people have short memories and don't remember that scientists once had Global Cooling as the thing to fear.
And we're supposed to respect and believe people with letters after their name, right? So when these eminent ones say that Global Warming is going to cause great calamities and that humans are to blame, people believe it.
It's ideology and shortsightedness. I doubt there's any plot. I *really* doubt that the middle class is going to vanish. -
And it typically isn't scientists creating the hype, but they're always the ones who get the blame.
-
True, it's the people speaking for the scientists, who themselves are experts if only by proxy.
Though there are some scientists I've heard get pretty doomsdayish on the subject. Mostly on documentaries of some questionable veracity. -
True, it's the people speaking for the scientists, who themselves are experts if only by proxy.
Though there are some scientists I've heard get pretty doomsdayish on the subject. Mostly on documentaries of some questionable veracity.
Edit: How did this end up as a double post? -
Yes indeed. Many scientists see a problem. What bugs me is how some people take extremists on one side and say "Extremist weirdos!" and take extremists on the other side and go "See! These are the right guys."
For the most part, I agree with Techfun. Regardless of what is natural or what is man made, we need to consider the implications for humanity, especially in low-lying areas. We also need to realize we've stripped the earth of much of its coping mechanisms.
I think a better understanding of science is a good idea in general, and a better understanding of the science behind these issues might not only help people be better informed, but may point toward areas where we should be expending our intellectual and technological resources.
All the geophysicists I know personally (which is admittedly only a handful, and they were all my professors), firmly believe Global Warming is not only an issue, but a serious one we need to deal with. They don't have agendas. They didn't push a value system on me. Most academic scientists are very nice people who are truly interested in helping make the world a better place. Unfortunately, most of them are also extremely bad at expressing this in non-scientific terms, and are easily frustrated when confronted with conflicting belief systems that have an axe to grind when science disagrees with their dogmas.
Al Gore isn't doing anything that other people haven't done with their pet causes. Do you think Brad Pitt and George Clooney have really done everything they can for Darfur? Of course not. I'm sure we could find hypocrisy there. Everyone is a hypocrite when viewed from a certain perspective.
What's bothered me about this entire thread (both threads) is the insistence that Gore must be some sort of neo-pagan worshiping an old god. I think that's just ridiculous, and I think it's as much of a fear tactic as the claim now laid at Gore's doorstep. Oh! It's a cult! There's some hidden cabal! Some hidden agenda! We jump on a word: Gaia, in this case, and draw sweeping conclusions, rather than look at it as a word. People love to see conspiracy theories when what they should be seeing are other people, some doing what they think is right, and some taking advantage. -
not all conspiracies are just theories
-
acoustic: While that's undoubtedly true, not all claims of conspiracy are accurate either. Much better to look at what's actually happening than make accusations and unfounded claims.
-
I have asked questions in both threads, taking my stance based upon Gore's book, statements, business and political affiliations and press releases.
The facts are there but some are choosing not to listen.
More on DIRECT statements made by the judges of the Virgin Earth Challenge:
Al Gore -
“Carbon dioxide levels already are far above anything measured in the prior 650,000 year record, and just last week in Paris scientists gave us their strongest warning yet of the consequences of inaction. So the dangers are clear. But the opportunities, if we take action now, are innumerable, and Sir Richard’s initiative to stimulate exploration of this new approach to the climate crisis i
-
