Discussions
Climate Change & More-On Global Warming Religion
Posted by globalgirl • 12/28/07 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: 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 is important and welcome.”
James Lovelock -
"To escape the consequences of global heating we need far more than Kyoto, far more than renewable energy and sustainable development. What we need is a near miracle to undo the harm that we have done. Sir Richard Branson's hugely generous prize could sow the seeds for a miraculous invention that would let us make a sustainable retreat to that lush and comfortable world we once knew. We have all spent far too long sleepwalking towards extinction."
Sir Crispin Tickell -
“We need a significant, lasting and harmless reduction in the volume of green house gases in the atmosphere. To this technology can make an important contribution. This Prize is a marvellous encouragement to all who have bright and practical ideas on how best to tackle one of the major problems of our time.”
Dr James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies -
“I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most. This is why I am supporting the Virgin Earth Challenge as a judge – we must explore all means, both known and unknown, to help alleviate this crisis.”
Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers -
“If we continue as we are, humanity will so pollute our atmosphere this century that we will create another world, the likes of which has not been seen for 50 million years. And we will destroy human civilisation in the process.”
Sir Richard Branson -
“We would also like to call on governments and members of the international community to join us in The Virgin Earth Challenge by matching or adding to the prize pot available to encourage the greatest number of entrants of those who could come up with a solution which could save our planet. If the greatest minds in the world today compete, as I’m sure they will, for The Virgin Earth Challenge, I believe that a solution to the C02 problem could hopefully be found – a solution that could save our planet - not only for our children but for all the children yet to come.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Can you not hear the fear and immediacy of their words? They are trying to control the masses with a lot of fear and propaganda and it is NOT necessary. I am a green business owner and completely for investing in and using alternative energy and stewarding the earth - but the fear and rant I loathe. -
Unfettered, some anti-global warming scientists are fired from jobs/projects, discredited, and some have even been killed under very suspicious circumstances. I can't think of names but can find and place on this thread, if warranted.
Many scientists are front men, just like some politicians. -
@Unfettered:
"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."
My friend, the play on words happens all around us but people are not listening. Symbols and double meanings are the rules of the trade. I see things ALL the time (well, sometimes I am more in tune than other times). Nonetheless, the use of words and the play on words is one way to keep followers "staying on course".
Given that Gaia is a a term that James Lovelock created a theory around, and that he is a judge on Virgin's Earth Challenge, along with Gore and Branson is significant indeed. It is not a conspiracy. It really is not hidden. It is in plain view but some don't see.
Does it matter if people don't see? No, not really. It is not imperative.
However, we have seem masses swayed throughout history by those who have propagated a belief with detrimental consequences. I don't want to use this thread to go into it, but history proves this has happened. Sadly, it will continue to happen because of power, greed and other, the natural condition of man. -
globalgirl: I love it when you accuse others of fear tactics and then talk about how some have even been killed for taking an anti-global warming stance. You see what you choose to see, just like everyone else, and I find your position on this issues to by hysterical and fear-mongering.
In another thread, you've accused new age practitioners of being Thoth worshipers trying to recruit new 'plebes'.
My friend, who's filled with fear. Keep blowing that trumpet. I think you're exactly like Gore. You accuse Gore of being a pagan, then present evidence that directly controverts that fact... and choose not to see it. You claim the HAARP project controls the weather, and can offer NO EVIDENCE that it does. You present sound bites, then construct wild tales of murder and revenge.
Does Gore have an agenda? Certainly. I find YOU 100 times more frightening. -
I would love to see evidence of these scientists who've been killed because they disagree with Global Warming.
Now, I have heard that scientists who have non-PC views and test results are less likely to get grants and such. That seems a tad more believable then the hit-men theory. -
brigid: Indeed, that has happened. It's also happened the other way around. One could read about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Political_pressure_on_scie...
-
@Unfettered...
I am NOT blowing a trumpet of fear. What I think is so VERY interesting is the lack of comment, thus far, in the thread by you or others regarding DIRECT comments from Gore, Lovelock and friends. Why?
Truly, my intent is NOT one of fear. It is one of asking HARD questions that many people are not doing - or refuse to do - because it will push them off the foundation of blind faith towards their leaders. Gore being one of them. Yes, in the former thread, you did link to NYT article (early 2000) about Gore going to church.
As I have said multiple times, and will say again, church attendance or involvement does NOT equate to being a Christian (contrary to information that dictates otherwise). To be Christian means to be a follower of JESUS, having a relationship with Him, and walking with Him. I don't expect people to understand this in the natural mind - because a spiritual revelation is required. Here is how I explain relationship: We grow in love and friendship with people through communication and the same is true with God.
Onto other matters you mentioned:
HAARP - Indeed, I am not fully convinced that HAARP is being used for climatic warfare - at least not yet. When aliasinkhorn brought up the issue of climatic warfare, I did know about HAARP's technology through various sources, including my brother who has a doctorate and is a LT Colonel in the Army. We know that the military does, in fact, employ HAARP, as I provided the link to a PDF military document on Wired the previous thread.
Should this instill fear in people IF it is true? No. Just like learning about nuclear power should not create fear in people. It is about education. Period. We've all heard it: knowledge is power.
Remember the hit movie "The Matrix"? Truth is stranger than fiction.
I abhor hypocrisy, especially ones who claim to follow Christ and make allegiances with other gods. Hypocrisy in the church happens all the time. People say one thing and PRACTICE another. We know that people who profess faith in Christ will be known "by their fruits" and that "even the elect" will fall away from the faith, leading others to ruin. This is not knew and has been going on since the beginning of time.
Hear me, only God knows the heart of man. However, the fruit of one's life will reveal much about what one holds to be true.
Regarding GAIA, all one needs to do is simply go to a search engine and see the New Age affiliation of this word and theory (now a science of all things!) -
globalgirl: You are taking opposing stances to the same issue. If affiliation with the word "Christ" doesn't make one a Christian, then certainly affiliation with the word "Gaia" doesn't make one a Gaia worshiper, yet you constantly claim it does.
The planet, Saturn, was named after a Roman god. The word Friday comes from the name of a Norse goddess.
Quite often, people borrow words. The fields of Physics and Chemistry, for example, borrowed the word "Atom" from Democritus, yet I doubt you would try to say that all nuclear physicists believe the Sun revolves around the earth, or worship Greek gods.
I think Gaia is a very fitting word for a particular world view: that of thinking of the earth as one organism, where each of its parts support the other. Does that make me a pagan, too? (note: I did not say this world view was The Truth) -
@Unfettered:
I am re-reading this thread and your sarcasm is all over. Are you angry with this discussion?
My energy with this thread is waning and I don't have time to discuss in detail why I speculate Gore's religious bent and why I think his campaign of global warming fear is a concern for the deeper agendas that are operating.
Peace to you. -
@Unfettered: Do you or do you agree with Gore? Do you think he has humanity's best interest in mind regarding GW?
Let me put it directly to you - As a follower of Jesus, I'd no more align myself to Gaia than I would aligning myself with Allah. There is tremendous power in affiliation and branding, to take from the business world.
When all is said and done, I am in agreement with caring for the earth.. but I will not worship it as a goddess. Period. -
globalgirl: I understand your point of view. I think my views on Gore have been stated in this discussion. What I'm objecting to is your insistence he's worshiping the earth, when he says no such thing.
-
@Unfettered:
Perhaps you have no reason to think Gore worships the earth because you have not heard any statement from him declaring he does. Valid.
Let's look and see what some have said about him as well as what he has said in his own words (more info can be found on the web if you so choose):
USA TODAY - opinion
www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e2247.htm
GORE'S BOOK: In Earth in the Balance
Gore wrote of his faith, which he said was ''rooted in the unshakable belief in God as creator and sustainer, a deeply personal interpretation of the relationship with Christ, and an awareness of a constant and holy spiritual presence in all people, all life, and all things.''
Faith, he wrote, should lead to an adherence to just principles, including a responsibility to preserve the earth for future generations. He talked of lessons to be learned from other religious traditions, including ancient earth goddess worship, and of God's place in the universe.
-
-
I liked Greg's videos on Youtube in this regard. He seems pretty reasonable. He gives you four options, based on four possible outcomes of the present situation. You choose. (www.youtube.com/profile?user=wonderingmind42)
What I don't see anyone saying, is this:
What are you even talking about? The world you see and talk about is solely your own hallucination. There is nothing real or true about it whatsoever. You do not exist as well as any other perceived thing of your dream. And you know it.-
lol
I think no one has brought that up because it sounds kinda silly. After all, if we're all just hallucinations then why do we all have the same hallucinations? Or are you the only real one and all of us are your hallucination? Or maybe I'm the only real one? Maybe none of us are real and we're the imaginings of some other person who we can't see? In that case, this world might as well be real since we do not exist outside of it.
Or something like that.
Great. Now my head hurts. -
Oh Albran, with all due respect, if this is all a hallucination, why waste your time here?
I call this perception of reality (all being a hallucination) a philosophical quagmire that can excuse man's behavior so conveniently.
This is not a thread about such reasoning. -
Re: Hallucination.
A lot of people that become interested in non-dualism have this view, in my life i have only met 2 real non-dualists that actually lived life that way. One was a friend of mine that is now dead, the other is very famous and I wouldn't like to quote his name, however there are a few scattered around. The rest are just quoting an idea that 'the world is an illusion', the Divine Play / leela, it is 'a projection of the mind'. There is a state that is half way between the two, the dual and non-dual, some people live in this state and move back and forwards between the two; and again many just quote books. The best test is a near death experience, this sorts them out. :-)
To be honest, I'm confident that the underlying idea of the world being an hallucination is a very valid version of the Truth and not just a loopy idea, and when you break it down to molecules some physicists would agree, the Tao of Physics by Frtjof Capra was an interesting book on this subject. But as Nisagadatta Maharaj, one the great teachers of Advaita said, 'there are as many truths as there are people'. The other one that was genuine that died in 1959(?) was Ramana Mahaharshi the sage of Arunanchala, he was the one that Mahatma Ghandi was trying to get to see but the crowds were too big.
Wheras the Christian Faith would fall into the category as Bhakti in Indian terms, the path of devotion, which is just as valid as atheism or any other chosen or unchosen way of life -
Of course, Kat, you would not like the fact of it. It would mean that you are responsible for all the shit of this world. You causing all of the pain out there? Who wants that? I understand. But what else is really your option? Get old and sick and die? It won't work.
Regarding your thread, I don't understand what your problem is with Gore? Do you really think words matter in regard to Global Warming? Or doctrine? What would Gore's beliefs have to do with his passion for a new kind of policy? Are you denying him sincerity? Are you saying his compassion is not real? Do you think he made up this story of someone in his family facing death which made him take a deeper look on life?
I saw his movie. It had quite an impact on me. Knowing this world to be my hallucination doesn't save me from getting emotionally involved. It is devastating. I am glad I have the solution. But I don't understand you at all.
Or are you irresponsible? You have your God who will take care of this mess? Good luck... -
I didn't see the movie on principle
-
On what principle, Tony?
-
Goodness, Albran, you sound offended because I don't adhere to your belief of hallucination. Forgive me for making you upset. Hallucinate all you want.
Problem with Gore: Not the right use of words. I want to know his worldview and this is a very valid question in light of his growing followers who believe that man is able to "save the planet". In addition, I believe that one of the most fastest growing religions around is pantheistic worldview.
If you have not noticed, my businesses are green. I believe in stewarding and caring for the environment.
What bothers me about Gore, et al is the money and power behind the movement and the lie that man can "SAVE THE EARTH". Mankind will NEVER save the earth because we are not saviors.
Please know that I fully endorse and support all of us caring for the planet. I don't agree with worshiping the earth, the trees, the animals as god. I worship God, the Creator, distinctly different and omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. -
Kat, you want to know what Gore's world view is? Why don't you ask him? You could save yourself making all these stupid assumptions and judgments.
Somewhere you are saying, Gore is not sincere or caring about the planet as you do, because he has a world view that makes him your enemy. It is quite a thing to say Gore is not a person of integrity. After what I have seen of him, I don't understand how you could take such a stand. But insistence on words and doctrine explains a lot. Then you say, only God sees what is inside of a person. You seem to be the exception, don't you?
You think you are not the savior of the world? Who else is? I thought, you are the light of the world?
I am upset about your take on this whole idea. Yes. Believe whatever you want, I don't care. But this just doesn't feel right to me. -
@ALBRAN:
With all due respect, your words are very harsh and hostile. I am humbled with the bristle-like responses in your post (your responses are italicized and my responses follow):
"Stupid assumptions and judgements"
I forgive you for being so harsh. Kindly examine your own ways.
"Somewhere you are saying, Gore is not sincere or caring about the planet as you do, because he has a world view that makes him your enemy."
Rubbish. This is not true. This thread is NOT a measuring scale about who cares more for the environment. Who could EVER know that? No one.
The issues addressed have NOTHING to do with your fallacious statement and far from the intentions or thoughts of my heart.
"You think you are not the savior of the world? Who else is? I thought, you are the light of the world?"
No, Albran, you are grossly mistaken. NO person will ever be the Savior of the world. JESUS Christ is the only Savior. Remember, I do not abide by your belief in the Course in Miracles.
"I am upset about your take on this whole idea."
Odd response - you can elaborate if you wish.
Asking questions, as I have done, is not only healthy, it is liberating. I will never stop to inquire, seek, probe, learn and humbly admit where I may be incorrect. -
So what is it then about, Kat? Is it about doctrine? About who qualifies to stand up and put his heart and soul into what he thinks matters most?
What pisses me off in this whole thread is your fundamentalist attitude. Maybe I am wrong, but that's how I feel.
You are not the light of the world? Jesus says otherwise...
"Ye are the light of the world." In order for your statement to be true, you would have to claim that God created you different than, or unequal to Jesus or anyone else. That you may call insanity.
-
-
This is one fucked up thread -
such a funny response :-)
-
odd
-
It's not odd at all.
It makes me really sad that so many people here grasp to everything they can find (even if it means sources from oil companies) to discredit environmentalists.
-
-
I was just thinking how none of us are supposed to be alive right now. Over the last few decades;
Weren't we all supposed to be killed off by the global cooling?
And weren't we all supposed to die from the last planet alignment when gravitational pulls would tear the planets apart?
And weren't we all supposed to die from the swarms of African killer honey bees moving north from mexico?
And weren't we all supposed to die from a bird flu epidemic sweeping the continents? (As well as a SEVERAL other bio warning thingies?)
And with all the problems inherent with the U.N., I don't think the IPCC is to be considered a fantastic source for the subject. As AliasK mentioned above, "$70 billion for debate products?" Personally, I'd be interested in knowing how much of that went directly to Kofe & Son as did the Oil for Food fiasco. But that's best left for another thread.
After all that, the Gore-ites have the gall to wonder why everyone isn't automatically jumping on the global whining band wagon?
Go figure.
John
Hoopy Frood Dude
hoopyfrooddude.blogspot.com/-
AGENDAS, MEDIA, PROPAGANDA, FRAMING
Coming from a background in the social sciences, I have not only been a participant in this thread for the last two weeks, but have also been an interested observer of both this thread and the regional and worldwide social dynamics of climate change.
The dynamics within and surrounding the topic are fraught with so much hazard that to write from an objective, neutral, comprehensive point requires - to state it harshly - 'slaying' the stupid and 'clever by half' with words.
Someone says, 'a tree is a trunk'. Someone else replies, 'but it has leaves'. And again, the first one says, 'a tree is a trunk'. And 'trunk' is repeated ad nauseum, at the exclusion of other facts; this is certainly a very unappealing individual characteristic.
There is a famous cartoon that shows two guys looking at a billboard with the word THINK. One looks at the other and asks, 'What do you suppose that means?' The problem is that some are captured so completely by a subset of 'facts' that they don't. There's mental vapor lock, and nothing new can get in. They are captured by the power and prestige of affiliation.
I have refrained from disturbing the thread with the introduction of insights from other disciplines - well, I did a little regarding political motives - but think its time to insert a brief explanatory remark about these dynamics.
In a different world, a world of politics, PR, money, influence, decision, and agenda, there is a phenomenon called 'framing'. To quote:
'In media studies, sociology and psychology, the term framing refers to an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Framing defines the packaging of an element of rhetoric in such a way as to encourage certain interpretations and to discourage others. The mass media or specific political or social movements or organizations may establish media frames.'
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)
Some people are simply not thinking. -
Let's not forget other fear campaigns: AIDS, TB, anthrax, malaria, MRSA, and on and on and on.
-
AIDS is a fear campaign? Are you trying to say AIDS isn't really happening?
-
posted in the wrong spot
-
@Unfettered:
Of course AIDS is a concern!
You missed my point. For example, when AIDS first became an issue, there were some that erroneously believed you could obtain it through non-sexual or non-bodily fluid touch (not including IV's, blood transfusions and other). SO people were worried they could catch it by a faucet, door handle, etc. No matter how much the evidence indicated otherwise, it took YEARS for people to believe it. Byproduct: fear and condoms (maybe another way to control population growth? I just thought of that one.) -
globalgirl: Condoms do indeed help prevent the spread of AIDS. I'm living proof of that. My partner is no longer living proof of that.
-
of course they help...
I am sorry to hear about your partner...
-
-
@jungl
Ain't that the truth! 8^) -
SEMANTICS, GORE, HYPOCRITE
@Unfettered,
I wish to politely point out a contradiction that perhaps innocently introjected itself in haste.
There was a remark about Clooney and Pitt: 'I'm sure we could find hypocrisy there. Everyone is a hypocrite when viewed from a certain perspective. '
as opposed to the reference to Gore: '... when what they should be seeing are other people, some doing what they think is right, and some taking advantage.'
Which of your perspectives is true?
I have had some difficulty with this: '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.'
Can you help me identify the line of comments? If you will, I have another question.-
Alias: I think Unfettered was referring to my posts about Gaia...
-
GORE, PAGANISM, WORSHIP
Ah, it is clear now.
As a metaphor, but assuredly not in fact, Gore is to some. Also to me.
He's also like a gardener, who has personally selected the most attractive flowers, arranged them in the most enticing bouqette, and with a smile or thump on wood, says, I have the answers, follow me :-)
-
-
"He's [Gore is] also like a gardener, who has personally selected the most attractive flowers, arranged them in the most enticing bouqette, and with a smile or thump on wood, says, I have the answers, follow me :-)
I like those words and images.-
globalgirl: If you had 90 minutes to present a huge issue that couldn't be covered completely even if you had a week to present the information, wouldn't you do the same? I know I would.
-
NEWS, VIDEO, GORE, EXCLUSION, 2+2
@techfun
No, GlobalGirl would not have done the same, where truth and integrity are the ruling guides.
Look at it this way, would you want Gore to do a documentary on your life using the same method? If Gore was to take the same approach about examining your life in 90 minutes, you might say,
'Hey, wait a minute, you have disclosed my life out of context, you have ignored other features and facts about my life that would certainly give viewers a different picture of me!'
Now, it should be continually stipulated, should there be a chance of forgetting, that there is climate change, that the air has been measured and reveals average warming.
I like generalities as much as the next guy; I also like the particulars. 2+2=4. It is functionally true. I want to know what subsets went into both 2s - and what was excluded.
It should also be continually remembered that 'there is more' is not making combustible headline news, and is not being factored by some well-meaning participants in these discussions. And there have been posts to turn attention and discussion to these factors. -
Techfun: I surrender, I'm ordering The Inconvenient Truth via Netflix. Then I can dialog about his 90 minutes and I'll report back.
We have all seen that bumper sticker "Question Authority". I agree. I am not afraid to question those in authority. Titles, degrees, positions don't impress nor intimidate me. A mind that thinks and analyzes the seen and unseen: captivating. -
Alias, no offense, but I prefer when globalgirl is allowed to speak for herself.
And as I am sure you are aware, Gore's documentary was examined minute by minute during a recent court case in Britain and of the hundreds and hundreds of facts presented, a mere NINE were found to be questionable - not false - merely in dispute. The court upheld the UK's educational systems wish to show the film to students as long as teachers point out those 9 items as being disputed. Its not as much 'opinion'. The "truth and integrity" have been examined by non-involved experts and they found the movie had contained enough truth and integrity to be used to educate students.
globalgirl: Rent the documentary if you like, but if you would really like to understand Gore's mindset and position, you won't do it that way. I'd love it if you found the time to read his book, "The Assault on Reason". It's not focused primarily on climate change, so it gives a much broader view of his worldview. -
@Techfun, I'll get the book and get back to you. Thanks for this recommendation.
-
-
Your point is muted by trying validate it with popular celebs. eg:Branson, others pull out Gore. Just express your great ideas without them. We can all step our efforts. How about more suggestions? Those celebs are really not going to help much. "We the People" are going to make a difference.-
I disagree. Both Gore and Branson have received global awards regarding their environmental agendas:
Gore: 2007 Nobel Peace Prize
Branson: United Nations Citizen of the Year
This is very significant as they are the ones plunking a lot of money and propaganda into global warming fear.
I have quoted these eco-evangelicals merely to bring credibility and understanding. A lot of people TALK but don't research what leaders REALLY believe, thereby missing what is happening behind the scenes. Research, listen and analyze; the agenda is quite evident. -
Considering how easily swayed these awards can be, I really don't give much credence to them. (Didn't Saddam get some kind of big shot reward once?)
Anyway, it is important to understand what exactly these people say on the subject, since people do listen to them. -
Exactly my point Brigid. Both of these awards give each of these billionaires clout before the world.
PLEASE know that I am not trying to discredit the environmental movement. I think it is imperative to take care of the earth. I am not ANTI-environment. I want to be caring for it. I just don't want worship it.
-
-
@YHC
"So what exactly are you adding to this discussion?"
You've spent long enough typing long replies to my posts. I must be adding something. Or maybe you've missed my point.
There is at least one poster here who is repeating fallacious mantras, and plenty of others are close to that intellectual level. Maybe AIDS, TB, Malaria, et al don't exist either?
@GlobalGirl
"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."
I endorsed Gore's campaign? Please do point out where. Of course I didn't. Apology accepted in advance. -
Forgive me for my misunderstanding. Maybe you can clarify your position?
-
I'm with GG. You may have added to the conversation in the sense that you made it longer, but all you are doing is forcing us to retread old issues, or let your comments go unanswered.
-
@GG
Sure. My opinion is that approximately 99.9% of people who are offering opinions on almost any subject you care to mention are repeating mantras with little understanding of the subject. They've picked a side, and they're pitching for them all the way. This thread is a good example. By and large, the average Joe is stupid and largely incapable of an objective thought. I'm really not being rude, I do genuinely believe this, and if you wish I'll provide evidence. For starters - in the UK tens of millions of people every day read the Daily Mail, The Sun, The Mirror - some even go so far as to look through the Sport. Don't get me started on real religion!
Did you mean Global Warming? Over the years I've seen the hard core right propogate their message, which has changed from 'isn't happening', to 'won't happen', to 'isn't us', whilst the pro GW camp to their credit talk of possibilities and probabilities. Purely from a basic understanding of the use of English grammar when discussing the future, the anti's concern me.
There is no doubt that humans are changing the climate. How much? The consequences? There is the possibility that human effects on the climate could be devastating. Anyone stating that this is rubbish is pretty ignorant, because they're using the wrong tense to discuss future possibilities. I live in Mexico City, for the moment. I breathe a human made climate daily, and it's not pleasant.
It's also possible that human impact on the climate will be entirely within acceptable limits. So who do you choose to believe? Personally, having watched the anti AGW movements position evolve in a less than honest manner, having seen so much of their evidence shown to be clearly fraudulent - I take a pinch of salt with anything coming out of that 'camp'.
The pro camp can be hysterical, especially if you are spending too much time looking at the extreme fringes, rather than at the science that lays a little more discreetly beneath it. But given the possible consequences, and given the benefits of improving our environment regardless of the accuracy of global warming predictions, I'm generally happy to side with the 'not overly excited' environmentalists, also hoping to see more action in preserving what natural resources we have left at the same time. I'm also generally happy to sit in the Gary camp with my own personal opinion.
Anyone who insists on a position on climate change beginning with the words 'will', 'won't', 'can't' etc in my opinion is ignorant. Anyone offering an 'I don't know for certain, but...' is at the very least being honest.
Have I clarified my position sufficiently? It's a very complex subject. I could easily write a book giving my opinion, and yes - I'd have to go back and make corrections.
@YHC - You can let my comments go unanswered if you wish. There are over 130 posts on this thread and I've let at least 125 go unanswered. Part of the reason is that most people are solidly entrenched in their view, and there is little that will change them. Perhaps if they revisited their position, took a more objective view of the subject, and decided that they don't know, then debates would be more constructive.
I enjoy taking the 'I don't know for certain' position on many subjects. It means, just for starters, I can argue with everyone! Anyway, it's late and I have a holiday to go on tomorrow. So I wish you all a Happy New Year! -
I don't know if you've clarified your position so much as watered it down.
And what a despicable view of the human race! I don't know what mentioning newspapers has to do with it (or are those tabloids? either way) but I for one am very certain most people have their own thoughts that are very personal and important to them and developed for their own reasons.
The world is a frightening and uncertain place, and this drives a lot people do take on beliefs without subjecting them to rigorous, scientific scrutiny. But this does not makes their views any less independently minded than the beliefs of the self-styled "intelligent" of us, who have the very same human limitations and are trying to answer the same unanswerable questions.
The only difference is superficial, where "Average Joe" may get comfort reading the Daily Mail or going to church or whatever, while "Mr. Smartie Pants" gets his comfort from applying the scientific method and patting himself on the back that he's got it all figured out. In the end though, neither are "objective," they are both just scared little monkeys repeating their own mantras. I do it too, we all do, so if you think you're so much smarter than 99.9% of the population at least have the intellectual fortitude to admit it to yourself. -
I've watered it down? Sure... I get the idea you're replying for the sake of it, so no more accusations of non contribution from you, gracias! I'll leave you to it...
Stupidity perhaps is for another thread, another time. What people do for comfort has nothing to do with stupidity. It's an insulting word, maybe. But I'm personally of the opinion it's true, even if I plcuked the percentage from the air. It's a climate change thread and everyone's doing it - so why not me?
But I can't help provide one more example. A minimum of 4 billion people on this planet are currently, an unquestioningly, following a false religion. This is a hard fact. Tell me please, how they are thinking independently for themselves? -
Yes, you've watered it down, by backing of some of your more difficult to defend position while managing to continue not to contributing anything new the discussion. You have asked questions and brought arguments that have been thoroughly dealt with in both the last thread and earlier in this thread. However, it becomes clear that your mind is pretty closed. I might ask you how it is you're capable of independent thought. But I'm not so please don't answer.
-
YHC:
I like this...No one has it all figured out.
"In the end though, neither are "objective," they are both just scared little monkeys repeating their own mantras. I do it too, we all do, so if you think you're so much smarter than 99.9% of the population at least have the intellectual fortitude to admit it to yourself."
-
-
INTELLECTUAL, FALLACIOUS, SPECIOUS
@ garydenness,
I delight in your comments; they are woven with bold colors and varied texture. On the other hand, the colors clash, and the texture thin as a thread and thick as a fist. I fear the cloth is useless.
Notwithstanding, misunderstanding on your part, as well as others, that is.-
Unlike your responses? Give me a break.
-
I think what .ink. is trying to say is that there's too much contrast for the posts to be useful.
-
In English, por favor? Metaphors can be great if you use them correctly.
-
-
Yikes, I can't believe I ate the whole thi… I mean, just read through this whole thread! Let's not get into name calling as this is a pretty good one as far as discussion on the topic goes. There are a few touch and go exchanges, but as in most Blog Catalog threads, people are quite respectful and civil. As I am sure many of you have also, I have seen discussions on issues like this on other sites that just appall me with the nastiness and personal attacks.
The title of Global Girl's other post on Al Gore's "religion" caused me to just ignore it out of fatigue from reading the same arguments over and over. Now maybe I am brave enough to take a look at the other thread. Thanks!
My opinion on the whole issue is, I think rather more complicated than who is right or wrong, although, after my post on my site December 22, it has been suggested by someone that my opinion is simplistic and naïve. Strangely, they did not actually comment on my post, but sent me emails directly through my contact form.
-Will-
Why do I think I might have been involved in some of those "touch and go" moments? You're absolutely right, there is no reason to be nasty and for the most part this is a very civil group for all our disparity of opinion.
Glad to see you involved in the thread, Will, I hope you continue to contribute.
-
-
BEHAVIOR, RIPOSTES
@ WT - PLEASE CONTINUE TO COMMENT.
@ unfettered - a brief, reflective response to a comment to GG.
The underlying truth and belief system conveyed in your comment has a certain air about it. Sincerely, it reminds me of the time my friend ate too many baked beans. He meant well, to enjoy his favorite dish that is, but the result for him and the rest of us was amazing! If you can only imagine! He knew he'd eaton more than he should. Nevertheless, most of us graciously controlled our laughter at the result.
My friend, we are all products of our beliefs, incidentally, you as well. This is natural, wouldn't you agree?
However, this frequently divides and establishes de facto categories of peoples, immediately or over time. Herein is the danger, sometimes, of being human, wouldn't you agree?
Unlike other animals, humans can do remarkably, wonderfully kind things, and others do despicably contemptuous things to others as a result. Has this ever happened to you? The recipient of either, I mean. Both have to me, and was probably undeserving of both :-))
GlobalGirl lives her belief and convictions that reveal a deep love, care, concern, and graciousness for others and the world your behaviour suggests is absent in you. Now this may not be true of you. It just appears so at the moment.
Better to stick with the 'game semantics'. If not, don't play it at all. There are other games to play. :-)
And, one more comment. I share her concerns. In the same matters. And I have cause to.
There's no fault in your knowledge, friend, because of your sources.
There is none in me, too, for mine. And my network reaches deeper and further than news-ink and web.
Draw the shades up, open the window. There's more to learn :-)-
As ever, you appear to be nothing more than continuously condescending and pompous in tone and word. Continue with your witticisms; your signal to noise ratio appears asymptotic to null.
-
EXPLANATION, COMFORT
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! BRAVO! There's spunk, now use it to learn!
Actually, if you look carefully, I am talking, not writing. Just cant see and hear and feel it - the gesture of a touch on the sleeve, the wink, the nod of the head, the smile and frown can't be carried on this 'signal'. :-)
I don't know how many years ago, I was invited by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons to help establish a training program for inmates at mid-level security facility. Not before nor after, have I ever seen such rapacious appetites to learn. And the inmates' street smarts applied to subject matter was amazingly sharp, insightful and unmercifully critical. Probably run circles around most academics.
I have mused much about this experience since, often wondering, 'Must people lose their freedom before they value an opportunity to learn and think?'
As for me, I'm open to learn even from a grandma at a bus stop. Every opportunity chooses me, and I say 'thank you!' -
I don't find .ink. condescending. Then again, it may be because I'm used to such verbiage.
-
-
GORE, RELIGION, SOLUTIONS
@alias, global, unfettered
Personally I have never thought of the Environmentalist religion as pagan. Although earth worship is certainly among the oldest of human religions, there seem to me to be more parallels between the Ecovangelicals and Christian eschatology.
Pagan earth worship was inherently anthropocentric. The pagans were sensibly much more concerned with what the earth could do for them than vice versa. If it meant a few sacrifices to ensure a good harvest, then that was what they would do.
Whereas Gore and that crowd don't really care about the needs of humanity. If they did they would be interested in adapting to the changing climate.
Rather, they are caught up with this idea of preserving things in some sort of idealized, unchanging "Gaia" that is analogous to God. And if things change too much, by means of pollution, C02 emission, melting snow, what have you, then we can expect Gaia to wreak her revenge in an apocalyptic doomsday scenario. When taken to the generally unpalatable Greenpeace extreme, they would rather see a planet where human beings are extinct to preserve this ideal.
Of course, there is no such ideal, and human beings are here to stay, in all their environment changing glory. This is perfectly natural. The fact is the advent of humanity has brought with it a profound impact of the ecology of the planet. We are in the midst of a mass extinction as the species that prove to be no use to us are disappearing underfoot. Nevermind that climate changes and mass extinctions have been happening with clockwork regularity throughout the history of the planet.
This sort of thing is maddening and blasphemous to the Ecovangelicals. Why else try so desperately to hang on the essentially meaningless features of the past ecological era? Just because the snows have melted on Kilimanjaro does not mean the end of the world is upon us. The population is exploding, and so more and more people are going to be moving around, burning things, polluting things, etc. Rather than try in vain to stop this before it brings about an imagined calamity, we must do our best to steer it in a manageable direction
Just like oppressive religious authorities have been doing for millennia, the Ecovangelicals are attempting to put the skids on progress in order to preserve some imagined ideal.-
That sums it up very nicely.
-
Why thank you kindly, buddy.
-
*standing ovation*
Well put, though I must point something out.
In standard usage, 'pagan' means the worship of anyone or anything that isn't the Christian God. Therefore, the environmentalists' worship/devotion to the earth-goddess-type Gaia is pagan.
It would be nice if the word weren't thrown around like it has been, though. -
You are mentioning mass extinctions. What should be done with them?
-
GORE, RELIGION, SOLUTIONS
yhc, you have done a masterful job in your summary. I am persuaded that Gore's movement is religious 'in nature', but a false one at that.
However, be assured it is political and economic operationally.
I respectfully take exception to negative comment about religion. I think governments, historically, reflect your concerns. Gore's religious approach, in my view, demeans the value of religion.
In understanding this new phenomena Mr Gore has created, and how it will impact us in innumerable ways, it is necessary for us to come together from different perspectives and beliefs. It cannot be avoided.
Incidentally, I have read GG's post thoroughly. I will have some points to make. -
YHC:
You are a gifted writer and communicate your position eloquently. Thank you.
-
-
There is something about Al Gore that makes me sleepy. I cannot get myself to watch him. I've tried to read his writing a few times, but I find it both boring and pedantic.
I don't particularly need to read popular books to know that climate change is happening. Science News, National Geographic, reading the daily paper and various opinion pieces by scientists gives me far more than Al Gore ever could.
It is kind of like thinking because Rush Limbaugh doesn't believe in climate change, I shouldn't either. I don't plan on seeing the movie. Watching Al Gore will put me to sleep.
There are plenty of more interesting takes on environmentalism than Al Gore. I would rather listen to Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute any day before I will listen to Al Gore.
Al Gore looks like superman with a lobotomy.
My agenda is much closer to Amory Lovins, or John Todd than Al Gore.-
I don't know that Mr. Limbaugh doesn't believe in climate change. Just that he doesn't believe humans are responsible.
Anyway, I agree with you on Al Gore. The man must be the most boring, mindless person I've ever had the displeasure of laying eyes on. And the few times I have heard him speak I got the impression that he really wasn't all there. -
I laughed uncontrollably when I read your post, wehireu. I know the feeling. I have lived in Washington, D.C. three times. I have had the pleasure (questionable) of meeting many people in government, and this is true: his own colleagues said he was 'not all there'.
BUT, it also makes me sick to report this. I want to address the man's actions, not what nature gave him.
-
-
If you are going to choose a good example of a climate change advocate, why don't you choose a scientist or group of scientists?
You might start with the Union of Concerned Scientists.-
Who are they? Do you have a link to their website or perhaps an article about them?
-
Reading the FAQ on UCSUSA.ORG reminded me of a link I meant to include a long time ago.
For most of this year, National Public Radio (in the US) in partnership with the National Geographic Society has been doing weekly reports on climate change from a ground level, practical, and non-sensationalist view. They cover some of the issues that are affecting people in the present do to changes in climate. They also focus on technology and science that can help mitigate the effects.
You can find the portal at www.npr.org/climateconnection - they have HORRIBLY long links once you are in the site but if you go to the bottom of the page and click "More in this Series »" you can find most of the reports. The Series is broken down into sections: Signs, Solutions, Causes, Adaptations, Profiles and What To Do.
This is a radio series so the there isn't a ton to read there, but most of the pieces are available as streaming audio. I highly recommend listening to this piece to get an idea of what the series is like.
Worries About Water as Chinese Glacier Retreats
The Mingyong glacier, China's lowest, is retreating at a rate that astonishes scientists. The glacier helps feed rivers that deliver water to hundreds of millions of people -- and no one knows what will happen as it continues to melt.
URL: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17200108&ft=1&f=9657621
Thomas, they even talk about Norway. -
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
That's a very incomplete overview and very suggestive. It has no substantive remarks. It looks like its written for middle school kids. -
There really doesn't look like there's much here. Just claims with no proof. Where are the studies? Graphs of average global temperatures through the centuries? I disagree about it being written for a middle schooler. When I was that age I would have wanted more substance.
-
-
CO2
Forestation is slowly getting more media attention, but still doesn't get prime time headlines.
I posted a comment regarding forestation in the first thread. It got little attention also. So nothing has changed for me in all these years in promoting forests and reserves. IT just doesm't grab the gut like dirty, suffocating hot air :-)
But here, consider this, forests are the chief CO2 containers on land. And mankind is killing off or burning down forests and woodlands at an alarming rate - while the news says the temperature's rising. When I was at university, I was taught how trees effect the environment, air and temperature. Why have these correlations been forgotten?
Read this (with forced paragraphs):
'Plants also emit CO2 during respiration, so it is only during growth stages that plants are net absorbers.
For example a growing forest will absorb many tons of CO2 each year, however a mature forest will produce as much CO2 from respiration and decomposition of dead specimens (e.g. fallen branches) as used in biosynthesis in growing plants.
Regardless of this, mature forests are still valuable carbon sinks, helping maintain balance in the Earth's atmosphere.
Additionally, and crucially to life on earth, phytoplankton photosynthesis absorbs dissolved CO2 in the upper ocean and thereby promotes the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere.'
- Has 'climate change' science overlooked something here?
- Have investor ruled out trees because there's no ROI?
- Are trees ignored because they're not new technology?
- Is it that the UN couldn't address climate
through trees because of parity issues (not
all countries can do it)?
- Is continual urbanization and expansion with
a concomitant loss of trees and woodlands a
contributing factor in local and regional climate change?
--- LOOK AT IT FROM ANOTHER ANGLE---
Trees, woodlands and fields are razed and replaced with urban and suburban concrete and asphalt and well cut grass.
- Why has science not explored the 'concrete jungle'
effect every city school kid knows?-
Fascinating points, alias. I wish I knew enough to answer any of those questions.
-
Trees are studied with regards climate change, and have been for centuries. It is only being ignored by the press. Go back to the smog ridden London of the Industrial revolution. I forget the name of the particular tree (a variety of Sycamore I believe), but the city is still full of them - planted both because it helps absorb a high quantity of pollutants, and also because it is resistant to pollutants. Finland produces large quantities of timber from sustainable forests. And trees seem to be soaking up more CO2 as CO2 levels rise, which is one possible explanation as to why CO2 levels aren't currently as high as was predicted. This is of the top of my very tired head. The problem lies not with the scientific work on trees, but the insistence of the poor in third world countries to keep chopping them down. The new threat comes from 'environmentally friendly' bio-fuels, ironically enough. Vast swathes of forests are disappearing to make way for oil producing plantations.
-
Thanks, garydenness. Great contrib, great memory for being tired. Been spending the night trying to remember that tree's name. I remember my old uncle boasting about that tree able to handle any smog on earth if the people government would just plant them.
-
@GARY
"The problem lies not with the scientific work on trees, but the insistence of the poor in third world countries to keep chopping them down."
The poor chop them down because they have no option for cooking. They all need fuel efficient stoves or solar pots I heard about. The traditional manner of cooking, over an open fire, uses an enormous amount of wood and causes many health problems, including respiratory and other.
Do you want to help get fuel efficient stoves to the poor in Guatemala? You can help us.
@Alias:
Deforestation is a huge issue, especially in Latin America. I wonder if the lack of trees and plants contribute to the growing health problems we face, not to mention soil erosion, landslides and other.
I'd so like to see laws passed related to green building, requiring eco-friendly materials used in the construction of homes and commercial buildings. This would go far in helping to steward our precious natural resources, while improving our health too. -
Then perhaps the answer is to encourage the growth of technologies so that these countries don't cut down all their trees.
Why is the emphasis of the Global Warming blame game on high tech countries rather than these poor countries? -
I find much of this thread to be confused, but it is important to talk about the issues, especially with people who disagree with "us": just sitting around agreeing doesn't help anyone.
Regarding Michael Crichton, I found his book "State of Fear" compelling when I read it, to my later embarrassment. I have seen essentially every point he makes in that book soundly refuted, from DDT to global warming, and by a wide range of groups from the left and the right. There is a lot of information on this that you will find via Google (and yes, there are some articles that support him, almost every single one of which has been individually refuted- I'd say every single one, but I haven't actually checked them all).
Some of the climate scientists Crichton cites (the global warming debunkers) are from a group that includes notorious spokesmen for the oil industry, and one previously made a living a spokesman for the Tobacco Industry (denying that cigarettes cause cancer or are addictive, etc.). See greenchemistry.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/ever-wonder-who-is-behind-dissentin...
Some of the most thorough remarks countering Crichton came from or about Africa, where it was pointed out that DDT was not and had never been made illegal in many countries (though US funding was tied to stopping its use). DDT is still in use in Africa, and that use is increasing, according to many reports. However, it did become less effective due to resistance, as Carson predicted. DDT seems to be much less toxic than its replacement, parathion, which is closely related to nerve gases and other very toxic pesticides (google it, or see www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/methylpa.htm). Part of the point of this story is that, if and when DDT use was banned in Africa or elsewhere, it was typically banned for agricultural use, not for vector control (mosquito control). They are totally different: one involves widespread spraying over huge areas of land, the other involves spraying on walls of dwellings.
The original concerns about DDT were brought up not for its use to control Malaria, but for its use in agriculture, where it was being dumped on farmland in huge quantities in the US and worldwide.
Here is some information from one site regarding Crichton's climatology:
majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/09/senate_question.html
(just what I found in a quick search, it doesn't have the primary references to the Brookings Institute or the Union of concerned Scientists that refuted Crichton):
"WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 - His last book, "State of Fear," was published more than nine months ago, but the reviews were still pouring in on Wednesday, even as Michael Crichton folded his 6-foot-9-inch frame into a seat to testify before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
"More silly than scary," the flier dropped off by the Natural Resources Defense Council said.
"Notable mainly for its nuttiness," an analysis from the Brookings Institution said.
"Does not reflect scientific fact," the Union of Concerned Scientists said.
For all his previous works as a writer (13 novels, 4 nonfiction books, numerous screenplays) and his prominent career in Hollywood as a writer, producer or director of 13 films and as the creator of the popular television series "ER," little has yanked Mr. Crichton so deeply into political controversy as "State of Fear," an environmental thriller that casts doubt on the widely held notion that human activities contribute to global warming. [...] (Keep reading, it gets worse) [NYTimes]
So, global warming deniers like Senator James M. Inhofe have been reduced to calling witnesses who write fiction about how global warming is fiction."
Regarding CO2 release to the atmosphere, many people are very confused or conflicted on this subject. Currently, according to the New Scientist (environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13034-peatland-destruction-is-releas... ), some the biggest release of CO2 is coming from draining peat bogs in Malaysia/Southeast Asia. Ironically, these are being drained by big companies that are setting up plantations to grow crops for biodiesel and fuel ethanol. This is just more exploitation of the environment under the guise of environmentalism. Like corn ethanol plants (a nice fat socialist subsidy for big Ag companies by those communist loving, sorry I mean socialism-hating, politicians in Washington, most of whom are Republicans, but there are also plenty of Democrats involved).
So, I would say that most of us are confused and we are being bombarded with lies from many directions, but the observations being made by scientists are facts, even if their meaning is open to interpretation.
I suspect that the truth is more likely found from groups of independent people who have professional skills in a given area, like the voices of Gore's co-winners of the Peace Prize (and really, he was a figurehead, though an important one), than the truth is likely to be found in the mouth of any demagogue.
I would also say that nothing in the history of mankind has done more to strengthen Islamic terrorism than Bush administration policies. So, if you want to keep swelling their terrorist ranks, you have a good blueprint to follow.
On the other hand, the fact that the Bush administration has to be sued to follow Federal law (the Endangered species act) is interesting. Not only are Northwest salmon being killed off in high numbers by "outlawed pesticides" that the Bush administration won't let the EPA do anything about, but we eat those salmon and are accumulating many of the pesticides in ourselves.
In any event, believing in global warming or not, or believing in man-based global warming or not, are not very relevant to many of the environmental problems of excess energy use, oil use when oil isn't going to last forever, the burden of many industries and cities on fresh water supplies, air pollution, sea water pollution, destruction of the coral reefs, destruction of fish populations, loss of polar ice caps, etc. These are all real problems, no matter what you "believe".
These are the real problems we need to address, and minimizing man's contributions to global warming is one approach to doing so, at least in part. Getting the Federal government in the US to obey its own laws would also help.
This thread is so complex that it is hard to comment on it any more, but I have tried.
-
-
RELIGION, MASS EXTINCTIONS
@alias
I think you are absolutely correct, the primary motivation for the Gore movement is politically/economically motivated. I do not mean to be cynical about religion, and I appreciate your point alias. The problem does not arise inherently from reverence of the supernatural, but when people exploit this natural impulse as a means of control. In human hands there is the potential for corruption and abuse, I might even go so far as to say this is inevitable. When this goes unchecked you get things like the Inquisition, and this is what the fringe Environmentalist are doing today.
@jungl
"You are mentioning mass extinctions. What should be done with them?"
I feel that it is a mistake to see mass extinctions as a phenomenon about which something can or should be done. As the ecology of earth changes so will the species. 65 millions years ago a meteor hit the earth, blocking out the sun, causing the food chain to break down. The enormous dinosaurs, who were maladapted to the changed environment, gave way to smaller animals such as mammals and birds who were better suited to survive.
Now, instead of a meteor we have had the introduction of the human being, the pinnacle of evolution, a creature who has expanded to every corner of the planet. Humanity has become the master of all species, and the ones that are adapted to serve human needs will now be the ones that survive. The rest will fall by the wayside.
It is a mistake to assume that this is in some way unnatural, or even that there is something that can be done to prevent it. It is simply Darwinism at work. Even if we tried, which we are doing, you simply cannot preserve a species that is not suited for its environment. Domestic species that have become codependent with humanity will thrive, such as edible plants, dogs, cats, cows, etc. while species that are Darwinian failures like the panda or the condor are doomed to inbred stagnation in zoos.
This is the natural world at work. It is a mistake (an incidentally one of the core tenets of Ecovangelicalism) to presume that humanity is somehow alien to "The Environment." We're animals too! Just incredibly well adapted, so much so that it seems unfair to the rest of the species in the world, who may be unique and beautiful, but are, in a word, dinosaurs. It is wrongheaded to assume that there is any way to prevent this natural process, or even meaningfully slow it down.
It's sad and everything. Heck, I wish there were still dinosaurs around, I mean, variety is cool, right? But just because we like an idea doesn't mean it's a plausible or even good one.-
don't worry, the dinosaurs are coming back, your wish will be fullfilled. But don't worry, most were vegetarians from memory
-
@yhc Thanks, and I understand where you're coming from and agree with you without exception.
-
@YHC:
I agree with some of your thoughts, though I am a creationist, not an evolutionist. Will you still be my friend?
-
I believe God made everything, too. I also believe that He can change living things as the need arises.
This isn't exactly the first time things have warmed up. It maybe getting a little warmer than in the recent past, but that doesn't mean it's going to be a world shattering disaster.
-
-
TEMPERATURE
I have a great number of links I found last week and in the last two hours. Many are from and about current research, and all amazingly honest. I have mentioned in another poat that there are variables of uncertainty regarding research. In some cases, the researchers admit that there must be other factors involved in the climate phenomena.
What I see are a number of posters reading and retrieving news articles or citing portals. My sincere suggestion is when discussing how many teeth in a horse's mouth, go to the horse.
In addition, there are other resources that describe the science - which appears of little interest to some posters. If you want to understand how they butcher a cow, you don't go to the market and buy hamburger in a package and think you got all the knowledge on the subject of butchering cows - or what the shop 'butcher' says :-)
Here's an excerpt from an article on Wikipedia, a respected online encyclopedia - even the courts respect it, should there be any objections.
This para puts into question the quality of temperature measures.
Oh, and yes, I can anticipate some highly reflexive knee-jerk responses. There's more :-) And more.
Criticism of the United States land surface temperature record
and
Uncertainties in the temperature record
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record
It is evident that there are many commenting that have not been involved in highly sophisticated research projects. That's OK. But be assured of this, conclusions are rarely final. As a peer-reviewer of a world ranked journal, I have seen great research trumped by another, or compellingly good looking research with data that didn't stand up to the test of prolonged scrutiny, etc.
My golden rule was, 'there's always more'.
No matter how fast and hard some want to slam the door closed on the matter of climate, they can't lock it.
And why the haste to slam the door shut anyway. Environmentalism isn't dead if we wait for more research and measures are corrected, and models improved.-
Maybe it would be helpful to actually state why you find the sources of others to be useless and yours to be useful, rather than making cryptic statements about horse's teeth. What do you consider to be the horse's mouth with regard to this subject, other than peer reviewed, scientific research?
For example, what makes the American Physical Society a bad reference for physical science information, and Wikipedia a good one? -
MANIFESTO
It is my aim to remark on information related to, associated with, or reflecting the topic and thread as I can reasonably determine and compose.
It has been and will be my operational principle to look at facts and factors as I am able to acquire through an inconclusive modality.
Where appropriate or necessary, this approach will include weighing the value of source information by timeline; the operational assumption is that current or leading-edge exploratory research will or may impact previous climate analytics and hypotheses. This also factors the strength of the research based on the scientist’s / scientists’ own statement(s) of certainty, probability, constraints, necessity for alteration or change of hypothesis, or declaration for need for additional research.
Past comments posted by others are and will be stipulated as representing views to date, therefore only minimal iteration will be acknowledged.
Personal insights based on professional experience, or proprietary information, may or will be expressed. Personal beliefs will or may be incorporated in discussion.
'Facts don’t speak for themselves, people speak for them. Make certain you speak for all of them.’ alias inkhorn -
Hmm. Actually, could you find something other than Wikipedia? That site has had a reputation for being alternatively factual.
-
-
My sincerest condolences and appologies Global Girl,
At first, the idea of a new thread sounded great. A continuation of great interation. But after having watched the direction this new thread has taken, which is sooo way off course from the original, I respectfully withdraw my descision of agreeing to a new thread. 'Tis a shame really, as I seem to have even generated part of the title for this thread too.
Where as the original post was good dialogue, a tennis-like back and forth conversation of ideals and thoughts, this thread seems to have rapidly degenerated into an almost namecalling "I'm right, your wrong" fiasco of such things as inane credibility challenges and the like. Myself included.
That being said, I don't see myself doing much, if any more contributing to this particular stream. Perhaps, at a later time, a new thread will surface which will be more akin to the original and will stimulate my enthusiasm to participate once again.
Good luck to you all.
John
Hoopy Frood Dude
hoopyfrooddude.blogspot.com/-
Aw, now who's going to quote Ronald Reagan at us?
Just kidding! Shame you feel that way. -
@John:
What a shame you'd choose to not participate. Every participant has a perspective and is worth sharing and discussing. We may not agree on certain issues and this is acceptable and expected. Yet, as I have read through this thread, painstakingly, as I took a 24 hour hiatus, I see unity in the notion that we, as a global community, are responsible for caring for the earth.
I wish you'd not disappear, but make your perspective known. Your opinions, knowledge and thoughts about the topic are welcome when you want to rejoin the discussion. **off to send you a shout in a minute**
-
-
GORE, ALARMISM, CONSENSUS-BUILDING
I came across a very interesting discussion of a ruling by a British High Court judge who evaluated An Inconvenient Truth:
business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ec...
The short version is that the general thrust of the film is accurate, according to this judge, but the film itself is one-sided and misrepresents important facts. I think when you view the issue through the cold, unflinching lens of the law the truth becomes more apparent.
@alias
"And why the haste to slam the door shut anyway. Environmentalism isn't dead if we wait for more research and measures are corrected, and models improved."
This is a wonderful point. And quite to the contrary of our erstwhile associate johns, I think you sum up very nicely what seems to be the consensus that is growing out of this thread. There is a palpable alarmist streak in the Environmentalist movement, and could it be that in their zeal these folks are overstating their case and possibly doing their cause more harm that good? If we approach this issue from a moderate, rational angle, perhaps then we could arrive at real solutions?
What do you guys think?-
yhc: I think that's a VERY salient point. However, I think there has also been an alarmist streak in this thread as well. Nonetheless, movies like An Inconvient Truth should be viewed with a dispassionate, critical eye, because there is a presupposition in them that what they (the film's producers) are doing is right, rather than objective or critical.
Like others, I see hypocrisy in Gore's lifestyle versus his message. I don't believe he's trying to purposefully mislead people, however. I think he is a True Believer, and like most true believers, there is a distinct difference between ideology and practice. That's just human nature. I also think Michael Moore is a True Believer, but I often find his methods alarming, or maybe alarmist.
My own concerns with regards to environmentalism are the following: maintaining a clean water supply, feeding people, maintaining biodiversity (including the top 100 meters of ocean, where all the photosynthesis takes place), improving technology so that we aren't reliant on petroleum products (either for fuel or for fertilizer), and generally keeping the Earth a habitable and pleasant place to live. Since none of these things seem particularly alarmist, and all of them can be worked on without subscribing to any fringe theories, I see myself as comfortably in the middle.
That's just me, though. -
We can be civil with any subject related to GM and CC - or at least try, right? Brainstorming solutions appear to be less controversial.
-
oops! Wrong spot.
-
-
yhc: Thanks for that shocking answer on mass extinctions.
Don't think I've ever heard anyone saying that we should sit back and let the nature be destroyed because it is Darwinism.-
Thomas: People who take that attitude seem to have a drastically inflated view of how much humanity understands about the interdependence of species on the planet. Most people don't realize that how much biomass on this planet plays a crucial role in our survival by breaking down matter into soil nutrients so we can grow crops to feed ourselves. Its not just bees that pollinate our plants and trees to produce food for ourselves and our livestock.
Even if we did understand it fully it wouldn't be a good idea it watch biodiversity be diminished on our watch, but suggesting that we shouldn't concern ourselves with the problem when we clearly do NOT understand the full impact is just crazy talk. -
@jungl, tech
If you have a better idea I'd sure like to hear it. But you don't.
You might notice that I never said that the modern mass extinction is desirable. But it is inevitable, and can't be stopped any more than the tides or the law of gravity for that matter. Clearly you both have an incomplete understanding of how natural selection functions.
The mass extinction has been happening for millennia now. How many thousands of species, like the mammoth, were hunted to extinction by cro-magnon man? How man more were wiped out by the introduction of more competitive species that tagged along with man, like the dodo or the Tasmanian tiger? And that was all before the Industrial Revolution!
Now there a 6 billion plus human beings on this planet and exponential rises in that number to come. There is only so much in the way of resources on this planet; ultimately as the human race survives it will necessarily happen that all species outside of the anthropocentric ecology will fall by the wayside. Precisely what crucial niche within the biomass, pray tell us techfun, does the giant panda fulfill? Maybe we need them to clear away all that pesky bamboo overgrowth, or reproduce at a tragically slow rate?
Regardless of how many hippies are shocked at this news, this is the stark reality of how natural selection works.
Species that are maladapted will not survive and reproduce. It doesn't matter what legislation you enact, what sort of wildlife preserves you set up, what sort of zoos you put them in. The gene pools will dwindle and they will be gone.
One of my favorite quotes is from Penn Gillette in the Bullshit! episode on PETA. He said something like "I would personally club every baby seal on the planet just to save the life of one junkie with AIDS."
This is the same sort of thing, just happening on a much larger scale and without the possibility of stopping it. Check that, there is one possibility, the disappearance of the human race. Be it by suicide or exodus, this is the only way to preserve species that aren't fit to survive in a human dominated ecology; take out the human element.
You can talk all the gibberish about biomass diversity you want, techfun, it won't make a difference. This is fact, not opinion.
And back to the OT, it just goes to show another way that Environmentalism is like a religion. To borrow a page from somebody else's playbook, this is precisely parallel to your Evangelical counterparts-- Ecovangelicals are just as willing to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "lalala!" when you hear an blasphemous fact as they are.
Care to reply with actual counter arguments? Or will we be seeing another reversion to dogma?
I predict the latter.
(Oh, and you don't believe me? Read this: www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html ) -
YHC: Don't assume you know what other people think or know. It's quite tacky.
You said: "You might notice that I never said that the modern mass extinction is desirable. But it is inevitable, and can't be stopped any more than the tides or the law of gravity for that matter. Clearly you both have an incomplete understanding of how natural selection functions.
Which is clearly and utterly bullshit.
Look at something as simple as the California Condor recovery program by the US fish and Wildlife service.
California condors once on the brink of extinction,now are on the brink of recovery. From only 22 condors left in existence, their numbers have risen to 289 this year. DDT, introduced to the world by humans, had created problems with Condor (and other birds) eggshells. The presence of DDT resulted in eggshells thinning to the point that a female sitting on the nest crushed the shell and killed the offspring before it could hatch. ( www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/DDT_and_Birds.html )
Human intervention in the form of limiting the use of DDT, and hatching some of the young in incubators so more condors could be introduced back into the wild has allowed the species to increase ten fold in less than a generation.
Someone else on this thread has already mentioned the recovery of the American Bison (I think it was Brigid) so I won't go into that one.
The US government's passage of the Endangered Species Act (proposed by Nixon and later signed into law by him in 1973) has not been able to solve every problem its addressed but it has proven that the idea that extinctions are inevitable is not supported by evidence.
The U.S. Senate declared May 18, 2007, Endangered Species Day to “encourage the people of the United States to become educated about, and aware of, threats to species, success stories in species recovery, and the opportunity to promote species conservation worldwide.”
The resolution mentions a few of the Endangered Species Act’s most well known successes: bald eagle (increased from 416 to 9,789 pairs between 1963 and 2006), whooping crane (increased from 54 to 513 birds between 1967 and 2006), Kirtland’s warbler (increased from 210 to 1,415 pairs between 1971 and 2005), peregrine falcon (increased from 324 to 1,700 pairs between 1975 and 2000), gray wolf (populations increased dramatically in the Northern Rockies, Southwest, and Great Lakes), gray whale (increased from 13,095 to 26,635 whales between 1968 and 1998), and the grizzly bear (increased from about 224 to over 500 bears in the Yellowstone area between 1975 and 2005).
Please don't assume that just saying that something is a fact that it will be accepted as such. Your premise that the only way to prevent mass extinctions is to eliminate humans is remotely factual. Many of the extinctions that have been prevented have only been preventable through human scientific intervention.
You are quite right about extinctions occurring before the Industrial revolution. All you have to do is look at the desertification of Iceland following mass elimination of trees that were holding its thin layer of topsoil in place. Just because things like that have happened in the past does not mean they should or will continue in the future.
There is no dogma here, just observable and documented evidence that anyone can see.
By the way, Natural Selection does not mean what you seem to think it means. There are lots of great books on evolutionary biology out there that might help you.
And who claimed the Giant Panda was crucial to anything? I'm talking about organisms you cant see with the naked eye. -
You still don't get it, do you? If a species can be brought back from the "brink of extinction" then obviously it isn't unsuited for a human dominated ecology. Miraculously, natural selection still works, no matter how badly you want it not to, tech!
Truth is though, the jury is still out on those condors. DDT is pretty damn important to a lot of the world for preventing malaria, as I recall, and it's being banned to save some eggshells is the real tragedy IMHO.
A good example from my home state is the alligator. They're a pest, and as such were hunted to nigh extinction until very recently when the laws changed, and now they are overpopulated. But once all the water is drained out of okeechobee where will they be?
Try thinking in terms that aren't limited by your own conservative myopia. Think geologically. Those populations you mention as successes in species preservation are pathetic in terms of genetic diversity. Even if humanity packed up and left tomorrow, 513 whooping cranes are going to be extinct pretty soon. -
Those gators will still be in the preserves like Gatorama on Rt. 27 or in the farmers on the Brighton reservation, that doesn't include the thousands already transplanted around the state and country in zoos and tourist traps. I grew up in Glades County (in Moore Haven to be precise) and I would not bemoan the lack of gators in the wild. After losing sheets off clothes line to nesting gators and almost wiping out when water skiing over a swimming alligator I do not worry too much. They existed back when Lake Okeechobee was a big wet spot before the Corp of Engineers created the rim canal and the lake itself, and they will exist after that. They are another great example of us humans deciding that wiping out a species does not make economic sense.
One nice thing, if Lake Okeechobee ever goes back to its natural state, we should see a much bigger rebound in the bald eagle population since their nesting grounds may come back. Currently, most of that habitat is under water, or too wet to support the huge cypress trees that used to be there.
DDT is an excellent killer of malaria carrying mosquitoes and thankfully the world is more complex than you appear to think from your response. The thing is, DDT and other similar chemicals are still used in places where its worth the attendant side effects for the sake of saving lives. In fact, if malaria ever became an issue in the USA and started killing as many people as it does in Africa, we would probably decide that it was worth it to spray it here.
The only problem I have with your position is your assertion that things are inevitable and normal.
Extinction is the inevitable fate of all species and, as the fossils tell us, has been happening since life appeared some 3.5 billion years ago. So what's the problem with simply letting nature take its course?
The problem is, we have hijacked that course.
From: www.nature.org/magazine/winter2003/resources/art11514.html (Well worth the time it takes to read the full series.) -
I'm glad we agree on so much tech. And frankly, yes I was very much oversimplifying the condor issue, but it was only to be more clearly illustrative.
And you put a point on our divergence precisely. Humanity didn't hijack anything. The course has led to us, we are the course now.
Timothy Leary put it best, I can't seem to find the exact quotation, but essentially it meant thinking of life itself as an organism in itself worthy of preservation, and it is up to he human race to progress long enough that it can migrate from this planet before the sun explodes, and inhabit other planets to ensure the continual existence of life in the universe. -
EXPLETIVES
@techfun, using words as expletives never won an argument.
bullshit, also known as bull excreta, is a large bovine waste product that aids in plant growth.
In concentration it can lead to methane. It is believed that the cow jumped over the moon because the farmer lit a cigarette which ignited the methane rising from bullshit. -
YHC: Please tell me you did not mean Timothy Leary, the psychedelic druggie?
-
I do indeed globalgirl. He was actually a very important thinker of the 60s counterculture. Who's the hippie now?
-
When did the dodos go extinct? I think there has yet to be a major catastrophe over that.
Nature is tough. If something goes wrong it can adapt.
Seriously, if even that huge piece of space rock didn't manage to wipe out every last living thing on the planet what makes you think we can? The idea strikes me as a bit arrogant in a way. -
brigid: that's a good point. On the other hand, the extinction of salmon in Japan removes a food source, both for humans and other species on which humans rely.
-
-
I just left the following comment on the beforementioned post: globallyminded.com/Blog/files/Virgin-Earth-Challenge,-Gaia-Capitalism,-&-Re...; and it seemed appropriate to include it here. I have been known to be wrong on occasion, however.
Okay, do I ever feel stupid now. For "you" tried to get me interested a while ago (for me); but I thought I had other fish that needed frying first. Be assured that I will now subscribe unto this blog; and will make an effort to contribute when given the go ahead.
Anyway, as in regards unto the subject matter: I fully agree with Kat for the most part. For most of what so many are so upset about is just a part of the natural order of things (naturally speaking, of course); but that does not mean that we have free license to abuse what our Heavenly Father has created.
The part that I wish was made more clear is the part about "pantheism" being a pagan concept. For it truly is as it is written: For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. {Colossians 1:16-17 NAS}
Yes, it can be argued that the passage is in reference unto governing bodies; but when it is considered that He made what is seen out of what is not seen (Hebrews 11:3): could it not be that this is in reference unto Himself? After all: where did it come from if not from Himself? -
COMMENTARY
@FishHawk, I have been thinking about your post, and other remarks made recently.
Given normal constraints, GlobalGirls’s post clearly looks at – and suggests – some interesting points about relationships and initiatives. And, I was aghast at one item in her post, I will comment on later, while I wait to receive third party background.
Among a number of achievements, Gore has successfully done five things of note (a good Marketing / PR campaign is designed and executed to achieve – they cost too much money to lose).
1) Closed the door on the subject and rushed on to commercial and investment initiatives.
2) Ignored all countervailing facts and anomalies – making a subset of all researchers supporting his campaign a closed loop.
3) Polarized an issue that has developed a protective ‘brown shirt’ mentality
4) Taken attention away from durable environmental interest groups – rather than directly aiding them
5) Has appealingly placed or insinuated a conceptually new religion for those concerned about climate change (reminds me of something in Revelations) - suggesting that there is a new, more responsible meta-order for the world, and giving his movement a religio-philosophic under-pinning and endorsement.
But on the other hand, in my view, his campaign is a charade of religion. Here’s one reason I think so.
The difference is, when Gore speaks about moral imperatives he has no moral statement or moral code of conduct. And as Unfettered noted, Gore behaves as a hypocrite.
Moses came with the commandments regarding a triangular relationship between people and God. Jesus came with the imperative that we help each other, and put God first.
Gore comes with a relationship between the high-powered money and high powered interests and a wallet with an appetite.-
That fourth point is so true! On this thread I'm beginning to feel like a villain from Captain Planet they way I have to rail on the environment. I'm as green as the next guy, but it is necessary to put thinks in harsh terms since the posters who buy into the Gore religion are so woefully ignorant of what is actually at stake.
The energy they divert from level-headed people who care about preserving a clean environment for the betterment of humanity is unforgivable. -
GORE, RELIGION
@yhc, this is why I am reluctant to address his campaign as religious. But it does behave like a nascent cult. And, in the end, it is or has become a shill for economic interests and political leverages.
So far, Gore has created a vacuum of interest for the long time interest groups and their solid work for environmental issues.
He has sucked all the attention better directed now at those groups who have projects, infrastructure, mailing lists, ideas to implement and coordinate with other groups.
If these environmental groups got a part of the 70 billion dollars spent climate research, there activities, I argue, would expand virally and educationally, allowing people to participate, be stakeholders, 'policing their own backyard' on the local and regional levels. There is more to this thinking, if sentences appear too simple or naive.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, has anyone seen Gore attempt to do this? I read in the news the other day where he said something to the effect, I don't understand why these people didn't stand in front of the bulldozer and ...' Link his level of action on the part of that local community with his actions and activities described in GlobalGirl's blog comment.
IF I were a surveyor, I wouldn't map the land the way I'd like to see it.
I will map it the way it is. -
@alias, tech
Cult may be the best descriptor, alias. Perhaps I overuse the comparison to Christianity because of my own suspicions with regard to organized religion. But this is not the place for the to spill over, so in the effort not to offend people unnecessarily, I will tone it down. And I do apologize if I have inadvertently offended you or any religious person in this thread.
And tech, are you listening to this? Species preservation may be futile in the long run, but if you are really interesting in that sort of thing, alias makes a tremendous point about who is sucking up all the time, funds and personpower that could be going towards it. Maybe some legislation could help to preserve some species that are on the fence, but it is never going to happen with all the money going to some pseudo crisis to support these Machiavellian Gore & Virgin Brand Gaia-worshiping whackos. -
SPECIES
The news has addressed species. 'Combustible brain' news has focused on the threat of extinction of a number of species - and highlights projections of species extinction. However, recent published research is already describing adaptations. Most recent published study is on igauna.
It is interesting that there have been news items on new species being discovered.
If people rely on certain channels and within certain circles of comfort, they can miss important information outside their self-chosen nexus.
Broadening the sourcing will broaden and better inform people. ScienceDaily, PhyOrg, World Science, PRWire, are good sources that come to mind immediately. Too often ignored or forgotten, many of the universities have open publication of their research projects on these issues, as well as. -
Speaking of Captain Planet... I like nature. I want to live in a forest near a quiet stream. Maybe one I can drink out of. Glendoran in Ireland comes to mind.
But that show sickens me. Business men are evil destroyers of nature. Always. Animals are more important than humans.
My impression. Ugh.
Some sensible care is good, but let's not go overboard. Don't litter, walk when possible (it burns fat, too), donate to your local zoo, make sure your house is well insulated (saves money, too), recycle. Still making up my mind about paper recycling, though. I heard a while back that recycling paper is actually more of a pollutant than making it from scratch (all the bleach needed to get rid of the ink). Plus, non-recycled paper comes from tree farms. If those go out of business we could lose a lot of forested land.
And paper is bio-degradable. I've used newspaper as garden mulch.
-
-
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, an open question
@alias, you reminded me of a very important point that might help take this thread in a more productive direction.
Rather than "Global Warming" this is what should really be the byword for the rational minded environmentalist.
With overpopulation looming the supply of food and water on this planet is being strained.
So the real question is, how do we accomplish sustainable development?-
wrong post
-
PROBLEM, ORIENTATION, SOLUTION
@yhc, bravo.
The problem is seen from the sky down.
The solution is in the earth up.
Of all the flora on the earth, many sustaining our lives and curing our illnesses, still the best friend mankind are trees. in great groupsm they go a long way in addressing Unfettered's earlier comment. They cool, they clean, and absorb the food they need that is 'poison' for us. -
Actually, there's plenty of food to go around. The problem is distribution. A lot of countries are run by tyrants who confiscate relief packages of food and other supplies meant for the people and either use them up themselves or sell them for a high profit.
And if push comes to shove we can always start building multi-tier greenhouses for crops. (I really should get my Dad in on this. He did a lot of research on this sort of thing. Funny thing is that a lot of the stuff he came up with was based on existing technology from the '50s and '60s.)
-
-
yhc: I think your view of the world is too pessimistic and a bit narcissistic, but thankfully the human race seem to be changing where more people are concerned about the nature and are willing to protect it.
Call me a hippie or fundamentalist or whatever fitting name you can find, but I will continue to fight for the nature, which include humans.
It very sad that "your kind" only see the nature as a resource to make money/food for us humans. I hope that you some day are able to sit down and just absorb the wonders of nature.
-jungl the proud hippie
Btw, here is a nice talk between Sir David Attenborough, Richard Dawkins, Richard Leakey and Jane Goodall.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Qk6rJIaD4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzsYazk2RtY
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n2fLq-4aXI
www.youtube.com/watch?v=015B3HUyOeU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FTl_eI_MWA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rts14OENKuU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ExKp8cnd_g-
Nature isn't a resource. Humanity is nature. I'd rather make sure that African villages aren't plagued by malaria than make sure cute little baby condors are hatching all right. If this is somehow narcissistic then so be it, although I feel like you're using that word wrong. Anthropocentric, absolutely.
-yhc the proud humanist -
Actually, nature is a resource. A very valuable resource. It isn't just about making money. It's about eating. And relaxing in a quiet spot of green. And making money. Money is nice. I'd kinda like to have more of it.
I also like people and want to make sure that we can live comfortably here no matter how many of us there are.
-
-
Everyone who has read GlobalGirl's post "The Virgin Earth Challenge, Gaia-Capitalism, & Religion" please raise there hands.
Excellent!-
Has anyone reflected about this paragraph?
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. -
I read it of course. It's simplistic, black and white interpretation of Gore's positions based on news coverage instead of using primary sources to gain the full nuanced views he holds turned me off a bit, but its her blog and she obviously has people who enjoy that kind of stuff.
-
I thought it was all BS since it has a Christian undertone.
-
@TF, primary sources? I understand your point. I wrote a thesis using only primary sources and defeated 100 years of accepted academic non-sense.
But I couldn't have discovered what I needed without secondary sourcing.
Argument by regression, I fear, and it has no end.
But, gentlemen, the questions remains. -
I found it propagandist and leading. And her mistaking Al Gore as a world authority for Global Warming, for example, rather than a global mouthpiece, is only one instance.
-
@Jungl:
I pity a mind that refuses to look at information beyond one's worldview. The information I blogged about is FACTUAL, along with my opinions. However, the FACTS speak for themselves.
Still, I have yet to see anyone comment on the use of words these "eco-leaders" are declaring. I continue to find that very interesting and, sadly, confirming that people are not listening nor inquiring, but simply sleeping and in a fog.
How unfortunate it is that some refuse to learn and keep one's mind open. I am not too proud to admit what I don't know and areas of needed growth. It is keeping a posture of humility where we learn the most. -
ERRORS
@uNFETTERED, there is a feature of comment that is critical of error, often an error easily corrected but ineffectual in altering meaning. Her comment stands. This is why I smile at the semantic world of voices. It makes the movie Matrix more comfortable to view. Nitpicking can be such a pathetic sport.
:-) -
globalgirl: I honestly think the reason nobody is commenting on the language they are using is because the terminology is not that interesting or controversial. You have made your concerns about the terminology very clear, but as you can see, most people don't find the terminology worrying. It's not that people are not watching and listening, they just don't see terminology from other religious or spiritual traditions as threatening or worrisome.
-
alias: There's a distinct difference in being a leader and a mouthpiece that definitely alters meaning.
-
Regarding the term to describe the judges: "WORLD AUTHORITIES"
Such a description can be found on www.virginearth.com, in the news and press release section. You will see the term in the third paragraph (also pasted below):
"Sir Richard also announced that he would be joined in the adjudication of the Prize by a panel of five judges - all world authorities in their respective fields: Al Gore, Sir Crispin Tickell, Tim Flannery, Jim Hansen and James Lovelock." -
globalgirl: And I find that statement (that on Vigin Earth) to be misleading as well.
-
-
Does the deck looked staked to you?
Would you want to play poker with this group?
Are they the best authorities available?
Is Mr A Gore a true authority?
If Mr A Gore is an authority, then what is his specialty or field of expertise?
Why is there only a panel of five?
Why is it that the panel of five are intimately connected?
Will this panel be objective?
What are their criteria for judging?
... there's more, but enough for now.
Any answers, because I am bewildered? :-)-
They are not meant to be an unbiased panel. They are awarding a prize that they created. Why would you expect the people who are putting up 25 million dollars to not play a role in awarding that money?
-
why would you (but these pronouns get in the way) not want a robust panel of truly exceptional authorities not affiliated with the money on the panel rather than those who are? And a panel of only five (intimates)?
-
alias: Would love to hear who you would have to sit in the panel
-
It's not my money and its not even my tax money at stake so I don't have any right to presume that I should have a say in the make up of the panel. That being said, if I ever have a spare 25 million dollars laying around to give out as a prize for excellence on a pet project of my own, I might use a very different criteria to select my judges.
Its their game, it's their money - they get to make the rules. -
Ma daj! A gentleman stopped by this evening. He's a veritable genius, world claas in mathematics and advanced logic in all its permutations, stable in thought and emotion as the Rock of Gibraltar, altho he loves to smile and laugh.
I discussed with him my current activity here, and made some observations. He read some of the posts with amusement and said, 'People speak too much about freedom of thought. Its about freedom of assumptions.' We spoke a few minutes more before he left this humble village house, and his final remark was, 'A couple of them think like the mechanics in a machine. They cannot change.' -
alias: The way you always find a way to throw dirt on your "opponents" in this and other threads is fascinating.
Nice domination technique. -
I'm not sure whether being a genius in maths and logic is of great importance
if he's drowning and can't swim, no amount of maths or logic will save him -
@jungl, I have no opponents and am like the breeze, moving around and beyond objects before me. How can an object think the breeze is domination?
A porcupine with all its needles still avoids a skunk.
Meaning differences by nature are just that. There is no problem :-)
-
-
Excuse the daly in reply. Caring for a cat. She had an operation yesterday and stumbles around like you drank to much whiskey.
Regarding who should be on the panel, one possibility I think would be imminently wonderful is to invite members of a range of scientific communities, thought leaders, and business leaders to nominate people to be on the panel.
I am never short of ideas, and feel honored you have sough my opinion, however it would be far better to ask participants of this thread their thoughts on process.
Note tho, that the selection has been made by the selectors, both groups as I understand being the same will be the same group making the review and award criteria and making the decision or decisions of who the winner or winners are of their salutary and coveted award.
Faith. Belief. Both will be required as an audience to their decisions, I suppose. For those who believe in them, this will present no problem. Was there a question that this clan smacked of religion? :-) -
This is a nice little metaphor for our current environmental problems.
We live in a small boat with too many passengers. When you get too many passengers, they start acting crazy, trying to preserve themselves and get rid of the other passengers. They don't even notice that the boat has sprung a leak, until it is up to their knees. Then they stop fighting for a minute.
As far as religion is concerned, I don't buy into the gaia stuff. I would much rather accept a stewardship philosophy. If people can't find some kind of purpose or use for nature they will destroy it.-
From a Christian perspective we are stewards.
As for the boat with too many people...
I suppose from that view we should go back to hunting and gathering with only a few thousand people on the planet.
Humans keep coming up with new technologies to support rising populations. Agriculture, iron plows, breeding high-yield crops, concentrated fertilizers, combines, genetic engineering... I mean, splicing a fly gene into a potato to make it resistant to fungus was brilliant.
-
-
AGENDA, STRATEGY
@Unfettered you wrote:
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.
There have been a number of attempts to focus on topic and related sub-topics.
I have made these attempts as well.
The outcome is, more times than not, ignored by some who betray an ill temperament and impatience for views that do not fit their own like a well tailored suit.
I have said in the last thread my only agenda is the truth. fully. Is there a problem in you? About this?
As my background is in the behavioral sciences; it is easy to determine by the nature of the behaviors, underlying conflicts and problems that influence that person, and more often than not anticipate their behaviour. The longer I observe the more accurate my profile is of these people.
With this, it is striking that there are some participants who are troubled by agendas when their intemperant behaviour broadcasts their own so clearly.
It has been implied before that I have an agenda. I have declared it. I have addressed other data. I have been attacked. I point to other things, and am ignored
Do these people have good will or are they motivated by a sense of good will? Answer, firmly, no. If they had it, they would also be engaged to learn more, to examine other evidence they were not aware of, speak with more respect to others, etc.
I have seen remarks about others' religious proclivities. What is in the nature of those who gratuitously and unmercifully attack these people. From a psychological point of view the question is, why do they hate so deeply? they can kill with words, if it wasn't for social constraints they would do worse.
I anticipate the responses. I anticipate the self-rationalizations. I anticipate the judgment. Because those who hate can do nothing more than that.
If they were characters that sought understanding, exercised the common skills in coming to an appreciation of another point of view, it would have occurred long ago. But patterns in them are now unshakable objects.
When I was a boy one of the Nuremburg triial lawyers came to our class and described what had occurred. He described the Germans without any passion, judgement or dislike. He describe a people who were ordinary people before the war that did terrible things to belong to something, that had characteristics, obvious or latent, that could kill because someone was different, someone didn't believe like them, someone came from the wrong place. None of these people understood the full meaning of love, graciousness, or being human. Many had a score to settle with life and they made innocence pay the ultimate price for it.
I see it in how you have addressed GlobalGirl tonight, too.-
Domination technique.
-
-
I have attempted to encapsulate my views on this subject in a blog entry. I hope you all will check it out:
yourhumblecartoonist.blogspot.com/2007/12/ecclesia-terrarum-calentis_30.htm...
Thanks to everybody, especially to GG, alias and unfettered for helping me to figure out exactly what my opinion is an refining it against some very rough debate. Now I am very tired and I am going to get some sleep.-
Wow. Interesting post.
-
-
alias: You constantly introduce snide metaphor to discredit the views and opinions of others not coinciding with your own. Or, perhaps, you come from a strange land where calling the opinions of others "flatulence" or "worthless cloth" is supposed to be useful. There's a passage about a mote versus a log that comes to mind.
Yes, I admit a huge degree of frustration with globalgirl's repeated attempts to paint Gore as a pagan. If you think this means I hate her or her religious views, then you're quite simply wrong.
If you were truly interested in the truth, you'd probably try to learn from what I'm saying rather than claiming I'm hateful or comparing me to Nazis. Yet you only seem to think people have things to learn from you, as opposed to the two-way street you're suggesting others follow.
As for ignoring your statements, I find it often better to ignore the logical traps you attempt to set.-
You have paid me an enormous compliment by replying and I appreciate the implicit endorsement. As for learning here, I have.
Ah, I forgot:
I know metaphor troubles you. But should my recollection serve me correctly, and this is said knowing I am only dust & vapor, Aristotle said metaphor is the highest form of genius. But each to his own opinion. -
Metaphor doesn't trouble me in the slightest. For example, if I thought globalgirl was introducing Gaia worship as metaphor, I would have no problem with that view whatsoever.
It's how you use metaphor I find troublesome, which is often to be extremely mean to people. Which leads me to believe you're not really interested in how people treat each other, only in how people treat others with whom you agree. -
And one more thing that might help in understanding my nature.
Take a look at this link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ
It will provide some modest insight. I have been wanting to do a Forum on Temperament Type, but am not certain if there would be enough interest, because people are very busy and might not have the time to take the twenty minute survey.
And yes, I have taught the subject.
But, excuse me, this is off topic.
Do you think think the US government should immediately embark on initiatives (on par with an emergency) such as forestation projects and city tree parks and tree lined streets, etc?
If the people go after the government with the same energy they voice their thoughts, we could really make a difference for our environmental future.
I must go get some green tea. I am terribly thirsty from typing. Did you know that four cups of green tea substantially reduces cortisol? -
I don't know about the on par with an emergency part, but that could be verbiage. In fact, there are many such projects. I listed one such above somewhere: the use of plants to purify water running through drainage ditches. In Seattle, we had an uncovered reservoir that was not only ugly, but took away a lot of green space unnecessarily. After 9/11 and the Anthrax scare, the city combined several issues and covered the reservoir, introducing a large park. Unfortunately, it's mostly mowed lawn, which isn't particularly helpful, but they did introduce many trees into the area.
I do think people could do much more in this area. I would love the introduction of "green zones" in major US cities, much like the fussgaengerzone they have in older German towns. I'm not sure how likely or workable this is, only that I would love it, as it would increase the beauty of the city, cut down on traffic congestion as well as gas emissions. -
GREEN ZONES
UNFETTERED .. exactly! And I remember your post you reference. Perhaps, combination of initiatives like Seattle. And maybe zoning laws requiring a certain number of trees remain uncut in new developments (except the way the housing market is, that might be a nonstarter).
But the idea of creating new forests intrigues. Another item, long ago remarked about in the US by an environmentalist is leaving grass and brush uncut. This could be an eye sore, but there might be places like major highways this could be done along with trees planted closer to highways. Just some thoughts.
Also, maybe the state and federal governments could be pushed to support or initiate forestation and similar activities.
I REALLY believe that if we put pressure on the government to support these initiatives it WILL make a difference. Especially in conjunction with application of new technologies. In fact there's a new application for CO2 in refrigeration I read about yesterday. Puts CO2 to work. Clever. -
I think the grass thing is largely a matter of perspective (I'm not saying you don't). I actually prefer to see nature at work, rather than the short, trimmed lawns one might often associate with golf courses. Sadly, at least in the US, homeowners often don't have a choice. In many neighborhoods with homeowner associations, keeping the yard a certain way is mandated by contract because doing otherwise lowers property values. I find the disconnect between property value and land value to be highly insightful of the modern perspective; it's all about money.
I'd also like to see people get away from the car culture. Personally, I walk everywhere and almost never even take a bus (most of the buses here are electric and many have been for several decades).
I agree. Putting CO2 to work makes good sense. -
I would love to see more urban gardening/agriculture. There is so much space in suburbs and cities that could be used for producing food.
Here is a nice site about it: www.pathtofreedom.com/pathproject/gardening/urbangardening.shtml -
It might be possible to put things in balance through well thought out laws that effect even homeowner associations and other properties managed by or through compacts.
As for cars, mia culpa. When I lived in the US I would jump into the car to drive 300 meters to buy a loaf of bread. I admit, looking back at this makes me feel ashamed especially with my concern for the environment. Now I live in a city that uses electric trams and get around easily. Where I cannot use the tram, I walk, sometimes up to several kilometers a day, in rain, snow or under the sun. It doesn't intrude into or impact my daily schedule at all.
This reminds me of something that might be of interest, and I hope I have remembered this correctly.
I was in Dallas zipping down LBJ Freeway, 1992 I think, and heard the weather forecast on the radio. It announced that it announced it was going to rain that weekend, as it had for a number of weekends, altho the weekday weather was always wonderful! The announcer said it was found that it was do to car traffic! There were less cars choking the roads on weekends, so the weather 'adjusted' (cloud formation, etc). I give it as an example of the impact of autos on lower altitude dynamics.
I must leave the forum now, and wish you and everyone a good evening. -
GARDENS
@jungl, Hey, so tired I forget to say that link is great!
It can be done. People must. I have other reasons than climate change, but not for this topic.
I was in Connecticut and met an old Italian woman who owned a nice but simple house. Typical of many city homes, it didn't have very much land, and half the backyard was shared with a garage.
The other half had a garden, filled with every kind of vegetable you could imagine, and bean plants spiriling up trellises, etc, etc, you named it she had it, left right and up. The upshot was she only went to the market for meat, cheese and condiments.
must go. -
Tried gardening. (Still trying, sorta.) I kill things. Nothing grows right. Or grows, period.
-
-
Thanks to those of you who added quality content to this thread.
However, because this thread has a lot of hostile and angry comments, I simply prefer not to continue giving my energy to it. I am a firm believer in exchanging differing views, but in a manner free from mean sarcasm and angry words.
Peace and truth to each of you. -
Just in case someone out there may be concerned: I would like to clarify the comment about "pantheism" that I left earlier. For what should have been included is that there is big difference between worshipping the Creator and worshipping what He has created: even when what He has created is of Himself.
I would also like to apologize unto GlobalGirl for any confusion that I may have caused. For what she posted is correct in regards unto pantheism being pagan doctrine concerning the worship of the earth and all that resides in this world.
Anyway: the point that I was given to make is that far too many in the Christian community look at what has been created as being completely separate from the Creator; and this is a point that should be of great interest unto even those who do not want to believe in our Heavenly Father's existence. For if more of His children by faith would want to recognize that the absolute truth of the matter truly is that to abuse what He has created is to abuse Him: surely more would get done to improve our environment!!!
Yes, there are steps that can be taken that would not threaten any nation's economy, nor crimp anyone's lifestyle unto any great extent. In fact: I would think that there would be much to be gained (albeit only economically) if more energy-saving/producing devices were installed in our homes.
No, I do not have any statistics to back anything up; but little steps add up: do they not? After all: are there not some who claim to produce more energy than they need through the use of solar panels, windmills, thermal wells, and energy-efficient buildings?
There is, however, a growing sense of desperation amongst many; and it is in regards unto this that Mr. Gore adds fuel unto the fire. For it is his contention that something needs to be done before it's too late; and he does not shy away from claims that the time for action is now.
No, there would not be anything wrong with that if it really was possible for us to make this planet inhabitable. Hence: the crux of the issue. For the absolute truth of the matter truly is that there will come a day when all that is of this world will be no more; but its utter destruction will be by the hand of its Creator: not by us.
Please, do not be shy about correcting any misrepresentations that I may have made. For it may very well be that I have been woefully deceived.-
Seems about right to me.
Really, it may be getting warmer now than it has in the past few centuries. These things happen. It's just that we have the instrumentation now to see it happening in real time.
It really is too bad that there's been so much nastiness over this issue. It's been an interesting exercise in debate techniques.
-
-
I have and remain in two minds about the real causes and the government money making spin.
I have just read a letter in my local paper that seems to be throwing another twist to the climate change debate.
The letter is below and has certainly got me thinking!!!!!
The letter was headed
Sinister Trend For climate Change
After years of climate change propaganda it was no surprise to read last week about Toni Vernelli. Toni terminated her pregnancy, in the belief that she was helping to save the planet.
She is quoted as saying: “Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet.”
Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, and adds to the problem of over-population. She now thinks we humans are a virus that needs to be wiped out, though I wonder why her principled stand should have stopped at just her baby and not herself - not that I wish her to kill herself.
But is this story just a one-off media hype, or does it reveal the start of a more sinister trend? Are we now entering into a type of strict lifestyle which consists of commodity usage within our individual government carbon allowance/footprint?
It is no secret that the Government is looking at individual carbon quotas. If climate change propaganda has now reduced the creation of a life to a carbon allowance consideration, where will it stop?
Maybe it is attention-seeking, or maybe a new eco fascism is being born out of the confusion created by the relentless Government spin about climate change.
According to ICECAP, the planet has been cooling since 1998 and the latest data shows no correlation between increasing CO2 levels and increasing temperature. Sounds to me we all should keep doing what we have always done.
John Galloway
Chairman,
UK Independence Party,
North Shropshire -
Climate Change & More-On Global Warming Religion
Note the title.
GlobalGirl started this forum two weeks ago, and has among all the forums on BlogCatalog, the MOST provocatively interesting forum bar none.
Its topic is clear, its focus well established by her. The subject is Global Warming as a Religion.
The forum successfully discloses that everyone of us has a belief system. And it shows that not all of us belong to a system of belief.
But that wasn’t GlobalGirls purpose for the thread; it’s merely an outcome.
It has been GlobalGirls’ interest to examine through discussion a belief system that has affected nearly all of us: Global Warming as a surrogate religion.
This doesn’t exclude other thoughts and lines of discussion; on the contrary it requires it.
What has resulted on occasion has been harsh anti-religious remarks. Unfortunately, they have addressed other participants, not the topic.
In other instances responses have tough. It’s normal. And sometimes they have an impact never sought or imagined by the writer. We learn each other as we communicate, and even then, this medium limits our full ability to ‘read’ the other people.
In other instances the words are deliberately meant to harm or inflame.
It is my proposition to any reader past, current and future to promise to not asperse another’s religious beliefs.
It is my proposition to any reader past, current and future to refrain from deliberately vitriolic remarks.
It is my proposition that we give assurances to GlobalGirl
1) that behaviours will be in tune with civil debate
2) that there will be no further aspersions cast on an individual’s religious beliefs or on the individual because they hold religious beliefs.
3) that she resume her role and participation in this discussion
I have attempted to write this plainly and neutrally as possible so that the message is understood.
I am asking those who agree in principle with this statement contact GlobalGirl via SHOUT with their request for her to return, any sentiments or opinions, or apology for any inconsideration to her, unintentionally or otherwise.
.ink.
LETS GET BACK TO TALKING UP - WITH GLOBALGIRL!-
I thought a lot about this before responding. I can't pretend I don't feel somewhat singled out by you, but I appreciate the neutral language you have applied to this statement and the inherent honesty in your plea.
For my part, I have no problem apologizing to globalgirl, because I do, in fact, like her as a person, even though I obviously disagree with her on some very fundamental points.
I wonder if it might not be useful to discuss a bit more what might be acceptable rules of engagement to prevent such a situation from happening again. It would be a shame to invite globalgirl back, only to have the conversation devolve once again to a point where people are walking away in frustration, or with hurt feelings.
I'm not suggesting we re-hash the conversation to date and rake through every remark that could be considered caustic or harmful and assign blame. Nor am I suggesting we need to adopt Robert's Rules of Order, or anything so formal.
When people make hurtful or dismissive remarks, they are often responding to remarks they find, well, hurtful or dismissive.
Another option might be to move this discussion to a group where globalgirl has administrative rights, and she can choose to allow or disallow the participation of those whose participation she finds useful, or not.
Thoughts? -
Do unto others has you would have them do unto you.
I don't know where in the Bible that line comes from, but I'm fairly certain it's in the New Testament (as I'm also fairly certain that it's something Jesus said.)
That seems like a pretty good guideline for debate. -
GLOBALGIRL, RULES, FORUM ADMIN
@Unfettered, spot on with you.
Misunderstandings can arise. We are very restricted by this medium. Guidelines would benefit. Manifesto yesterday was posted as an example, to get discussion & buy-in with concept.
Was thinking today, 'why is there no forum moderator?' So it is good to know this can be done.
Regarding opening sentence, I have an answer, it should be private, and it is one I think once heard, you'll appreciate. -
If it's helpful, I just took a Myers-Briggs and tested as ESTP. I have no idea what this means, or if I would test the same tomorrow.
alias: I'll drop my email address in your shoutbox. If you would like to discuss privately, feel free. Otherwise, you can ignore the shout. -
Now, here's a couple of articles about ice formations from a more than a couple of years ago.
While looking at articles and data regarding the Arctic, look at what is going on at the South Pole, and what is going on in other geographies.
The following address two other geographies - and note these articles are about 3 years old. I am absolutely unfamiliar with this site and quickly looked at it for neutrailty; quick look and it *appears* so.
Mass Balance of the Largest Ice Cap in the Eurasian Arctic
www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V7/N30/C1.jsp
Quelccaya Ice Cap, Peru
www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/studies/l2_quelccaya.jsp
I am hoping that others will post on other articles and studies to examine and possibly answer the question,
What is happening with ice formations other than the Arctic?
and,
Is it true that the Arctic ice sheets growing taller while they recede?
I know you got questions needing answers to. Ask them.
Look at all the good, the bad, the ugly and the beautiful data. Just use Google or Yahoo. And when on a site hop on link. I estimate 40% of the VALUABLE research I find on any subject is through links.
I might die tomorrow or in my sleep tonight (not being morbid, being realistic :-);
so I pray this discussion continues, going from editorials to tough minded, truth breathing, brazen, flaming, fire-eating citizens looking for accountable truth on issues like climate and warming. Whatever the truth is.
NOTE: I will help any one and everyone. I have a method, I am still personally unsatisfied with the answers. If it is viewed I am 'taking over' tell me, I'll back off - you wont hurt my feelings.
I expect that you all will take matters ti the next level of discussion :-) and pray GG comes back. -
@UNFETTERED,
Please do. As for ESTP, we can discuss a little on it. I could tell you were STP, but couldn't tell if you were E or I. -
.ink. I've dropped my email address. Meanwhile, I've read a little about the ESTP thing, and much of it seems to fit, while the rest of it didn't, which makes sense, since we would require 6 Billion different categories to completely encompass all personalities. At the very least, it has been insightful.
-
Unfettered, usually its an 85% or more fit. Big factor is how the person took the test (did some one stand over their shoulder and prompt them, etc.) What it does do when type is identified correctly is helps different types communicate and relate easier.. Its not unusual for NTs and Sx Types to mis-connect in communication. We can address it.
-
-
Unlike many people, I don't pretend not to be self-interested, too many people aren't honest with themselves, I definitely have my own agenda and way of looking at things.
Getting back to things. The Gaia hypothesis is exactly that, an untested hypoethesis created by James Lovelock. It is not a tested theory. It resonates well with some people so they want to believe it.
Furthermore by doing nothing we insure that the worst will come to pass. It is the old precept that if good people do nothing, evil automatically wins. I believe we choose the world we live in. There may be a fixed set of possible outcomes, but there is always a choice even among limited outcomes. Superdeterminism.
What amazes me is that there has been a conclusion that it is 90% likely that humans cause global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says this. The informatin is public. www.ipcc.ch/ . There are holdouts who still claim the science is wrong, but for the most part, it is becoming an accepted fact.
Governments tend to downplay problems because they don't want to pay for them.
Things are probably worse than what we are receiving as public citizens.-
The views are certainly polarized. By shear weight, those who espouse Global Warming outnumber those who say there isn't Global Warming.
In the course of this discussion it is difficult to put on stage the proposition that there is warming but in what context? Is other news and science reviewed or entered into discussion?
When this view is introduced there is a reaction that appears or does in fact general this into an AGW.
Here's a case in point that generate discussion to illustrate this:
A number of comments address what is going on with Arctic / Greenland glaciers. It is noted that the receding ice sheets, etc, are evidence of warming that will have catastrophic repercusions on ocean levels. Measurements are taken, extrapolations performed, news made.
The ice sheets in the Arctic are receding, but there's evidence noted that they are thickening.
Wether they are thickening or not might be irrelevant with some attention placed on Antarctica.
Here photos show ice sheets are getting larger.
University of Illinois - Polar Research Group
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/index.noshade.html
(Note: The purple shaded area shows the record ice cap growth this year in Antarctica; there is also a notice on a site problem.) -
alias: Is that true? I'm looking at those and thinking they show the ice caps are getting much smaller. Their site, alas, doesn't list a lot of helpful analysis, so it's hard for me to see
-
TIMELINED, STUDIES
An example of the importance of timelined studies can found in this article, dated December 16, 2001.
(Note it is a AGW; this is ONLY used as an example of addressing studies over time and change in findings, and not to be construed as provocative - if any one has anything else as an example, please post)
Polar Ice Cap Studies Refute Catastrophic Global Warming Theories
by James M. Taylor
www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1281 -
@UNFETTERED, I looked again, and I feel a little like you do - questioning. But understand the professor is pretty good at answering email, if there's interest in contacting him. Think it might be best to wait for the site to update .. and I had come across another site showing graphic representation of Antarctica ice sheets, but for the life of me Unfettered I can't locate it now.
-
alis: Indeed, UIUC is a wonderful university. I know at least one professor there (in the Chemistry department). Hopefully, they'll flush this out over time.
-
The IPCC seems like an interesting group. Nicely organized, well documented. And their mission statement is easy to find. I do wonder at their repetition of the word 'objective' as in unbiased/neutral, though.
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I tried to become a journalist once. I discovered that objective reporting doesn't really exist. It can't because it's written by human beings. Yet when ever you hear about journalism the word 'unbiased' or 'objective' pops up too. As if they're desperately trying to deny the slanted reality that comes with being human.
Back to the IPCC, the way the group is set up seems to take Global-Warming-as-threat as a given. That doesn't strike me as terribly 'objective'.
I mean, good grief, one of their major divisions is called the "Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories."
Besides, this group needs to get funding from somewhere. And given the current attitudes of various government bodies, they're much more likely to get said funding if they provide information that proves everyone's worst fears.
Never mind that 'current attitudes' bit. In any time people are much more likely to throw their money and resources to whoever gives them a reason to be afraid. It's human nature. -
UNFETTERED
FYI arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
Forgot to add this graph on antarctic ice by area.
-
-
I'm glad I stayed out of this one.
But I'll just add, if there is a private agenda, what is that agenda?-
We need some background music. Will you play for us?? :-)))
-
Writing the appropriate music depends on a lot on the feeling needed and there are numerous perspectives mentioned in this post.
-
-
I apologize to GG and other religious people if I've hurt their feelings.
Some times I find it very frustrating to discuss with religious people since their believes are so "set" and I might use not-so-civil words.
On a side note. The king here in Norway, addressed the nation today and mentioned that he was very worried about climate change. He is not exactly an authority on the field, but it's amazing how things have changed since I started to get involved in environmental issues over 10 years ago.-
The King in Norway's concern is good news, jungl. It elevates the respectability of the problem for those on the margins of concern.
I hope that our discussion separates fact from fiction - if there is any to sort - and find new studies and information - if there is and if it competes - and compares when studies were done - which turns our heads in another direction or just keeps them pointing :-).
I have other material that I FIND INTERESTING, that I have never mentioned. I'll look at anything to get to the bottom of something. I am absolutely ruthless in this regard. Ruthless, thorough, with no regrets.
I say this because of the remark above by Brigid. Should I post comment, it WILL NOT BE meant to be provocative. So please, give me the benefit of the doubt if I do. If its of no value, super! We'll chuck it. -
The remark about 'do unto others' or about the IPCC?
-
:-) IPCC
-
-
All I know I live in Florida.. and right now its hotter than heck for this time of year.. Yeah the comp might report 73.0 however i just got in from driving in the car its 80.0 outside.. Retarded for this time of year should be like 70 or lower-
Has it been consistent? and any cold fluctuations?
-
-
.ink. I have some questions about the co2science org Mass Balance article you posted . It seems they're using ice thickness alone as a measure of mass, but that's only true if all the polar ice is uniformly dense. I'm not trying to discredit your link, I promise! I'm just stating a personal disconnect between thickness and mall, not that I know such a one exists.
-
That should be thickness and MASS. I've found plenty of density at malls.
Sorry for the misleading typo. -
Don't be concerned about discredit, my friend. All trying to get to something in this.
I understand you .. I have come across a number of article that are discussing just ice thickness .. apparently writers are believe this is significant OR the writers do by themselves. Ice thickness suggests something, I thick in view of ice length .. as in ice sheets receding.
We can pursue or move to other indicators. I am not trying to drive the discussion, just point out materials that address things that either corroborate the central Arctic themes in news. I'd do this in any event.
I confess this is fueled by my individual nature and if it was on any other issue I'd be the same. My threshold of acceptance is very high. But this is not about me, it's about approach. If someone is selling me something, I need answers to my questions. Techfun made a great point some days ago, about cross-checking.
I have other things links that were very interesting and seemed neutral. I wanted the right opportunity to introduce them to the discussion, maybe soon will be good.
But I hope that it ISN'T me, and that others look for things that are independent or even contradictory to established views, personal, etc.
When I was in graduate school we were forced to research against an established social premise. It was embarrassing to discover that views we had aligned with certain established notions were not quite accurate after all. -
Very good point, well, points. I'm considering writing all future statements in this thread in E-Prime, to remove a level of certainty from my own assertions. Likewise, I'm considering reading all statements in E-Prime, though they may not be written as such, to change my perceptions.
-
Excellent, Clean approach. And, Unfettered, they may confirm, too. But the approach is will remove doubt, or confirm to necessity to wait for more research.
-
_funny!
-
Ha! I almost missed that. Yes, it IS funny
-
-
Two very powerful business alliances which want green technology put in place are:
Apollo Alliance
www.apolloalliance.org/
United States Climate Action Partnership
www.us-cap.org/
I think the Climate Action Partnership was strong enough to force Bush and his administration to acknowledge global warming.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/23/business/main2387501.shtml-
@wehireu, some questions .. what's your thinking on it? You think it was due to political pressure (lobbying)? Or science community? UN?
What will this do for the country?
Don't have to answer of course but these are the types of questions we want to customarily get answers to.
Not familiar with Apollo Alliance. Will look later. What's your opinion of them? -
I don't really think it's a government's job to acknowledge something like Global Warming. It's up to the people who develop technologies to find solutions to what they perceive to be problems. It's up to citizens to have enough courtesy and common sense to pick up after themselves and not waste resources (and, thus, their own money).
This may sound disturbingly conservative to some people, but I don't want the government involved in my day to day life any more than it already is. Preferably less. -
brigid, I agree, and without citizen interventions along with socially responsible corporations and companies, and other institutions, it will become governments business by default. I feel sorry (for many reasons I wont enumerate now) for the States if that occurs.
As far as the goverment goes regarding people, privacy, and personal liberties, the report doesn't look any more rosy for citizens than it does in many peoples eyes for the weather.
-
-
We only had a few cool days and that was it.. mostly 80's.. however it says we should go down to 40.0 in the next few days
aliasinkhorn
Has it been consistent? and any cold fluctuations-
@RobertDi,
Then on the short term its a big fluctuation. Will be interesting to watch because the weather is strongly influence by the mid-West, if I remember correctly.
There's no doubt there's warming, particularly summers. Next is to rank winters, also... to see if for example, if there are wild swings at both ends of the year. Maybe not, but look to see.
-
-
I think there is a real industrial choice right now. I am a big time believer in the concept of clean tech, or green technology. I think business is ready to embrace it as a paradigm. Things like the Boeing 787 Dreamliner use 20% less energy and are beautifully designed, cars like the Tesla all electric roadster are examples of what could slow spread down to the regular consumer, we could have zero energy building high tech housing developments, high efficiency green buildings, open the plains to more wind farm development, rebuild our hydroelectric infrastructure with more advanced more environmentally safe turbines, build an infrastructure of hybrid diesel electric trains. The technology is there, it is more about resistance to change.
We've been told that we are going to survive economically on the new economy-- the internet without a strong manufacturing base. Clean technology could revive many countries manufacturing base like the United States, Canada, etc.-- investing in things like LED lighting, high efficiency appliances, reforestation, and the newer cleaner technologies.
I think there is a need for a change in thinking. We had an internet boom, a telecommunications boom, why not a green technology boom. It took some government preparation to build a "information superhighway", but why not an industrial green program.
Many of the big businesses want this to happen. You have a real divide in the country with the oldline companies like Exxon and the big coal companies resisting change and others ready to embrace it. It would be a cycle of "creative destruction", many companies would lose big time.
I think there is a lot going on in the United States which is not being acknowledged openly. The massive blackouts in California caused a lot of damage to high technology companies. Companies in Silicon Valley are embracing technologies like solar and wind to separate themselves from the grid. On a smaller scale there were rolling blackouts caused by inadequate oil infrastructure in Hawaii as well. A similar thing is happening with a real buildout of solar and biofuels to counter the recent blackouts in Hawaii.
I think there is also a lot of political pressure as well from environmental groups. But, also there is an internal struggle about which way companies will go in the future.-
@wehireu
This is wonderfully put. You have clearly and concisely portrayed a direction the country should and can go. As one small voice among three hundred million, 'I'll follow as fast as a Minuteman'.
'Many of the big businesses want this to happen. You have a real divide in the country with the oldline companies like Exxon and the big coal companies resisting change and others ready to embrace it. It would be a cycle of "creative destruction", many companies would lose big time.'
Actuarially, Oil and Coal still have a reasonable good life expectancy :-) And they can do like Phillip Morris, diversify :-) And they can invest, develop, or collaborate on new technologies. It would be a win-win for them.
But you put it well: other big business want change. As consortia they can become extremely effective energy change agents. With citizens demanding and backing change via congressional tax incentives there can be a conceivably short timeline in mainlining existing leading edge technologically efficient systems, industrial and consumer, and the development of new systems and products.
It has amazed me for many years how few years it took for the US to develoment the atom bomb - an incredible feat, and the relatively short time to harness knowledge to achieve a man moon mission.
There's every reason to believe, with the collective genius in the US, that your remarks can come to fruition.
'I think there is a lot going on in the United States which is not being acknowledged openly. The massive blackouts in California caused a lot of damage to high technology companies. Companies in Silicon Valley are embracing technologies like solar and wind to separate themselves from the grid. On a smaller scale there were rolling blackouts caused by inadequate oil infrastructure in Hawaii as well. A similar thing is happening with a real buildout of solar and biofuels to counter the recent blackouts in Hawaii.'
Without electricity there is no modern American country, no modern Anerican life, no modern American technology. America is crippled without it. Cities have evolved, architecture has developed highrise buildings, because of electricity. They can't install swamp coolers in skyscrappers.
ScienceDaily occassionally has a new headline on this or that newsest development in solar energy generation. Some things are awiting to be commercialized. Other things requiring further development before application. But everything America needs is in its own backyard now!
As for electrical needs in Hawaii and the West Coast. There are systems for tidal-electrical generation. The question is would the people there and the greens accept it. It's a solution that comes at a cosmetic price, and maybe one for marine life.
Wind-generated electricity can be a good adjunct, but we are seeing in Europe, it MAY cost more than it gives.
Lowering the load is critical and has been evident for a couple of decades. Systems, such as hot water, and especially air conditioning must be damped down. In fact its imperative. One engineer here was reviewing data I acquired for him for electrical use in California - and couldn't close his mouth :-) True. If I recall there are four if not five areas in the US that has incredible summer season demand. This can be better moderated by better grid management, ways to reduce electrical loss in transmission, and more efficient cooling systems. Believe it or not, increased computer use has also contributed to demand and load. There was once a time offices used manual or electric typewriters that had a small power consumption, etc.
Some have seen evidence of my feelings about federal government. It is in part because they listen better to the people they go to dinner with than they do to the people they shake hands with for a fraction of a second on the campaign trail.
We are citizens of a republic. They are accountable to US. Let's US make them listen to US. -
UNFETTERED, Happy New Year!
-
I have one big question about electric cars. Where does the electricity they run on come from? And just how effective are the engines?
Would they run in the middle of a -20 degree F Minnesota winter?
Okay, that's three questions. ^^; It's just that last I heard about those things they were way more expensive to keep up than a regular car and had nowhere near the millage. -
brigid, good question on electric cars. Last month it makes big news (only for engineers apparently; gets me riled some good news didn't make it to page 3), about an electric car in testing (I think at one university) that can go 150 miles on one charge and can recharge in two hours.
What is noted about American car use, is that the AVERAGE use for all cars is about one hour a day. :-)
(Imagine spending so much money that makes so much trouble to be used so little :-)
-
-
Last summer or early autumn I read an unusual article about ice melts on Kilimanjaro. It was a long article I cannot locate, but this can substitute:
'The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed?'
www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55553;jsessionid=baa...
It suggests, to date, that warming is doing things in some places but not in others the way expected.
And there was another scientific article that stated that warming is not 'uniform' around the globe. Obviously :-) The point was that there were places on earth getting pretty hot and others not really at all.
I am worried that the thread can turn into a link library - but if it is ok, can add more.-
I haven't read the above post yet, but I like what Dr. Allegre had to say about the disappearance of glaciers on Kilimanjaro being primarily due to desertification in Africa, which makes perfect sense. I wonder what affect convection currents and Freeman cells have on GW.
Maybe someone could offer some Web space to host a link library of "pro" or "con" links. I'd be happy to do that, if it would be helpful. I have plenty of space I'm not using, and plenty of free time to keep updating with any source I'm sent. I'd be loath to go through the threads and pull out all the links so far, because my totem animal is a sloth.
Also, if this would prove useful, it needn't be "pro" vs. "con" on any part of this issue. It could be broken up by categories such as "C02 Puritanism" and "CO2 Pragmatism".
Maybe that's getting too pedantic, though, and not really necessary. The offer stands, if anyone would like to make use of it. -
Unfettered, It sounds like a great idea, if forum members contribute.
Are there other category titles more benign? :-) Hope the practice is to look at evidence which bears on the state of the climate. One of the intents would be to see the problem through the eyes of recent science research.
This approach is based on the approach IPCC has taken, that effects discussion. Bali has used the IPCC's report this year based on research up to the middle of 2006. As the news reported in some instances, the researchers were not part of creating that report once things were handed off to IPCC - altho, if this is not true, the first point stands as significant.
See what others say.
As for 'my totem animal is a sloth' .. I thought it was an eagle :-)
7:20 am here & time to sleep. -
.ink.
I guess it would be up to all forum members to suggest category titles. It is New Year's Eve, and I've had some gin. My best thinking hat is no longer on.
Yes, I'd certainly like it to focus on research, so I'm sure with a little reflection the categories wouldn't be too difficult to find.
Maybe the totem animal is both eagle AND sloth. I'm from the PNW, and we do love our totem poles.
Get some good sleep and Happy New Year. -
And what I find interesting about the desertification of Africa is that apparently the Sahara area used to be a very lush, green place.
Hasn't been like that in a few thousand years. I wonder it it's been spreading this whole time and we only now started to notice?
Oh, and I think having a page dedicated to links on the subject of this thread is a really great idea. One category might be the 'For Human Blame' and another might be 'For Natural Cycle'. -
brigid, excellent ideas on categories! super.
As for Sahara desert, in Roman times it was lush and tropical. One accepted explanation for the current desert (or its size) is over-grazing.
This by itself can explain the change. It is too often forgotten, that by the sixth century the Mediterranean basin got REALLY HOT. And they were driving low methane chariots and horses :-)
-
-
;;;; Hi !
-
HI! Join in! :-)
-
-
These are a copče of articles that might be of interest to the discussion. I have tried to select articles that are neutral in perspectives, however, as I note in the second, it looks as if I might not be, but has cited recent research for further web search.
Cirrus disappearance: Warming might thin heat-trapping clouds
8/9/2007
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center
www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875
Phil Gentry, (256)824-6420
'Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.'
The title is provocative but the following article is interesting because it is written in part on recent research. It also has interesting graphs. I have only read part of the article - so I do not recommend it yet as being neutral - tho it has a strong conclusive opinion in the beginning. If you think it is bias, pass on it. Anyone or I can give a comment after reading.
Greenhouse warming?
What greenhouse warming?
The fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse warming predicted by computer models is absent from real-world, observed trends
in atmospheric temperature change
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/whatgreenhouse/mo...
This article addresses CO2 and errors. Its is balanced and points to a small problem.
Paleoclimate and CO2
Temperature and CO2 over the Past 400 Thousand years
www.noe21.org/dvd2/Global%20Warming%20FAQ%20-%A0%20temperature.htm-
Wait, does that mean that the warmer it get the harder it is for the planet to warm itself?
That's a very interesting idea. Kinda like Earth comes with a failsafe mechanism. -
brigid, this has been addressed earlier in the first forum but too indirectly perhaps. Weather, climate, earth and air, and earth, air, sun and moon, are systems. For the first time in history, science is exploring and learning in more detail how and what these systems are really all about. Natural systems, so far, appear to be self-regulating; factoring humans into all this is what science is trying to figure out with some degree of confidence - meaning, no matter how they look at climate, the understanding acquired remains relatively intact. Its nowhere near that yet.
Putting it simplistically, for most of the last few hundred years, one of science's chief interests was in physics. Now the focus turns to 'multi-variables' weather :-)
-
-
REFORESTATION
Here's a news item focusing on Indiana.
"The movement of people to the suburbs will deeply affect how much deforestation occurs," Evans said. "The current rate of reforestation in rural areas may not counter-balance it in the coming years. A lot of the area in southern Indiana that is least suitable for crops or pasture has now been reforested."
Of note is 'least suitable for crops or pasture has now been reforested'.
Southern Indiana is greener, but for how long?
newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/7099.html -
I am sorry to say that I have been unable to read all the commentary that has been posted to this site during the last few days but I would like to jump back in since references that are being offered in the postings are pitting one “expert” against another.
Although the following is long and appears to be ‘off the track’ I would like to pit one expert against himself depending on how much money is involved.
Most of you no doubt have heard of the DNA expert Dr Henry Lee.
I copied the following from Dr Henry Lee’s website:
“The legendary investigator is known for finding the tiniest clues, and has even solved a murder without a body. Over the past 40 years, Dr. Lee assisted in the investigations of more than 6,000 cases, including war crimes in Bosnia and Croatia, and the suicide of President Clinton's former White House attorney, Vince Foster.”
In the following book:
Blood Evidence: How DNA is Revolutionizing the Way We Solve Crimes
by Dr. Henry C. Lee and Frank Tirnady
Cambridge: Perseus Publishing, 2003 0-7382-0602-4
(Price $26.00) pp. 338
Reviewed by Brady Hermann
Journal of High Technology Law
Suffolk University Law School
“The authors clearly show how DNA evidence can
be attacked, by explaining in depth the defense’s arguments in the O.J Simpson trial in 1995.
Despite what many may argue as overwhelming DNA evidence against Simpson, his lawyers
were able to cast doubt in the minds of the jurors by showing very careless work done by
investigators and scientists working on the case.1 The investigators were very careless in their
handling of DNA evidence which likely lead to the acquittal of Simpson.2 DNA evaluation is
very important, thus those in the legal profession impose very strict guidelines on how it is to be
handled and evaluated because a defendant’s life, or at least their freedom, is on the line. The
author’s description of the O.J. Simpson case shows how important it is for law enforcement
1 Some of the mistakes that occurred were the obtaining of blood samples from the crime
scene up to thirty days after the murders occurred, covering the body of Nicole Simpson with
one of her own blankets from her home, and leaving Simpson’s Ford Bronco unattended where
one person admittedly was able to get inside and leave a note.
2Authors mentioned lab workers spilling blood samples, being unable to account for
missing blood, etc.”
However, during the massacres in Bosnia, bodies were dumped into open pits with body parts scattered in different locations. After being covered with dirt then dug up years later I quote,
”A year after the DNA testing began, authorities reported that 1,200 corpses had been identified through DNA analysis among the dead in Srebrenica and other locations throughout the former Yugoslavia.”
And from the same book: “Within a few years, however, mtDNA tests were establishing that the children in question were not biologically related to the people who were raising them. Many of the children were later reunited with their biological families.”
My point here is that the same ‘expert’ who can with certainty identify DNA from decomposed bodies in a ditch years after the fact cannot say with certainty that a sample that was uncontaminated but ‘mishandled’ could not identify O J Simpson.
Finally, I ask, are some scientists motivated by money or politics to report to those of us who are not measuring and collecting the data where the truth lies?
If we cannot determine truth from lies, we cannot make rational decisions.
This is the original reason that I started my Blog, to attempt to find the truth.
I’m sorry if the above bored you readers.-
EVIDENCE
JohnMalenda,
You make a very good point on the current state of both contributory science and debates waging in forum and comments posted to forums, blogs, and news stories through this analogy.
Arriving at the truth on climate change becomes very difficult for several reasons.
The science on Climatology is still developing rapidly to understand current climate effects that impact modern life, lifestyles, fauna, flora, and 'environment' in general. This is happening as an inter-disciplinary to climate evolves, which is dependent on a number of wide ranging sciences.
The IPCC's report, based on science research advanced to approximately a year to a year and a half ago, immediately set the Bali agenda. In addition, it caused scientists concern that they were not directly involved with the report written by the IPCC.
In the meantime, research has been continuous, with further studies causing or forcing revisions of conclusions, or identifying that further research was required because of anomalies, other research bearing on previous conclusions, new data suggesting the possibility of unknown variables or changes in trends, etc.
There may be deliberate agendas involved in influencing either the research or conclusions, or there could be methodological approaches that are not sufficient, or there could be extrapolations that are taken as anticipated facts.
Going beyond the headlines, it is interesting to note that, with exceptions, discussing probable causes and probable consequences. The dilemma - that gets satisfied answered through current polarities - is what do 'we' do now?
In the meantime, science continues to explore and publish findings. In the course of these newer findings more scientists are expressing reservations with previous research conclusions, and in others, dismissing the conclusions altogether. These remarks are measured against the acceptance of the IPCC report, and has provided repercussions on all sides except the IPCC and Bali.
Unfortunately, this gives natural rise to suspicions as that conference's true intent, motives, and agendas. This does not not suggest on the other hand that all motives and concern are not true in themselves. There were other issues from the UN at Bali such as Forestation that 'got a seat at the table' but wasn't addressed with the resolution carbon geo-national offsets were.
The hope has been to add to the discussion mix a point of objectivity in approaching these current events, to subordinate antagonistic views, and learn what is being discovered or revealed to science today. 'We' want to be informed and shape our views based on increasing research with its, hopefully, increasing certainties.
As all this goes on, fundamental and long-standing environmemtal issues must take center stage, elevated to guide the governance to action, and get out of the eclipse of the Global Warming quagmire of debates.
It is the best hope that this discussion GlobalGirl has nobly started will help humbly in achieving this. -
EDIT:
Going beyond the headlines, it is interesting to note that, with exceptions, THAT SCIENCE IS discussing probable causes and probable consequences. The dilemma - that gets satisfied AND answered through current polarities - is what do 'we' do now? -
Well, scientists are human and thus fallible. Science may not lie, but the people who use it can by picking and choosing the pieces they want to be so.
One of the big bits of advice that I kept from my mass communication classes: follow the money. -
brigid, you kept one of the best parts: 'money'. First forum attempted to address this.
And chasing money comes a hound dog call politics. :-)
-
-
Here's a simple example of science progression. It regards methane gas, a subject that has been eclipsed by continual news about C02.
It doesn't follow a linear path like climate research, but distinguishes itself as a problem that gets attention in the scientific community. Methane's impact on Climate can be extremely great.
These news items go from: control, to concern / alarm, to (relative) good news. The obvious point is that the science is not closed on this gas and its effects.
Control Of Methane Emissions Would Reduce Both Global Warming And Air Pollution, Researchers Find
ScienceDaily (Oct. 10, 2002)
WWW.SCIENCEDAILY.COM/RELEASES/2002/10/021010065923.HTM
Methane's Impacts On Climate Change May Be Twice Previous Estimates
ScienceDaily (Jul. 19, 2005)
WWW.SCIENCEDAILY.COM/RELEASES/2005/07/050718214744.HTM
Scientists Find Good News About Methane Bubbling Up From the Ocean Floor Near Santa Barbara
20-Dec-2007
WWW.PHYSORG.COM/NEWS117390407.HTML -
And, for general interest. if the reader wants to discover if science has made any headway on climate change in the past 150 years, read this:
James Croll in Context:
The Encounter between Climate Dynamics and Geology
in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century
64.233.183.104/SEARCH?Q=CACHE:PHSKYUNDQOIJ:WWW.METEOHISTORY.ORG/2006HISTORY...
An interesting 19th century perspective. -
Aliasinkhorn,
Happy that you are out there adding stability.
Having been involved in scientific research both in the government and in private industry I KNOW how difficult it is to be objective when we acquire new data that goes counter to one of our pet projects.
If you say, "I was wrong", funding stops for your project. We write research proposals based on what we believe at the time. The longer the project can run the longer we will be employed.
This is an extremely serious problem because people on both sides of the issue don't want to commit 'scientific suicide'.-
JohnMalenda,
Great insight ino the world of research, and I hope forum readers can keep it in mind as they read examine climate change research.
There have been some researchers I have found quoted in a few article on the web pointing to this as a driver in their institutional reseach on global warming. This fact alone doesn't make all research studies suspect, however.
What might be germane to point out now is that of the estimated 70 billion dollars spent on global climate research, about 50 billion dollars has gone to pro-global warming researcher camp (this is a sensitive point and nearly impossible to put gently).
I was once heavily involved with research, but in a business. Our bread and butter was built on research that was Objectively right in the end, and proved it. If it wasn't, we could well get a bad reputation, lose business and never attract new clients. We told clients the results as truth, good, bad, ugly and beautiful. That's raw, transparent, research. If facts are made or forced to fit a conception, then a Lie has been manufactured.
Compared to business, under a patronage (sponsor or funder for the research project), there is a tug on the hem to give the patron at least qualified CONCLUSIONS they're hoping for.
Under the proposition of research as a business, you better give the client the facts, findings, and the truth.
And in the end, that+s all we went, so we can address or lobby others to address objectively the problems are in themselves and the solutions needed by priority.
At least it is my aim to do this with others.
-
-
Mother Earth is speaking. "Ignore me no more."-
Common Sense is saying it, too. :-)
And Father Time is saying, 'Time is running out to do the things you haven't for thirty years. And instead you spend the time fightin'' :-)
And Mother Nature says, 'All the things you need to do for me are all the things we haven't.' :-) -
MEANT TO WRITE:
And Mother Nature says, 'All the things you need to do for me are all the things we haven't DONE TOGETHER.' :-) -
When I was a child, there was hardly any pollution and plenty of clean abundance, wildlife and nurturing food. There was also hope in the air. Lately, it feels like gloom and doom. Time we get off our arses and do our share.
-
Where do you live, Theresa11? I live in Central Minnesota and aside from a man-made lake suffering the effects of decades worth of farm runoff, things are pretty clean around here.
Good air (barring the occasional skunk or cattle truck), clean water (well, depends on the city, some leave more chlorine in than is really necessary), plenty of greenery, and there's another lake nearby that is quite safe to swim in.
I think it depends a lot on where you live.
-
-
An old classmate, now a neuro-scientist just sent me this article by email - we occassionally flip each other something interesting in the news. It addresses the social and individual psychology of our attention to events. Might be of interest. The article is a commentary, yet it is meant to give insight into concerns about climate change and should not be construed provocative input. I am deeply concerned about the environment.
Science, New York Times
'In 2008, a 100 Percent Chance of Alarm'
By JOHN TIERNEY
January 1, 2008
www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html?_r=4&ref=science&oref=slogin...
'When judging risks, we often go wrong by using what’s called the availability heuristic: we gauge a danger according to how many examples of it are readily available in our minds. Thus we overestimate the odds of dying in a terrorist attack or a plane crash because we’ve seen such dramatic deaths so often on television; we underestimate the risks of dying from a stroke because we don’t have so many vivid images readily available.
Slow warming doesn’t make for memorable images on television or in people’s minds, so activists, journalists and scientists have looked to hurricanes, wild fires and starving polar bears instead. They have used these images to start an “availability cascade,” a term coined by Timur Kuran, a professor of economics and law at the University of Southern California, and Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago.
The availability cascade is a self-perpetuating process: the more attention a danger gets, the more worried people become, leading to more news coverage and more fear. Once the images of Sept. 11 made terrorism seem a major threat, the press and the police lavished attention on potential new attacks and supposed plots. After Three Mile Island and “The China Syndrome,” minor malfunctions at nuclear power plants suddenly became newsworthy.' -
Hey. Thanks. I read it and afterwards, I viewed this:
www.nytimes.com/packages/html/business/20071227_HUNTER_FEATURE/index.html
Very interesting find. Mother Earth is so beautiful and she is simply filled with Treasures.-
Nice link. IT shows nature can answer our needs. Question for those there in Peru is if they can take this natural medicine and make a living from it and help the world, too.
-
-
There's a new study published on Nature.com. It addresses a feature of climate change addressed, I believe, in GlobalGirls' commented in the first Forum discussion: carbon dust.
The article is interesting for a number of reasons and, to me, touches on a key concern of science: uncertainty. It's the last word in the quotes below.
Atmospheric science: Black carbon and brown clouds
John Seinfeld is at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA.
e-mail: seinfeld@caltech.edu
'In aerosol hot spots around the globe, solar radiation is dimmed down on its way to the Earth's surface. The resulting surface cooling turns out to be almost in balance with heating of the atmosphere due to black carbon.'
'How atmospheric particles — generally termed aerosols — affect air temperatures depends on altitude: they reflect some of the incoming solar radiation back to space, cooling the Earth's surface, and at the same time absorb some of the sun's energy, heating the atmosphere around them. But the magnitude of aerosol energy absorption on the global scale and its contribution to global warming are uncertain. Two related papers by Ramanathan et al.1 and Stone et al.2 tackle the sources of that uncertainty.' -
There are a couple of interesting articles on Climate Change at scienceagogo.com. The excerpts from the one below is of critical interest. It addresses glacial shrinking in the Himalayas. It is not new news, but it is the first time, to my knowledge, it has been measured.
I have been following this problem for the past two+ years with interest and concern, understanding the impact this problem poses for the population in India.
As far as the text goes, below, there are two notable points.
If I understand the article correctly, it works under the assumption that because there is no radioactive dust in the top core drillings of the Himalayan ice sheets - and that there has been no new ice since the 1950s. On the other hand, it suggests that the ice has been melting since the 1950s and 60s. Which is it? And, could it be that altitude and wind and distance have been a big factor in no radioactive signals left in the ice from those years?
On the other hand, words like 'believe' 'possibly indicating' 'If true' are used in the article.
It highlights, among several things that come to mind, two things - more research is needed and melting and runoff need to be addressed.
12 December 2007
Missing Fallout Fuels Warming Fears
www.scienceagogo.com/news/20071111231807data_trunc_sys.shtml
'Ice cores drilled from the Himalayas lack the distinctive radioactive traces that atomic explosions produce, possibly indicating that no new ice has accumulated since the 1950s, attendees at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union were told recently. The missing radioactivity, originating as fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests during the 1950s and 1960s, routinely provides researchers with a benchmark against which they can gauge how much new ice has accumulated on a glacier or ice field.
Scientists believe that the missing signal means that this Tibetan ice field has been shrinking at least since A-bomb testing began half a century ago. If true, it could foreshadow a future when the stockpiles of freshwater will dwindle and vanish, seriously affecting the lives of more than 500 million people on the Indian subcontinent.
Thompson and his colleagues worry that this massive loss of meltwater would drastically impact major Indian rivers like the Ganges, Indus and Brahmaputra that provide water for one-sixth of the world's population.'
Are some scientific conclusions premature?
Do they incorporate an interdisciplinary approach?
Are qualifiers like 'believe' 'possibly indicating' 'If true' important?
This is not to dismiss the warming phenomenon. The requirements for an alteration of global and regional industries and lifestyles is still needed to reduce negative human impact on the environment. -
Studying history, I had a professor that had an idea he was mulling over that major conflicts might have a correlation with population growth and size, etc. It is known that this was a factor for France entering World War I. If this professor was alive today, he would probably would consider this article as a better starting position.
Read it, and give us your comments.
22 November 2007
Academics Mull Flow-On Effects Of Climate Change
www.scienceagogo.com/news/20071021185551data_trunc_sys.shtml
'Brecke and Zhang perceived a possible connection between temperature change and wars because changes in climate affect water supplies, growing seasons and land fertility, prompting food shortages. These shortages could lead to conflict - local uprisings, government destabilization and invasions from neighboring regions - and population decline due to war and starvation.
To assess whether changes in temperature affected the number of wars, the researchers examined the time period between 1400 and 1900. This period recorded the lowest average global temperatures around 1450, 1650 and 1820, each separated by slight warming intervals. The researchers collected war data from multiple sources and used climate change records that paleoclimatologists reconstructed by consulting historical documents and examining indicators of temperature change like tree rings, as well as oxygen isotopes in ice cores and coral skeletons.
The results showed a cyclic pattern of turbulent periods when temperatures were low followed by tranquil ones when temperatures were higher. The number of wars per year worldwide during cold centuries was almost twice that of the mild 18th century.
The study also showed population declines following each high war peak. In China, the population plummeted 43 percent between 1620 and 1650. Then, a dramatic increase in population occurred from 1650 until a cooling period beginning in 1800 caused a worldwide demographic shock.
The researchers also showed that when grain prices reached a certain level, wars erupted. The ecological stress on agricultural production triggered by climate change did in fact induce population shrinkages, according to Brecke.' -
The only responsible thing for we irresponsible humans to do is commit hari kari en masse and return our bodies to mother earth - the flora and fauna will then live in peace, free from the horrible interference of the unwelcome homo sapiens. -
This may be the sensible thing for others to do. As for me, I am seeing this man's through to the end :-)
I have this quirky characteristic that continually manifests itself: the right, something so right, that it is right no matter where I am on earth, and is seen as right by many others no matter where I go.
Problems are not made by humans - tho I often generalise things to 'humans' - they are too often deliberately made by a percentage of humans, others just acquiesce or just follow.
The forum has demonstrated that there is great concern about global warming. Their beliefs are deep, broad, and unshakable.
Yet one important aspect of belief is that it motivates individual behaviour, it governs behaviour, it aims behaviour with purpose to results, outcomes. This is normal. It validates the belief.
I look, listen, and wonder. What are these believers doing to make change, remedy the problem, changing lifestyle and persuading others to do the same? What are these believers doing to group together and act, to demand changes and make changes on a community, regional, national and worldwide basis? Otherwise it makes belief look like posturing and false.
If they don't act, the state will act for them. If they don't speak up, the state will speak for them. I don't see this as a desirable result. I think it's wisely advised to be part of the process of remedies, than it mandated without personal input and influence. And collectively, there's enough genius in America to do it. -
I can't agree at all with the idea of humanity killing itself off. We're creatures, too, and deserve to live. It just goes completely against the grain to consider such an option.
-
alias...why do you use the word 'state'?
-
-
TechFun has a great new Discussion Topic called 'WebPlus Research Tool Walkthrough' www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/webplus-research-tool-walkthrough with the walk-through at blog.techfun.org/webplus-walkthrough ...
I am glad that the matter of web search is getting attention, particularly as it can apply to climate change web searches and well informed discussion.
Google is a great tool when search tricks (and there are a number)are applied to it, yet it can still be difficult to narrow searches. Comparing search results between Google, Yagoo, A9, IXquick (metasearch) and others reveal a very conspicuously difference among them.
To adequately explore, one method is to use an expanded search string like 'global warming climate change research study december 2007', and vary the string for further searching. Do this in Google, and other major search engines and review results on two to five page results.
In addition to TechFun's wonderful heads-up and walk-through for web searching, there are a number of lesser known search engines like, for example: search-engine-patents-swicki.eurekster.com ... Using this engine listed a site that didn't come up in Google:
Here's the results and a sample of content:
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News
climatesci.colorado.edu/category/climate-change-metrics/
New JGR Paper Published - “Unresolved Issues With The Assessment Of Multidecadal Global Land Surface Temperature Trends”
We have identified a fundamental problem with the use of land surface air temperatures in the construction of a global average multi-decadal trend. The question is whether these temperatures are sufficiently coupled to the radiative and thermodynamic characteristics of the Earth system to construct a global average trend that can be diagnosed to obtain the radiative forcing of the climate system.
We conclude, that particularly for the minimum temperatures, it is not sufficiently coupled!
---
Climate Metric Reality Check #2 Long Term Sea Surface Temperature Trend Anomalies and Ocean Heat Content Trends - Evidence For No Recent Global Warming
1. There has been long term warming of the upper ocean, since at least 1955.
2. The upper ocean heat content changes over time closely map onto the sea surface temperature anomaly trends.
3. In the last four years, the sea surface temperature average between 60N and 60S has cooled.
With respect to the third item, this may be a short term downturn. However the absence of recognition (and possible explanation) of this change in sea surface temperature trend in the 2007 IPCC report, and other sources including the media, presents yet further evidence on the lack of balance in such assessments.
The lack of recent warming over much of the ocean does not mean that we should not be concerned about the human addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere (since there are still consequences of changes to land and ocean biogeochemistry from added CO2), but it elevates the importance of other human climate forcings such nitrogen deposition, land use/land cover change, aerosol effects on clouds and precipitation, etc (e.g. see) with respect to the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide (the latter excessively narrow focus, of course, has, unfortunately, been the emphasis of the Bali meeting over the last two weeks).
This analysis, as well as other studies such as the McKitrick and Michaels JGR paper, should be a wake up call that erroneous information is being communicated to policymakers and others on the actual radiative imbalance of the climate system. The 2007 IPCC ignored assesing these unresolved issues which, as a consequence, result in a warm bias in their conclusions on the magnitude of global warming.
---
November 30, 2007
Climate Metric Reality Check #1 - The Sum Of Climate Forcings and Feedbacks Is Less Than The 2007 IPCC Best Estimate Of Human Climate Forcing Of Global Warming
... the total observed radiative forcing and feedback of 0.85 W/m^2 lies below the IPCC central estimate of 1.6 W/m^2 for just the human contribution to radiative forcing. This suggests that the climate feedbacks most likely act to diminish the effects of human contributions to radiative forcing, though it is important to recognize that a small part of the IPCC range (0.6 to 0.85) falls under the observed value from the work of Hansen.
This suggests that, at least up to the present, the effect of human climate forcings on global warming has been more muted than predicted by the global climate models.
This issue was inadequately discussed by the 2007 IPCC report. Climate Science has weblogged on this in the past (e.g. see), but so far this rather obvious issue has been ignored.
---
An A9.com search gave other results not discovered on Google. This site is a little provocative but at least the guy has credentials to speak: 'retired Meteorologist, Paleoclimatologist and Space Plasma Physicis.'
www.kn4lf.com/globalwarminglie.htm
Why do I include it? For sure not for argumentive responses. It is included to fathom and discover what is under the proverbial 'rock'. Personally, my view of any issue becomes blind with passions. I want to see things I may have missed. From any one.
And who would have guessed that Geology.com has climate change news!? But A9 listed it in its results. And there's something for everybody.
My concern about the Amazon is nearly 25 years old now, and this site is linked to an article that should be a wake up call to everyone to come together a global impacting issue - no matter what personal views are held about warming:
Half of Amazon could be gone by 2030
By Paul Eccleston
06/12/2007
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/06/eaamazon106.xml
geology.com/news/category/global-warming.shtml
At the same time the clearing of forests to make way for crops and livestock could release almost 100 billion tonnes of CO2 - the equivalent of more than two years of total global greenhouse gas emissions.
The destruction would threaten one of the key influences on helping keep the global climate cool, according to the WWF report.
---
Is there Climate Change reseach or news from the past few months you've discovered on the Net?
Does it support, or alter a view in any way?
Can it help others understand the issues better? -
“There are particular moments in public affairs, when the people stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.” —James Madison
Aliasinkhorn,
Your Brecke & Zhang info is extremely interesting regarding climate change leading to food shortage leading to war.
We are on the verge of creating a food shortage artificially by diverting agricultural to ethanol and biodiesel production.(See the October 2007 issue of NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)
I'm not certain about the evaluation that there was no radioactity found in the Himalayan glaciers is an indication that the Earth is either growing warmer or cooler. To me it implies that there was no snow during that period to trap any radioactive particles.
The subject needs more work.
The data that you have accumulated and posted during this discussion is very interesting and important. It is rare to find this much information in one location and is going to take a long time to digest.
I don't know how you find time to do anything else but add to this discussion.;)
I hope that those reading this discussion will, if they have not, read Jared Diamond's COLLAPSE. Our planet is fragile and no matter what one's politics or prejudices might be we should be doing something to preserve it. Let's hope that the path we choose is based on solid data and not opinion.
How do we persuade our politicians, locally and globally, to stop serving their own interests and do something constructive instead of being 'anti-everything' if it doesn't benefit their personal ambitions?-
The planet is fragile?
This place survived getting hit with a rock the size of the Yucatan Peninsula. A lot of creatures died out, but a lot survived. Cockroaches, crocodiles, whales, sharks, early mammals, frogs, turtles, dragonflies, etc. And that isn't even getting into the plants.
The following isn't an authoritative research study, it's a personal observation. A road of asphalt, buildings of glass and steal. Concrete sidewalks. No plants are supposed to be anywhere in sight. And what is this? Poking up through a crack in the sidewalk is a blade of grass.
Nature is not weak. -
Brigid,
You answer mirrors mine a bit. The people seem to need more saving than the planet. The planet will do fine without us.
Rich -
Yeah. I don't think it's necessary for us to meddle one way of another. If the planet can survive the end of the dinosaurs, it can survive us "hairless apes."
-
-
brigid, wonderful observation! Reminds me of insights from the philosopher Herbert Spencer and Life's indomitable spirit. Life has a resiliency that goes beyond the conceivable.
Off topic, there was a major news item addressing so called medical miracles recently. Things that are physically impossible to happen in the eyes of science - yet do. Many have ascribed this to a Power that is a reality with a capital R, in other words, God - we are in the reality with the little r :-)
And from the perspective of those who are evolutionists, primate life has survived incredible changes in clime and nature through millenia.
There is something 'there' that exists in spite of what humans do, among themselves or in nature. It serves us; we are expected to reciprocate - whatever our beliefs.-
Thank you. I can't take complete credit, though. It's also something my Dad has noticed and pointed out to me.
Medical miracles... I run into shows about them on Discovery Health sometimes. Coma patients who shouldn't wake up, but do. Ectopically implanted babies who not only survive, but are healthy after birth. All sorts of stuff.
The will to live is amazing.
-
-
I love science. There's a great news item -The Infinitely Geared Bike - showing a bike based on a work by Leonardo Da Vinci.
In the first thread there are discussion about energy efficient light bulbs. By federal law, it is to replace old fashion filament bulbs by 2014, I believe. Science technology moves forward.
But science heath says 'Excuse me, but we have a problem.'
Energy-saving bulbs 'can cause migraines' warn experts
By JENNY HOPE and DAVID DERBYSHIRE
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_artic...
2nd January 2008
'Energy saving light bulbs can trigger migraines, health experts and charities warned last night.
They have been inundated with complaints about the fluorescent bulbs, which are due to become compulsory in homes within four years.
Campaigners are calling for the Government to allow an opt-out for people with health problems so they can continue to use old-style bulbs.
The warning follows concerns that eco-bulbs can trigger dizziness, loss of focus and discomfort among people with epilepsy.'
---
What do think?
Were there better ways, other ways, you can post here, to help against 'climate warming' and conserve electricity?-
Tesla designed things years ago, and we never needed the fossil fuels in the first place...
what's wrong with the global warming picture? -
@acousticguitarist
YOU SAY SO MUCH IN SO FEW WORDS :-) Yes, true. And remember, which might be hard for some to swallow, he was 'given' some or a lot of this knowledge, as I've been told. It wasn't all his own brain work.
And as for the global climate picture, there's a lot of granularity in it, but science is working over time to sharpen the image up a bit :-)
Tesla had a car that ran on -- something -- but it didn't run on fuel. I've read the story about it (if you live in Croatia, you know it by osmosis, also :-). -
Wasn't Tesla some sort of mad genius who claimed to have built an earthquake machine?
I'm afraid I really don't know much more than that. ^^;
-
-
Have you always tried to adopt ways of saving energy? For a very long time I have bought products that will use less gas, diesel, or electricity. I went from a gas guzzling BMW to a Toyota Camry to do my part to help conserve (gas) energy. Then there were household products that were bought for efficiency ratings. And the list goes on.
Now there's news last month about a prototype car that looks very interesting. It's called the V2G. Here's an excerpt of the article:
Car Prototype Generates Electricity, And Cash
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203133532.htm
A team of UD faculty has created a system that enables vehicles to not only run on electricity alone, but also to generate revenue by storing and providing electricity for utilities. The technology--known as V2G, for vehicle-to-grid--lets electricity flow from the car’s battery to power lines and back.
---
The technology will work on a large scale, he said, because on average 95 percent of all cars are parked at any given time. One hour a day of car usage is the average in America.
“A car sitting there with a tank of gasoline in it, that’s useless,” he said. “If it’s a battery storing a lot of electricity and a big plug that allows moving power back and forth quickly, then it’s valuable.”
---
V2G prototype specifications
The Car: Manufactured by vehicle technology company AC Propulsion; formerly a Toyota Scion, which was chosen because it is light yet provides plenty of passenger room
Emissions: The car itself produces no carbon dioxide emissions
Acceleration: 0 to 60 miles per hour in 7 seconds
Top Speed: 95 miles per hour
Range: 120 highway, 150 city
Battery Life: 5 years or about 50,000 miles (being tested and verified)
Recharge: 2 hours using 240-volt plug or overnight using 110-volt plug
Maintenance: No oil changes; brakes last three times longer because the car has regenerative braking, a mechanism that slows the car and returns power to the battery
(by University of Delaware.)
WOULD YOU BUY ONE OFF THE SHOWROOM FLOOR IF IT WAS SOLD TODAY?? TO HELP THE CLIMATE?? TO SAVE THE PLANET??
OR WOULD YOU STICK WITH A FUEL DRIVEN CAR??-
That is so cool. I think I'd probably wait until they were within my price range and had a few of the bugs worked out.
Nothing to do with not wanting to save the planet. I'm just cautious about new tech. Unlike a recent ancestor of mine, I probably wouldn't have gotten a telephone when they were first available. I'd probably have waited a decade or so for the technology to standardize itself.
-
-
@RobertDi,
There was an old farmers' saying where I come from, 'Mother Nature has her own way about things and they're never the same two days in a row' :-) Mark Twain could appreciate that remark.
Everytime it looks like its possible to extrapolate one view over another, something happens to put on the breaks.
Look here:
Storm threatens to bring deep freeze to South
Farmers race to protect crops from storm that dumped snow on Northeast
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22462876/
Excerpt
ORLANDO, Fla. - A wintry system that added inches to record snow accumulations in some Northern states sent temperatures plummeting Wednesday in the South, where farmers scrambled to protect their crops.
Temperatures were expected to drop into the 20s and teens in parts of Florida by Thursday morning, following the 30-degree temperatures some northern parts of the state saw Wednesday.
The cold spell could prove devastating to the state's citrus industry, which is the nation's largest and already has suffered from years of disease and hurricanes.
It doesn't support any point of view but it sure makes things confusing.
WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON WEATHER NEWS?
ARE WINTERS GETTING 'STRONGER' ALONG WITH 'STRONGER' SUMMERS?
OR IS IT JUST A WINTER WEATHER BLIP?-
To me it looks like the sort of weather Minnesotans have been accustomed to for nearly a hundred years is spreading to the rest of the continent.
I.e. Weather outlook for 2008: Crazy.
Rest of the Continental US, welcome to my world.
-
-
DO MOUNTAINS STEAL FROM ONE ANOTHER? JUST JOKING :-)
While Himalayan glaciers are in the news for possibly losing ice, Mt. Shasta glaciers are in the news for gaining it.
Living with these global weather contradictions is difficult, to say the least.
Mt. Shasta Glaciers Growing While Others Retreat
December 1 | Mt. Shasta News
www.mtshastanews.com/articles/2007/11/28/news/01glaciers.txt
(unfortunately its 'pay me first, then read')
'Reports from all over the world say that glaciers are melting. However, researchers have discovered that the glaciers of Mount Shasta in northern California are advancing. More snow is thought to be the cause.' -
I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANYONE TO LISTEN TO ME SINCE A CHILD ON THIS SUBJECT - BUT TREES ARE THE BEST ENVIRONMENTAL FRIEND HUMANS HAVE.
This is what happens without them:
Forests Damaged by Hurricane Katrina Become Major Carbon Source
11.15.07
'With the help of NASA satellite data, a research team has estimated that Hurricane Katrina killed or severely damaged 320 million large trees in Gulf Coast forests, which weakened the role the forests play in storing carbon from the atmosphere. The damage has led to these forests releasing large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.'
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2007/katrina_carbon.html
Nice satellite before and after views, too.
---
Possibly interesting is this article, addressing the 'latest spaceborne remote sensing technologies for monitoring tropical deforestationt'.
Woods Hole Research Center has a nice PDF on the Amazon deforestation monitoring.
Woods Hole Research Center Debuts First-of-its-Kind Image Mosaic
Global forest monitoring from space to be strengthened
www.whrc.org/pressroom/press_releases/PR-2007-11-20-Alos-Xingu.htm
'One of the greatest threats to the Amazon rainforest is the rapid expansion of industrial agriculture, and rates of deforestation are likely to increase in the coming decades as demands for biofuel and animal feed increase.
Scientists at the Woods Hole Research Center are actively involved in the development of policy mechanisms focused on compensating rainforest nations for slowing deforestation, thereby reducing their emissions from heat-trapping green house gases.'-
That makes sense. Fewer plants (in this case, trees) more carbon dioxide.
And more carbon dioxide, the more breathable atmosphere for plant life. Which will likely contribute to booming growth of flora of various sorts for a while.
Unfortunately, considering how damp it is down there, a lot of that flora is probably going to be of the gooey-icky kind.
-
-
NASA. GREAT AGENCY. IT KNOWS A LOT ABOUT SPACE. NOW IT LOOKS AT EARTH.
We are getting more puzzle pieces, but struggling to put them altogether. Now I can understand humans contributing to CO2 in the atmosphere (see www.breathingearth.net) but are humans making the winds change direction, too?
This is VERY INTERESTING.
NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
November 13, 2007
'PASADENA, Calif. – A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.'
WHAT DO THINK ABOUT EARTH'S CIRCULATION? MAN MADE? NATURAL?-
This was meant to accompany the breathingearth.net link.
CarbonTracker
NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory
www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker
-
-
RANDOM/SCIENCE/DOOMSDAY
Hmmm Scientists predictions? I never put much faith in those, if my local meteorologist can't even get next weeks forecast right....
The Mayans are the ones to trust, But then again if they are right the world ends in 2012, maybe I'll just not worry about any of it and just make sure to follow the three R's and say my prayers just in case.
Ever wonder if maybe global warming is just a smart way of saving money?
Think about it, oil is costly but you get a bunch of people worried about the environment and poof America's heartland is back in the game! All of a sudden corn and other crops are actually making money again! Take that China! huh? Anyone? anyone?
lol, I have no answers and neither does Al Gore.-
Good points. Some scientists - at least those who've comments have made the news - are chagrined that global climate forecasts were made using meteorological models. But they are being revised and better analytics should result. Not perfect, but better.
As for growing corn for fuel. Bad idea, unless your car is more important than your wallet. 'Corn-for-fuel' will make the cost of groceries go up. Cornn for milk, corn for pork chops, etc. See the consequences? :-) -
I love it! If the fields around town in summer are anything to go by, there's corn to go around. About time the farmers got some bang for their buck.
And I totally agree with the meteorologist bit. Though I kind of feel sorry for the ones who are stuck with Minnesota. Trying to predict the weather around here is a lost cause.
-
-
NOW, 2+2=4. A PRIORI, I SUPPOSE. BUT WHAT'S IN THE 2s WHEN IT COMES TO EXPLAINING CLIMATE CHANGE?
Carbon Dioxide Did Not End The Last Ice Age, Study Says
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070927154905.htm
ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 2007) — Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records.
'"You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages."
Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown -- but was not its main cause.
The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in climate.
"I don't want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn't affect climate," Stott cautioned. "It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change."'-
So a rise in CO2 levels are an effect rather than a cause? Why am I not surprised.
-
-
No axe to grind here, yet while studying Medieval European History from excruciatingly demanding professors, we were taught about the change in climate in climate a thousand years ago and how the Vikings took advantage of it of the climate change. They went to Iceland, Greenland, and there's evidence they made it to North America. Then the climate got very cold with relative speed, etc. I believe a made a comment on tis in the first thread.
Now we read about changes that may bring us back to the same weather conditions a thousand years ago.
THE QUESTION IS, ARE CURRENT ARCTIC CHANGES NORMAL AFTER ALL? OR MOSTLY NORMAL? OR IS HISTORY MIS-REPORTED?
In Greenland, potatoes thrive as seal hunting wanes
Global warming is a boon for farmers and fishermen but a hardship for ice-dependent Inuit.
www.csmonitor.com/2007/1001/p01s02-wogn.html
Greenland Melting at Record High in Some Places
blogsci.com/science/greenland-melting-at-record-high-in-some-places
The Future of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
Exploring ice thickness, melting and global climate change
By Marc Airhart, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin
geology.com/research/west-antarctic-ice-sheet.shtml-
The objective is to get all the facts, evidences, proofs, so they merge where inferences & corollaries drawn go beyond reasonable doubt.
None of this defeats the necessity to be responsible to our environment in the first place. -
Well, there is a reason why the place was called *Green*land. Apparently it used to be a nice, warm place. It really isn't very surprising that it's changing back.
-
-
Has anyone here ever heard of weather manipulation/modification? Do you think this is how this so called 'global warming' in your eyes, might be occuring? Perhaps, there is too much trust in our government to protect and care for us too. I mean,I do not trust our government as far as I can through them. Especially since I learned about weather modification and so much more in 2003.
Ever heard of Scalar Waves before? If not, read these links. Did you know fission-fusion was also used in creating the atom or nuclear bomb and those same elements are used in scalar technology today. Today,which are interfering with our own brain capacities?
wordpress.com/tag/scalar-wave/
www.keylonticdictionary.org/Words/S/Scalar Waves.htm
www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_control
Ultimately, there is nothing we can do to stop our government from wanting to kill us, except pray, pray to Jesus for His protection from these evil men and women in power. I do not know why they want all this power and how they will untimately acheive their desired ourcome, but I do know that withOUT Jesus, we will all perish.
That being said, it is not a bad idea to prepare for the worst.-
Seeing that you are coming from a Christian perspective which is obvious, maybe it's better to prepare for the best instead of the worst and put fear in it's rightful place.
-
@momoftwingirls,
thank you for the links. There are some items about climate control I was not aware of, and some things I was, like seeding clouds to make rain.
The Wikopedia article gives some interesting facts from history about human beliefs and practices. And I never realized that Finns had so much power over weather that it caused the fearless Vikings such deep discomfort. :-)
Whatever may be the case for governments' programs for weather manipulation and changes, there are currently initiatives to reign in CO2, also.
There have been some interesting news releases in the past few months. ScienceDaily has been the best overall resource to find and read about these programs. (ScienceDaily builds are large number of its articles directly from news releases submitted by universities, research centers, etc.)
One news article recently addressed putting CO2 into the soil. I had two thoughts when I read this: this is interesting, and why does everyone forget trees! :-) And if the program works, IT'S STILL CHEAPER TO PLANT SEEDS :-)
'Humans. You can't live with them, and you can't live without them'. :-)
Here are two of several CO2 Sequestration articles. People living in Washington State might find the first one interesting. The other is about a possible project in Norway.
Unlocking Earth's potential
Beneath the Columbia River Basin lies a possible solution to our carbon dioxide problem
Valerie Brown | High Country News
November 28, 2007
www.vailtrail.com/article/20071128/COVERSTORY/71128002
'Owing to the huge combined inertia of major energy interests, the U.S. government and the absence of clear-cut energy alternatives in the public mind, there’s been little movement toward reducing fossil-fuel use. But the government is encouraging efforts to develop technologies that can capture and contain CO2 emissions before they reach the atmosphere.
Carbon sequestration, as it has come to be known, has one primary attraction: It could enable the U.S. to keep using its most abundant (but until now dirtiest) fossil fuel — coal. Some sequestration may be accomplished by growing or preserving forests and other plant-heavy ecosystems that take up carbon dioxide by respiration. But a big part of the sequestration scenario involves stripping CO2 from power plant exhaust and injecting it into natural underground reservoirs and rock formations.'
---
Norway may store CO2 under North Sea from 2011
Thursday September 27, 2007 4:19pm BST
By Wojciech Moskwa
OSLO (Reuters)
uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL2784387020070927
'Norway could begin storing carbon dioxide emissions in porous rock formations under the North Sea from late 2011, a Norwegian feasibility study showed on Thursday.
Gassnova, a state-funded development firm, said its study recommended storage of CO2 in two best suited areas off Norway's western coast and transport to location by pipeline rather than ship. No cost estimates have been revealed.
Norway, one of the world's biggest oil and gas producers, has piled state funds into creating technology to capture and store carbon emissions, initially from two gas-fired power plants to be built in Kaarsto and Mongstad on the west coast.'
DO YOU THINK CO2 SEQUESTRATION PROJECTS ARE GOOD?
DO THEY MAKE SENSE AMONG THE BUFFET TABLE OF OPTIONS? -
In the 'Unlocking Earth's potential' article, the most telling paragraph is
'Owing to the huge combined inertia of major energy interests, the U.S. government and the absence of clear-cut energy alternatives in the public mind, there’s been little movement toward reducing fossil-fuel use. But the government is encouraging efforts to develop technologies that can capture and contain CO2 emissions before they reach the atmosphere.'
Think about this for a moment.
Uncle Sam can spend a lot of money to find a way to sink C02 into the earth, but
1. can't reconcile major energy interests with energy alternative needs
2. can't dialogue with the public regarding clear-cut energy options & alternatives (and, without public input, can make a federal law on light bulbs!)
(Uncle Sam needs to get off his duff, grab a spade and learn how to plant trees (my pet issue): )
-
-
this comment is number 365, one for everday of the year
-
Well, it sure isn't leap year then :-)
-
-
I'm certain by now that in this discussion and the previous on the same subject people must know which side of the fence I am solidly on.
I believe that the world and Gore are trying to 'con' us on the global warming issue--Gore to make money and the rest of the pack to destroy our economy.
In answer to Brigid, when I say the planet is fragile, there are some scary examples of regions 'shooting themselves in the foot' by destroying their natural resources to the point of not being able to independently survive.
Haiti did just that with its deforestation.
I know that some forms of life can survive catastrophic events but I really wouldn't want to go back to the life that the early primates lived.
In reference to storing carbon dioxide, why just the US???
In the 60's I had suggested raising algae in artificial ponds at power plants that could survive higher temperatures and be fed carbon dioxide from stack emissions. The algae could be dried and used as cattle food or for fuel.
No one seemed to care about it at that time. I don't know if anyone is working on this possibility. With the state of today's bioengineering it just might be possible to do that.
But again, I don't believe that the US should bear the expense for the rest of the world when we are not certain if we can do anything about global warming.
There is just too much evidence that it is likely being caused by a variable solar output.-
Are the Americans the most paranoid people ever? Yep.
Edit: Not all of course. Just some in this thread. -
John, thank you for clarification on earth's fragility.
The idea you had and have regarding algae is brilliant. Instead of highlighting news about algae growth in Canada, there should be headline news on PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS THAT WORK WITHIN NATURE. The Fourth Estate is a failure.
The Kyoto and Bali games have created pro and con fans, like tournament soccer fans watching day by day, continually watching and counting the news headlines as if they were scores.
And the Kyoto and Bali games have presented gambits for certain but not all nation players, as if certain players enter with a 'handicap'. Interesting. Can we make bets?
Then comes on the stage a man of moral authority on an issue he is not versed on; if he was the whole truth would not be so uncomfortable to support in his world arena of celebrity.
Policies are developing based on mathematics, but divorced from a total reality of the subject at hand. Mathematics! A bureaucrats blood, integers coursing through his body, and thinking 'this % equal this much % in penalty', 'this much % equals this much % revenue'.
We've been standing on the solutions all along. We don't need a world wood-lectern thumper, we need a integrated programs that have accumulated dust for decades that doesn't wait for gored science, programs that, by comparison to the UN global feast for greater authority and cash, can start at the grass roots YESTERDAY.
We don't need a eco-Polit Bureau and eco-Commissars. We need the grit and action to do what needs to be done, things a child could figure out, things that fit with Nature.
And rewards for the free market to rapidly develop technologies that are better and better and fit with modern society and Nature. -
EDIT PREVIOUS POST
We've been standing on the solutions all along. We don't need a world wood-lectern thumper, we need TO integrated programs that have accumulated dust for decades, AND AREN'T RELIANT ON gored science, programs that, by comparison to the UN SOLUTIONS AND global feast for greater authority and cash, can start at the grass roots YESTERDAY.
-
-
globalgirl
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!
--------
Working on my blog more on so called global warming here.
marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?cat=4
Think I need a new ID I use dinosaur or maddinosaur these days. -
WHAT IS RIGHT, WHO'S CORRECT? IS THERE MORE TO LEARN?
I have been following climate change / global warming aggressively for nearly three years. All of it is 'scientific'.
With the rapid interjection of global politics, the climate change issues have taken on political dynamics that have caused ferocious debates.
So what’s the truth?
Here are two articles, one published in 2002, the other published 2007. I recommend you read the original articles, although I have included excerpts.
The second article is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. It is intriguing because it not only appears candid, but gives a peak-a-boo into how the scientists review, collaborate and tackle climate issues, in this regards the polar region.
15 January 2002
Global Cooling In Antarctica
www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020015034521data_trunc_sys.shtml
'Antarctica overall has cooled measurably during the last 35 years - despite a global average increase in air temperature of 0.06 degrees Celsius during the 20th century - making it unique among the Earth's continental landmasses, according to a paper published today in the online version of Nature.
Researchers with the National Science Foundation (NSF) Longterm Ecological Research (LTER) site in Antarctica's Dry Valleys - a perpetually snow-free, mountainous area adjacent to McMurdo Sound - argue in the paper that long-term data from weather stations across the continent, coupled with a separate set of measurements from the Dry Valleys, confirm each other and corroborate the continental cooling trend.
"Our 14-year continuous weather station record from the shore of Lake Hoare reveals that seasonally averaged surface air temperature has decreased by 0.7 degrees Celsius per decade," they write. "The temperature decrease is most pronounced in summer and autumn. Continental cooling, especially the seasonality of cooling, poses challenges to models of climate and ecosystem change."
The findings are puzzling because many climate models indicate that the Polar regions should serve as bellwethers for any global warming trend, responding first and most rapidly to an increase in temperatures. An ice sheet many kilometers thick in places perpetually covers almost all of Antarctica.
Temperature anomalies also exist in Greenland, the largest ice sheet in the Northern Hemisphere, with cooling in the interior concurrent with warming at the coast.'
---
The Future of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
Exploring ice thickness, melting and global climate change
By Marc Airhart, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin
geology.com/research/west-antarctic-ice-sheet.shtml
'The surface of Antarctica is so cold and the ice so thick that raising the region's air temperature a few degrees is not enough to cause significant melting. Instead, scientists have long suspected that warm water in the Amundsen Sea is flowing up under ice shelves—platforms of floating ice attached to the grounded ice sheet—and melting them from below. This increased melting speeds the flow of grounded ice sheet into the water.
But it's unlikely these warmer waters result directly from recent climate change. By measuring oxygen content, oceanographers have discovered that the warm water welling up below the glaciers has not been near the sea surface in the past few centuries. In oceanographer's terms, the water is “old.” It is part of a mass known as Circumpolar Deep Water connected to the North Atlantic through the globetrotting ocean conveyor belt. This water has been at depth for too long, scientists believe, for its temperature to reflect recent global warming.'
New Hypothesis on Atmospheric Currents
‘Adrian Jenkins, a polar researcher from the British Antarctic Survey and WALSE participant, developed a computer model that showed a possible solution.
Antarctica is encircled by atmospheric currents that largely insulate it from the rest of Earth's climate and keep it colder than it otherwise would be. Jenkins' model showed that these circumpolar currents, sometimes called “Westerlies,” “the Screaming 50s,” or “the Roaring 40s,” actually push surface waters out away from the continent. This results from the Coriolis Force, the byproduct of Earth's rotation that causes cyclonic systems to turn counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. As surface water is pushed away, warm deep water rises to replace it.
If the atmospheric currents speed up, more water is pulled up. Indeed, observations indicate these atmospheric currents have sped up in recent decades in response to global warming. So increased upwelling seems likely.
There isn't enough observational data to validate this hypothesis yet. For one thing, sea ice makes it difficult to get there to do the work. Polar experts say repeated missions over several years are necessary to correlate wind speeds with the temperature structure of the water.'
SPECIAL NOTE: Ocean currents are known to affect climate but are not getting marquee news visibility. -
-
@Alias: please scroll near the beginning as there was a comment posted by
Glensrub3 worth a view and my subsequent replies and links to his sources.
There is a video worth viewing about the Global Warming Myth. The guy has a Phd in Chemistry and is a professor at CalTech.-
Here is the guy behind the link Glensrub3 provided:
www.ecosyn.us/adti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.html
Seems like a nice and trustworthy fella. -
GlobalGirl, a quick review of the links you provide materially substantiate one key fact:
THAT THE SCIENCE 'DISPLAYED' IN THE NEWS MEDIA IS NOT COMPLETE, AND DELIBERATELY OBSTRUCTS FURTHER EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH AS WELL AS INFORMED DISCUSSION AND DEBATE.
'GLOBAL WARMING' COULD WELL BE A NEW TERM FOR 'CENSORSHIP'. -
I just heard about this guy this morning and did some recent research, Jungl, based upon your link.
Frederick Seitz, the former president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences and the former President of Rockefeller University, the highly regarded New York-based research institute.
"Vanity Scare"
www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=041406F
Excerpts:
The article in Vanity Fair is part of a so-called "Green issue" that includes a call to arms from Al Gore and friendly profiles on climate change alarmists such as NASA's Jim Hansen, Ed Begley Jr., Bette Midler, Ed Norton and many others. Since global warming is a "threat graver than terrorism," the magazine tells readers on its cover, it's cool to want to fight global warming. "Green is the new black," Vanity Fair tells us.
In keeping with that spirit, the magazine is trying to blacken permanently the reputation of Seitz, one of America's highly regarded scientists, for not toeing the fashionable line on global warming.
To find out if the startling claim was true -- that Seitz "directed a 45M tobacco industry effort to hide health impacts of smoking" -- I called him at his apartment in Manhattan. Unless there is more to the story, the accusation appears to be a willful distortion, if not an outright lie.
INTERVIEW ON PBS Frontline
pbs.gen.in/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/seitz.html
NYT article: Science Academy Disputes Attack on Global Warming
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02EED71F3CF931A15757C0A96E958260 -
From the interview:
"But it was funded by Exxon in part. You took money from the oil companies.
-Yes."
-
-
(Glensrub3)(GlobalGirl)
It is interesting to watch the fallout from Global Warming and who Global Warming party members castigate or relegate to public oblivion.
Michael Crichton is a case in point. Long considered one of the most - if not arguably the foremost - intelligent men in the literary world for his ability to research any subject thoroughly and often go far beyond public knowledge, has either been dismissed or ridiculed for his views on Global Warming.
Thankfully Global Warming is not the French Revolution, or their be many dead people who disagree with the Robespierres' Science.
What do these Robespierres object to? Read the following excerpts to find out.
Diagnosing Al Gore: Truth in the Balance
sitewave.net/news/MaryEllenGilder.htm
However, Michael Crichton (best known for his novels but also a graduate of Harvard Medical School and a former postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies) warned his audience of the dangers of "consensus science" in a 2003 speech,
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."
Think of Semmelweiss and puerperal fever. Think of Goldberger and pellagra. Even Gore's favorite example of continental drift highlights the folly of the scientific consensus that mocked Alfred Wegener's theory of Pangaea for half a century.'-
Crichton also states, "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're being asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?" He goes on to point out:
"Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?
"But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon….
"Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it."
If this man's renown for intellectual integrity is not compelling, there are many others who are in que with him.
None of these people have a financial stake in the outcomes of debate and arguments.
It however appears uncomfortably evident that those who reign terror in the great Global Warming Campaign do-
Does this make you uncomfortable? I mean, that the news is NOT BALANCED?
Has the Brave New World arrived? :-) -
I quoted and referenced Michael Crichton in the first thread. If my memory serves me, no one even commented about his position against man-made climate change.
As you pointed out, and as I have also stated in one of these threads, the global warming leaders will discredit any person or entity that doesn't support their agendas.
THE CASE FOR SKEPTICISM REGARDING GLOBAL WARMING:
www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
crichton-official.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=119 -
I know GG, I remember well ... there were excellent remarks you made that weren't acknowledged as contributing to a broader informed understanding on climate.
Considered it important to include again.
What do people do when facts and methodologies confront poorly informed science-based beliefs? Do they say, Thank you?
-
-
Thank you GG & Glensrub3!
This vid at www.discovery.org/v/30 is an eye-opener!
How does anyone argue against a sober, clear, factual presentation by a class-act professor from Cal Tech?
(I liked his points about trees growing faster now because of higher Co2 - and professor calls C02 a gift to nature :-)
I wish I had some text to go with it; I'd excerpt some of his points for readers.
RECOMMENDED VIEWING - ASAP.-
Download Dr. Art Robinson's Power Point Presentation:
www.oism.org/pproject/ -
Discovery.org
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
"The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist beliefs in United States public high school science courses."
There seem to be a common thread in many of the links posted here. -
Ever involved in Intel? Facts, especially corroborated by multiple sources, trumps source :-) Knowing motivation is important, but as my post a little while ago pointts out, these people puts there reputations on the block, and wind nothing financially. There are others, if there are to be suspicions, that have a great deal to gain financially.
Detectives solve murders with facts, data and information from people you would not want to even live in the same state you do ...
Like Ben Franklin said, 'Love your enemies for they tell you the truth' and the Russian saying, 'Trust but verify' ...
:-) -
Honestly alias. Much of this looks like the old left vs. the right. A lot of politics mixed in with the science.
Hard to know who to trust. -
Sorry for my terribly written posts - looks like English is Second Language, level 1 :-)
I think too fast, thoughts way ahead of past thoughts my fingers are still keyboarding (can get conflationitis :-), spend a great deal of keyboarding hitting two keys with one finger, use backspace more than any other key, have a spellchecker that can't read my mind, hate this little entry textbox, etc .. I have a lot of excuses, and they're all true :-) In sum, sorry. -
Jungl, and there lie's the danger for open discussion, and including objective research news.
It's like walking as a new stranger into a town with some good news about something and discovering there's a feud going on about the subject that suddenly makes you look like you've taken sides in the issue.
Whose side? .. sorry gents, nobodies'. But it looks like that guy other there at that poker table just had four aces drop from his sleeve.
If the truth is closer to one side than another - it has nothing to do with me. I stand where the truth is evident no matter how I look at it, no matter the angle. If it's rough and difficult to homogenize, I say so, make an educate hypothesis and test it like hammer hitting forged steel. BUT I'm in nobodies' lap in the meantime. Nobodies.
I hate being lied to. Very bad mistake. I hate being manipulated. Another big mistake. And I was concerned about climate warming because of a paper written in the intelligence community on global warming some time ago, then started following things with more critical interest to discover there was a great deal of research simply IGNORED because it didn't fit accepted premises and consequential extrapolations. I felt betrayed. Some friends in high places betrayed and manipulated me in a way that cannot ever be forgotten and forgiven.
There are those - emphatically - that have agendas. Full stop.
I don't give a hoot about their agendas.
I want the truth.
-
-
jungl, regarding your post in response to GG:
From the interview:
"But it was funded by Exxon in part. You took money from the oil companies.
-Yes."
At least he spoke the truth.
Regarding funding, the funding and patronage is not always without motive, unfortunately - on both sides of the climate change issue.
What is more relevant is the personal costs some have paid because of Mr Gore's juggernaut. This is reprehensible, and his ethical authority as a leader without policing his own followers betrays, at minimum, a slant and bias that affords a sustainable camšaign that brooks no critical comment.
This is why GW has the appearance of neo-Fascism and institutional 'brown shirts'. Those who believe in rhetorical science are content and comfortable with these behaviours and their outcomes.
Question is does GW act so vulnerable if they hold the truth?
Those who look at the science from timelines and data sets, who identify problems with methodologies and models, variable inclusions and exclusions, etc, are addressing science as an honorable institution, not a tool of political or economic agendas.
There are environmental issues that are still not be addressed. GW blames all climate idiosyncrasies on humans. But it doesn't rouse any to local action. It just blames. I forgot: blame means global monetary income for the world governing body, and initiatives that are not known yet.
In The Meantime
Some things such as urban heat-sinks are just rising in public elevation and news. But it is very old news.
There was concern long ago, that heat-sink results would occur without urban and suburban planning. No one listened; it got in the way of making as much money as possible. The megalopoli formations forecasted in the 60's have occurred, and we now blame man. Rightly so: who said, 'stop, let's think this through, let's plan this growth'?
Look at the Seattle environment today compared to 25 years ago, and you'll get the picture. The rich landscape of trees has become suburbanware (my term, 'synthetic, artificial, not natural' :-) And trees suck up CO2! Ten there are those who say man makes too much CO2 (and stupidly forget the trees knocked down to build their very big houses and neighborhoods).
If there's an imbalance in CO2, it results from knuckleheads forgetting their grade school science, 'You chop a tree down, you plant another.'
Urban heat-sinks should be of more concern than climate change - with or without climatic idiosyncrasies.
What can be done about urban heat-sinks? Now that megalopoli dominant both US coasts, here's one article that addresses solutions on local levels.
Cities offer incentives to save energy
Fla. town offers cash for water, air conditioner savings and even hybrid cars
Dec. 27, 2007
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22410962/
PARKLAND, Fla. - Free hybrid-car parking. Cash rebates for installing solar panels. Low-interest loans for energy-saving home renovations. Money to tear up desert lawns and replace them with drought-resistant landscaping.
Frustrated by what they see as insufficient action by state and federal government, municipalities around the country are offering financial incentives to get people to go green.
"A lot of localities recognize they're going to get a lot more done using carrots and incentives rather than regulatory means," said Jason Hartke, director of advocacy for the U.S. Green Building Council.'
Starting next year, San Francisco will offer homeowners rebates of up to $5,000 for installing solar panels if they use a local contractor. Coupled with state and federal incentives, that could cut in half the $21,000 cost for an average household, Blumenfeld said.
The city will also cover up to 90 percent of the costs of making apartment buildings more energy-efficient, and will pay residents $150 to replace old appliances.
The neighboring city of Berkeley is financing the cost of solar panels for homeowners who agree to pay the money back through a 20-year property tax assessment.
Nearby Marin County offers a $500 rebate to homeowners who install solar systems.
Baltimore offers at least $2,000 toward closing costs for people who buy new homes close to where they work. It is called the "Live Near Your Work" program.
"Just living near your job and taking transit or walking to meet your daily needs provides basically the same environmental benefit as buying a hybrid car," said Amanda Eaken of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Residents of Albuquerque, N.M., get fast-track building permits and other perks if they agree to make their homes more energy-efficient.
In Arizona, many cities pay residents to replace grass with artificial turf or plants that use less water. Scottsdale, outside Phoenix, will pay up to $1,500.' -
I WAS A HEAVY USER OF UNTIL FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN I HEARD THEY MIGHT BE A HEALTH RISK. THEN I STOPPED AND THREW THEM ALL IN THE TRASH.
Now you must use them by 200.14, by law. Was there informed public discussion? No. Did some experts advise a law requiring fluorescent bulbs use nationwide? Yes.
I posted a comment above regarding fluorescent bulbs. It didn't generate any interest. I'm trying again with another article :-)
Environmentally friendly light bulbs ‘can give you skin cancer’
By JENNY HOPE - 4th January 2008
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_i...
'here have been growing concerns that low-energy light can trigger migraines, as well as dizziness, loss of focus and discomfort among those with epilepsy.
There have also been complaints from sufferers of lupus - an auto-immune disease causing many symptoms including pain.
The latest warning was issued by Spectrum - an alliance of charities working with people with lightsensitive conditions - and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD).
Critics complain low-energy lights are either "cold" or "green," take up to a minute to warm up properly and because they are fluorescent, flicker.
Dr Colin Holden, president of the BAD, said: "It is important that patients with photosensitive skin eruptions are allowed to use lights that don't exacerbate their condition. Photosensitive eruptions range from disabling eczema-like reactions, to light sensitivities that can lead to skin cancer.
"It is essential that such patients are able to protect themselves from specific wavelengths of light emitted by fluorescent bulbs, especially as they are often trapped indoors because they can't venture out in natural sunlight."
Andrew Langford, of the Skin Care Campaign, said: "Incandescent light bulbs are the only source of electric light for many thousands of people with light-sensitive conditions.'
AND BESIDES, FLUORSESCENT BULBS NEEDS BLACK LIGHT TO SIMULATE SUNLIGHT AND BE COMFORTABLE LIGHT :-)-
EDIT
I WAS A HEAVY USER OF florescent bulbs UNTIL FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN I HEARD THEY MIGHT BE A HEALTH RISK. THEN I STOPPED AND THREW THEM ALL IN THE TRASH.
-
-
ANY COMMENTS ON ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTS?
DO YOU THINK THEY POSE A HEALTH RISK? -
A RUSSIAN SCIENTIST'S INSIGHTS & THOUGHT OUT OPINION ON GLOBAL WARMING
A cold spell soon to replace global warming
03/ 01/ 2008
en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
EXCERPTS
'Temperature fluctuations always run somewhat ahead of carbon dioxide concentration changes. This means that warming is primary. The ocean is the greatest carbon dioxide depository, with concentrations 60-90 times larger than in the atmosphere. When the ocean’s surface warms up, it produces the “champagne effect.” Compare a foamy spurt out of a warm bottle with wine pouring smoothly when served properly cold.
Likewise, warm ocean water exudes greater amounts of carbonic acid, which evaporates to add to industrial pollution—a factor we cannot deny. However, man-caused pollution is negligible here. If industrial pollution with carbon dioxide keeps at its present-day 5-7 billion metric tons a year, it will not change global temperatures up to the year 2100. The change will be too small for humans to feel even if the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions doubles.
Carbon dioxide cannot be bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth. Bearing out this point was the Green Revolution—the phenomenal global increase in farm yields in the mid-20th century. Numerous experiments also prove a direct proportion between harvest and carbon dioxide concentration in the air.
Carbon dioxide has quite a different pernicious influence—not on the climate but on synoptic activity. It absorbs infrared radiation. When tropospheric air is warm enough for complete absorption, radiation energy passes into gas fluctuations. Gas expands and dissolves to send warm air up to the stratosphere, where it clashes with cold currents coming down. With no noticeable temperature changes, synoptic activity skyrockets to whip up cyclones and anticyclones. Hence we get hurricanes, storms, tornados and other natural disasters, whose intensity largely depends on carbon dioxide concentration. In this sense, reducing its concentration in the air will have a positive effect.
Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.'
--
'What can’t be cured must be endured. It is wise to accept the natural course of things. We have no reason to panic about allegations that ice in the Arctic Ocean is thawing rapidly and will soon vanish altogether. As it really is, scientists say the Arctic and Antarctic ice shields are growing. Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow.
Meanwhile, Europeans can rest assured. The Gulf Stream will change its course only if some evil magic robs it of power to reach the north—but Mother Nature is unlikely to do that.'
Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. -
It's good to hear GlobalGirl tooting her horn again: even though most are rather tone-death here. You-all keep playing nice: ya hear?!?
-
I dunno. Alias called the GW-movement for brown shirts and neo fascists.
-
Jungl, just shaking the tree .. you and I are the only ones coming by right
now ..
On the other hand, I remember growing up hearing stories from the old-timers about what happened in Germany in the 30's and what the brown-shirts did to their own people; some way it all seems nicer now but the same.
Not talking about thread, but about what is happening in the science community.
-
-
ANYONE LIVE IN CALIFORNIA? :-)
Californians have until January 30th to send their opinions and comments on the pending revisions to Title 24 to the California Energy Commission[1]. Legislators too[2].
Read the excerpt, however, but don't read the total article because it's more interesting :-)
Who Will Control Your Thermostat?
By Joseph Somsel
January 04, 2008
www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/who_will_control_your_thermost.html
'What should be controversial in the proposed revisions to Title 24 is the requirement for what is called a "programmable communicating thermostat" or PCT. Every new home and every change to existing homes' central heating and air conditioning systems will required to be fitted with a PCT beginning next year following the issuance of the revision. Each PCT will be fitted with a "non-removable " FM receiver that will allow the power authorities to increase your air conditioning temperature setpoint or decrease your heater temperature setpoint to any value they chose. During "price events" those changes are limited to +/- four degrees F and you would be able to manually override the changes. During "emergency events" the new setpoints can be whatever the power authority desires and you would not be able to alter them.
In other words, the temperature of your home will no longer be yours to control. Your desires and needs can and will be overridden by the state of California through its public and private utility organizations. All this is for the common good, of course.'
Maybe this is true. Maybe it's not. But in the end, sheep without a good shepherd, make their best guess and die with it :-) -
Look out!
Oprah jumped into the fray today with her TV program and "Green" issues.
She has a lot of power to influence opinion.
You can expect far more opinion than fact shortly from the 'masses'.-
I agree with your forecast JohnMalenda.
My personal hope is that she ends up influencing long standing enviro projects that fit with nature and the natural benefits we'll receive as a result.
It is negative hubris to think that the 'problems' seen in the environment are solely man made. When I did some simple arithmetic on CO2 in relation to what is 'normal' I wondered, 'what's all the fuss about?' And, for thirty plus years people have been fussin' bout deforestation. Seems they got a remedy for the CO2 problem at the landscape shop.
It doesn't mean people including me don't care. If you live in a city with narrow streets and high traffic volume, you quickly begin to hate the fumes and soot - in a city where most people are driving NEW cars.
Then it was shown in the 80s that people who lived about a 100 yards away from highways had a higher incidence of cancer.
So there are a heck of a lot better reasons to change our techno-locomotive lives - but not because of playing Pied Piper on the GW Trail.
-
-
Has global warming stopped?
David Whitehouse
Published 19 December 2007
(David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 1988–1998, Science Editor BBC News Online 1998–2006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley, 2005).] His website is www.davidwhitehouse.com)
'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'
www.newstatesman.com/print/200712190004
Here's an excerpt -but the whole article is worthy and careful reading:
'The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.
For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.
The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between 1940 and 1978.
But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2. So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.
It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didn’t discuss this or that the recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the flatlining of temperature had occurred just five years earlier we would have no talk of global warming and perhaps, as happened in the 1970’s, we would fear a new Ice Age! Scientists and politicians talk of future projected temperature increases. But if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then?
Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is now beyond doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or indeed modifications to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect had lost the scientific argument. Not so.'
Mr Whitehouse is quite a gentleman. He used the passive noun 'pity' in describing the IPCC not addressing the data comprehensively:
It was a *pity* that the delegates at Bali didn’t discuss this or that the *recent IPCC Synthesis report* *did not look* in more detail at this *recent warming standstill*.
It was deliberate.-
the greatest triumph in debate is when your opponent will be ashamed to speak.
-
-
ARCTIC MELTING ARTICLE - A SUDDEN SHIFT IN VIEW ON THE SUBJECT
but still something in the article for GWers
Nature, man jointly cook Arctic: report
Thursday, January 3, 2008 | 9:56 AM ET
The Associated Press
www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/01/03/tech-nature.html
New research suggests that a natural and cyclical increase in the amount of energy in the atmosphere contributes to Arctic warming. -
IMAGINE A GREENLAND THAT WENT COLD
History. Ancient Greenland mystery has simple answer
Did the Norse colonists starve? Were they wiped out by the Inuit — or did they intermarry? No. It got colder, and they left.
COLIN WOODAR
The Christian Science Monitor, QASSIARSUK, Greenland
30/12/07
www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=93466&sc=85
VERY INTERESTING, ESPECIALLY FOR HISTORY BUFFS -
It makes good sense to conserve both energy and water. We should be thinking conservation and capturing solar energy in any practical way that we can. It's free and what can be better than that? That is independent of the issue of GW.
Global warming is a separate issue (although many feel that that is the TOTAL issue).
The opinions, based on facts in this discussion, and the opinions based on celebrity opinions, seem to be at a stand-off. In this discussion we are still debating as to which facts are indeed facts. Experts of opposing views are being advanced.
Rational action dictates that if there is overwhelming evidence in one direction then that is the direction in which to go.
However there is so much division of opinion that it is illogical to commit the resources that some feel are necessary to change the Earth's environment when we have no idea whether we can.
Planting trees is a good thing to do if for nothing else than the aesthetic value of doing so and if we all conserve energy and water we save $. That's a good thing also.
However, no matter how fast we here in the US plant trees we can't compete with the rate at which they are being cut down in the Amazon to clear land to produce ethanol which has been shown to be not a cost effective fuel.
This is what happens when people follow a direction dictated by opinion rather than fact. Corn production or sugar cane production for fuel in the US is not only not cost effective but it is raising food prices by creating artificial food shortages.
At the moment, cane production in the Amazon is cost effective for fuel production but that is only in the short term. Corn depletes the soil very rapidly and requires fertilizers which are manufactured using petroleum. I don't know how fast cane reduces soil productivity. Where do we gain?
In this discussion we are preaching to each other. Someone of us should come up with a plan to broadcast the truth to the general public. There appears to have been enough credible research references cited here to indicate that human contribution to GW is very small.
It may be possible to convince American citizens of this but the rest of the world assumes that we are only interested in ourselves and will probably not believe what we say.-
Lots of good points. I cannot say that I "know" what is going on with global warming, just that I "believe" certain arguments based on their source and my understanding of the science. But, all scientific belief is conditional- conditional on what we learn later on.
The ethanol debacle is very troubling. See my other post here regarding the New Scientist's article on peat bogs being drained, releasing huge amounts of CO2 (because the fragile peat basically burns, though not with a visible flame (unless someone lights it) in the heat and sun of a tropical day). The Republic of South Africa recently declared that corn to ethanol was a net energy drain.
What is just as bad, if not worse, is the way that people in the Amazon are being treated by those who want to exploit the former jungle for its ethanol or biodiesel potential.
It is an ugly story all around.
That is not to say that there is no such thing as a good biofuel, just that we can't lump them all togther: how they are made and used and what they are made of all make a difference.
For example, using waste cooking oil for biodiesel seems to me to make sense. It would otherwise be discarded and its food use has been depleted. This is very different from growing plants that could provide food and using them instead to provide biodiesel.
There are no simple answers here, and people who claim that they have a cure-all are probably trying to sell you something.
Not that commerce is bad: of course, there are things worth buying that are good for the environment (light bulbs that use left electricity, for example)!
We just need to keep the claims factual and stop with the corn ethanol already. Of course, Missouri has just mandated that all gasoline have ethanol in it. Argh! -
Interesting. I didn't know about those problems with ethanol. I did know it tends to freeze in winter. Rather problematic for getting the car to start in the morning.
-
-
Aliasinkhorn
I feel like a broken record in this but Jared Diamond's COLLAPSE also deals with the Greenland climate change and the end of the Viking settlements.
Some very good climate change data that's well documented by how the people starved when it got cold, how the animals fared and how it all ended.
The numbers are there.
I like numbers! -
JM, thanks, and thanks for Both Comments.
One remark you made prompted me to remember a couple of projects in the works, one, I believe, through the US military - the other which is private is looking to use a space platform to collect solar energy and beam it to a station on an island to generate electricity (I think in the Indian Ocean). Concept is interesting and its already generating big interest.
I have learned tonight that I've taken a hit on bandwidth, so will be backing off forums. This may please some :-) I've provided a great deal of information here for anyone interested. There's a great deal more on the net to be discovered if there's genuine interest to know.
The science is not settled. In the past five days I have read more and more articles that attest to this fact, and enough to learn that we might want to be more concerned about other issues.
My thinking is that if people do what is good for human environmental life, other concerns will take care of themselves. Some changes in modern living are overdue, other things will occur because of better technology. Other matters are simply the provenance of Nature; Nature will take care of them. -
I would be remiss in not including in this thread a very interesting journal article written by Robert G. Corbett, CPG-04502 and Gary T. Dannemiller, CPG-05118 in the The Professional Geologist (online PDF). It is very well written and includes References. The article contains a couple of surprises.
THE PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST JOURNAL
Causes of Global Warming, Are We Certain?
64.207.34.58/StaticContent/3/TPGs/2007_TPGNovDec.pdf
EXCERPTS are provided as a preview of writing style only :-)
'Peter Fusaro was interviewed on January 25, 2007 by Lisa Scherzer from
Smart Money, and he related that limits on greenhouse gases are being promoted by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.
This group consists of ten industry giants in financial services, utilities, manufacturing, and chemicals allied with four environmental groups.
The group includes ExxonMobil. The group wants to push the Bush administration to set mandatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions, leading to a reduction of 10-30% over the next 15 years.'
--
Another example comes from Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, one of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Kimoon’s three new special envoys on climate change appointed May, 2007 (Reilly, 2007). Regarding the climate change debate “This discussion is behind us. It’s over. The diagnosis is clear, the
science is unequivocal -- it’s completely immoral, even, to question now, on the basis of what we know, the reports that are out, to question the issue and to question whether we need to move forward at a much stronger pace as humankind to address the issues.”
--
Michael Barone, senior writer, in an article, (U.S. News and World Report,
June 18, 2007, p.29) drew distinctions along political party lines.
Barone’s article is entitled Red Nation, Blue Nation, and he makes the generalizations that we face two “proximate threats.” Republicans see Islamic terrorists as one, whereas Democrats see climate change as the other. He describes Democrats’ view of climate change as a kind of secular religion, and debate on the associated science must be shut down. Americans have not heeded advice of more enlightened and sophisticated nations, and for our sins we must do penance by sacrificing some comforts and economic (energy) well-being. We must greatly reduce carbon emissions, and our economy must be penalized by imposition of a carbon tax or a cap-and
trade system. Barone points out that such a tax would impose big costs on
coal production, steel manufacture, and other activities. -
i'm with globalgirl on this one... what will be will be, but we are to do our best as stewards of the earth and its resources -
Aliasinkhorn
From the Corbett & Dannemiller article that you referenced above:
"This involves classic false cause and
effect argument. Why? No good reason
is presented that other causes for global
warming are not possible or likely. All
we need to do is identify one plausible
alternate cause and we may invoke the
false cause and effect objection."
Unfortunately I have a lot of friends who mix politics, religion (or should I say, faith?), opinion and fact --all into the same pot. Even if we can find one thing to question carbon dioxide as being the culprit, I am afraid that some will not believe that conclusion. It's hard to pry open a closed mind if they believe politics is involved.-
JM, wasn't quite sure to add this under your comment or at the bottom. Here's an interesting article. After a thorough reading, it has my respect.
---
DO YOU LIVE IN CALIFORNIA?
Thus article addresses CO2 and Ozone, not exclusively but substantially, on the urban level. Air quality, a long time environmental issue, may get another kick start. It's also refreshing, because it addresses health issues associated with these gases.
My personal opinion is, fix things at ground level (long overdue), and everything in the air will take care of itself including hot air debates :-) This could be a real beginning.
One observation: it speaks a lot about urban areas and warming. I can not tell if urban areas are factored as regional atmospheric problems and/or as climatic heat-sink feedbacks or not.
Have other questions. In the meantime, just for the breath of life, it's important to read.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Linked To Human Mortality
ScienceDaily (Jan. 4, 2008)
WWW.SCIENCEDAILY.COM/RELEASES/2008/01/080103135757.HTM
"This is a cause and effect relationship, not just a correlation," said Jacobson of his study, which on Dec. 24 was accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. "The study is the first specifically to isolate carbon dioxide's effect from that of other global-warming agents and to find quantitatively that chemical and meteorological changes due to carbon dioxide itself increase mortality due to increased ozone, particles and carcinogens in the air."
Jacobson said that the research has particular implications for California. This study finds that the effects of carbon dioxide's warming are most significant where the pollution is already severe. Given that California is home to six of the 10 U.S. cities with the worst air quality, the state is likely to bear an increasingly disproportionate burden of death if no new restrictions are placed on carbon dioxide emissions.
--
Stephen L. Johnson, the EPA administrator, was widely quoted as saying that California's petition was denied because the state had failed to prove the "extraordinary and compelling conditions" required to qualify for a waiver. While previous published research has focused on the global effect on pollution--but not health--of all the greenhouse gases combined, the EPA noted that, under the Clean Air Act, it has to be shown that there is a reasonable anticipation of a specific pollutant endangering public health in the United States for the agency to regulate that pollutant.
Jacobson's paper offers concrete evidence that California is facing a particularly dire situation if carbon dioxide emissions increase. "With six of the 10 most polluted cities in the nation being in California, that alone creates a special circumstance for the state," he said, explaining that the health-related effects of carbon dioxide emissions are most pronounced in areas that already have significant pollution. As such, increased warming due to carbon dioxide will worsen people's health in those cities at a much faster clip than elsewhere in the nation.
--
Jacobson's work stands apart from previous research in that it uses a computer model of the atmosphere that takes into account many feedbacks between climate change and air pollution not considered in previous studies. Developed by Jacobson over the last 18 years, it is considered by many to be the most complex and complete atmospheric model worldwide. It incorporates principles of gas and particle emissions and transport, gas chemistry, particle production and evolution, ocean processes, soil processes, and the atmospheric effects of rain, winds, sunlight, heat and clouds, among other factors.
-
-
This discussion has put a lot of food on the table and it will take quite awhile to digest it.
Before we commit to a course, those who will make that decision must become aware of all the information that has been presented here. -
Here is a link to more scientific criticism of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear":
72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:semSCzzqSgcJ:www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-...
This also comes as a PDF (as you'll see or can find here: www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf), but the link I give should take you to an html page.
This is a response from James Hansen of the Columbia University Earth Institute and Goddard Institute for Space Studies, someone whose congressional testimony was personally criticized by Crichton in "State of Fear".
Jim greenchemistry.wordpress.com/ -
@ Chemrat, great comment and links. On Michael Crichton’s “Scientific Method”
by James Hansen, from Columbia University Earth Institute and Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Read the material and Mr Hansen makes an excellent defense of his, et al, work and the persuasive critique of Crichton’s “Scientific Method”.
Though a short paper, it contains interesting material. Writing on research, especially in an area of scientific research that is still emerging with new findings and continually molding and remolding climate change theory, is a necessary but daunting task.
The paper discloses an excellent approach to modeling CO2 correlated with climate warming. I didn’t see a date on the paper, but presume it was written about 2005 or 2006. A great deal of science has been advanced in the past year, and continues to advance at a good pace.
I think the difficulties this evolving science has are displayed in the semantics of the paper. This is wonderful, because it allows the average person to appreciate the uncertainties and probabilities sometimes resident in research in the process of developing a firm understanding of the innumerable variables and feedbacks heretofore unknown in climate. Hopefully, the advance of more research will eventuate into a coherent explanatory understanding and effective model(s) with reasonably accurate predictive value.
To help readers understand and appreciate confronted by science in their process to understand climatic science, I will point out key words and phrases (starred), some of which are qualitative which suggests any number of degrees of uncertainty.
* because the real world is a “noisy”, chaotic system,*
The observed temperature fluctuates a lot, because the real world is a “noisy”, chaotic system, but there is a clear warming trend.
* is so far turning out to be*, * best estimate*
Curiously, the scenario that we described as most realistic is so far turning out to be almost dead on the money. Such close agreement is fortuitous. For example, the model used in 1988 had a sensitivity of 4.2°C for doubled CO2, but our best estimate for true climate sensitivity2 is closer to 3°C for doubled CO2.
* other uncertain factors*, *becoming clear*, * ballpark*
There are various other uncertain factors that can make the warming larger or smaller3. But it is becoming clear that our prediction was in the right ballpark.
* various analyses*
The warming is slightly less (change less than 0.1°C) in our analysis of observations if we combine ocean temperature measurements with the meteorological station data. However, the result is slightly more warming in the British analysis of observations by Phil Jones and associates. So the observational analysis shown in Figure 1 is representative of the various analyses of global surface temperature change.
* usually expressed*, * uncertainty*, * based on the best physics that the users can incorporate at any given time*, * It is suspected*, *may be*
2Climate sensitivity is usually expressed as the equilibrium global warming expected to result from doubling the amount of CO2 in the air. Empirical evidence from the Earth’s history indicates that climate sensitivity is about 3°C, with an uncertainty of about 1°C. A climate model yields its own sensitivity, based on the best physics that the users can incorporate at any given time. The 1988 GISS model sensitivity was 4.2°C, while it is 2.7°C for the 2005 model. It is suspected that the sensitivity of the 2005 model may be slightly too small because of the sea ice formulation being too stable.
* is an estimate*, *when we estimate*
Annual-mean global surface air temperature computed for scenarios A, B and C. Observational data are an update of the analysis of Hansen and Lebedeff [J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13,345, 1987]. Shaded area is an estimate of the global temperature during the peak of the current interglacial period (the Altithermal, peaking about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, when we estimate that global temperature was in the lower part of the shaded area) and the prior interglacial period (the Eemian period, about 120,000 years ago, when we estimate that global temperature probably peaked near the upper part of the shaded area). The temperature zero point is the 1951-1980 mean.
--
These terms and phrases indicate a science in its infancy, but with a robust thrust at determining all primary dynamics which can be developed into model(s) replicating these dynamics with forecasts that are empirically confirmable.
There is one observation to make about the graph. ‘Observation’ air temperature stops with a dip in 2004, then has a dashed line up for 2005. It wasn’t cited, I think, but is this dashed line based on tentative or unofficial ‘Observations’ or an extrapolative upward rise following a dip?
Another observation is that the peak readings for an approximately 6 year span are no higher than mid point between the Altithermal period and Eemian period. Does this fall within a larger expected cycle? Was just thinking of other literature I have read on this point.
The paper did a wonderful job in helping to appreciate the earnest efforts and difficulties present to the science community.
My hats off to these researchers. -
Thanks inkhorn! I hope the following comments, quotes and interpretations are helpful. If anyone has corrections, please make them!
Regarding the Hansen PDF and related html page, as you say, it is short and the subject is complicated.
I finally went to the link (www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74) given at the very end of the write-up by Hansen, and it is a very nice description of the climate-related science discussed in State of Fear. Some things are made clearer on the realclimate blog than they are in the Hansen paper, like the supposed 300% error, additional graphs are presented, and the details of some errors and omissions in State of Fear are described. Hansen was defending himself, since he was personally ridiculed/misquoted by Crichton, while realclimate is able to take a more general approach to Crichton's writings.
All of this does not change the complex and inexact nature of some of the science that underlies what we are talking about. But, to attempt answer your questions, here is some more information:
Right after the place where reference 1 is cited in the text, at the top of page 2, Hansen says, "The 2005 data point is a preliminary estimate based on the first eight months of the year." So, I guess that he used a dash to indicate that the point was an average over an incomplete year. You could call this an extrapolation, but it is an extrapolation over the time axis based on a real number for the temperature axis.
The dashed line is represented on the realclimate blog as faint red line on an updated, second graph, but that blog's version is slightly less up to date than Hansen's PDF (2003 vs. 2005). The blog was published in 2004, while Hansen has updated his PDF to the first 8 months of 2005.
Regarding your final point, ("Another observation is that the peak readings for an approximately 6 year span are no higher than mid point between the Altithermal period and Eemian period. Does this fall within a larger expected cycle? Was just thinking of other literature I have read on this point.") I don't have any idea what to say about this (because I don't know the area and haven't read the other studies that you have).
I'm not sure that it is meaningful to average the highs of the Altithermal and Eemian periods and interpret that average in any obvious way. However, my reading of Hansen's PDF graph is that three 6-year periods, 1998-2003 (inclusive), 1999-2004, and 2000-2005 all average to temperatures that are very near the suspected high of the Altithermal period. No recently-measured six-year period averages as high as what the top temperature of the Eemian period is thought to have been, or even measures significantly above the top Altithermal temperature.
I think that much of the concern comes from the fact that all three models predict temperatures equal to or above the Altithermal peak: model C sits right in this temperature region for some time and models A and B go much higher, rather quickly. 2009 could be the start of a 6 year span whose average exceeds the Eemian high. Model B is the one that most closely follows the observed data to this point. So, things could change quickly and for the worse (worse with regard to currently established ecosystems, etc.).
For more commentary on Crichton's climate footnotes,with comments from some of the real people who wrote those papers and who do not agree with Chrichton's (mis)use of their data or conclusions, see the Boston Globe:
www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_foot...
A key quote from the Boston Globe article is the following (which is somewhat sarcastic): "In Crichton's defense, those seeking to counter consensus scientific conclusions on climate change--and to use published evidence to support their own views--face an uphill battle. Naomi Oreskes, a science studies scholar at the University of California, San Diego, recently analyzed more than 900 scientific articles listed with the keywords ''global climate change,'' and failed to find a single study that explicitly disagreed with the consensus view that humans are contributing to global warming. While such literature may exist, it appears minimal."-
At the moment, I see Crichton's use of material as subordinate to discussions on climate change. That he has reminded people of the requirements of sound science and avoiding premature conclusions, however, is worthy of note.
The modeling Hansen and others have done is very interesting. How it works within larger cycles they factor is evidently still not settled. This gives me pause .. a number of comments I have posted address research that I hope vectors on more solid conclusions and can be so coherent that there are fewer questions and anomalies faced by present models.
In the end, I see the key word 'contributes' so frequently that it suggests two thing: weather will change do to cycles and humans have been influencing these cycles rather than inducing them.
Because of suggestions, it shifts perspective, for me, back to necessary environmental initiatives that have never acquired the traction needed to make a difference in the first place.
Sadly, the energy going into increasingly vitriolic debate, would be bettered channeled into immediate action. Those who beat the drums for Climate Warming are only doing this; and in this they lose credibility. The evidence must be in how they are changing their lives to make a difference on the climate, what they are doing to cause others to do the same, and what they are doing within organizations, and what pressures and influence they bear on government to support initiatives - not just light bulbs.
The article I posted, Carbon Dioxide Emissions Linked To Human Mortality, hasn't received a comment to date.
The article remarks about some initiative by certain people within the UN regarding Forestation, and the little regard it received at Bali, is another feature of discussion that has not received comment.
Your post on the administration's actions did not get appropriate attention either.
And there's more.
The behavour of many has been totally passive ... unless argument is action :-)
These two threads started because of a question about Gore and Climate Change as a Religion. In a way, the question has been answered. It is, and those who belong to this new religion sit and wait for their gods to fix it.. without action or change on their part. Without cynicism, and with all sincerity, it makes Gore look like one of their gods. -
@Alias - Obviously I took a break from this thread. I am thankful to see that it continues. I will read your posts later and comment. Thanks for keeping this going.
-
-
At the moment, I see Crichton's use of material as subordinate to discussions on climate change.
I don't see how you can I looked up some of the links in his book and the data is there.
Ie The number of hurricanes is falling. Both the strongest ones and overall
www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
from page 425
When thats one of the main teaching points of Al Gore, and he got 99 million so far, thats important, Chrichton put it in a book and a lot more and did a good job.
The more I read the more I think the people are fraudsters on the faithful side. -
The paper discloses an excellent approach to modeling CO2 correlated with climate warming. I didn’t see a date on the paper, but presume it was written about 2005 or 2006. A great deal of science has been advanced in the past year, and continues to advance at a good pace.
--------------------------------------------
Why do we need to advance the science when the final results are in re mann et al.-
I'm not sure I understand your posts or at least I'm confused between them both.
Can you clarify? -
To GENSLUB3: I'm not quite sure what you mean either. If you could explain in more detail, I would be very happy to read what you say. Thanks, Jim
-
-
WHILE SOME SCIENCE CHASES AFTER GREENHOUSE GASES, OTHER CHASE AFTER SOLUTIONS
Scientists Use Sunlight to Make Fuel From CO2
By Chuck Squatriglia
01.04.08 | 8:00 PM
www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/S2P
Researchers at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico have found a way of using sunlight to recycle carbon dioxide and produce fuels like methanol or gasoline. -
Really, I thought GreenFuel Technologies had already commercialized a way to scrub smokestacks with algae then turn it into biofuels. CO2 is basically plant food in many cases. www.greenfuelonline.com/
-
Yes! Well said!
The remedies for CO2 have existed since plants .. but for some mysterious reason they are 'ignored' with people expending biological energy blaming humans for CO2 and taxing nations, and looking for 'new' technologies as a solution (!)
Dumb & Dumber? :-) -
AND EVEN IF EVERYONE AGREES, AND 300 MILLION AMERICANS SHOULD SCREAM 'MIA CULPA' - THERE'S THE CONGRESS WITH LOCKJAW :-)
Global warming's political winds leave energy producers wary of coal
By MIKE DENNISON of the Missoulian State Bureau
www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/01/06/news/local/news04.txt
“As soon as Congress moves (on CO2 regulation), then projects will begin to be built,” Schweitzer says. “What's happening right now is, everyone in the energy business has recognized there is a demand for more electricity, but they want to know what Congress is going to do. They can't do the math, because Congress has not put together the carbon protocol.”
-
-
Thanks wehieu and inkhorn. I need to read that article on CO2/mortality and the other links.
I think that we agree on a great deal, but maybe not on everything. People seem very willing to act responsibly toward the environment even if they don't believe in Global Warming caused by man. So, maybe if we just act on this, we'll be on the right track.
Regarding scrubbing smokestacks with algae- this seems like a real example of waste being turned into fuel by a sensible mechanism and is quite different from cutting down forests or draining peat bogs in order to grow food crops for use as fuels.
Regarding other types of sequestration- I think some of them are very bad ideas, like changing the pH of the oceans (making it higher) so they absorb more CO2... yikes. I have strongly criticized this idea elsewhere. What I do know is that raising the pH will kill lots of ocean life, which isn't generally a good thing. I have similar thoughts about dumping iron into the ocean (to act as plankton "fertilizer"). I just don't know of many cases where people have tried to engineer ecosystems without finding many unintended and highly undesirable consequences. Maybe those iron-poor regions of the oceans are important at preventing the spread of diseases between coral reefs, etc. Eggs, as in chicken eggs, protect themselves against bacteria by tightly controlling the iron supply in egg whites (as I understand it).
On to general issues:
I do think that it is very reasonable for people to feel confused on the various topics we have discussed. So, what we really need is plenty of concrete suggestions for what we can or should do ourselves, and these suggestions do exist. A number of the contributors here write about these suggestions on their blogs, and they are recommended reading. Then we need to act on these ideas.
Basically, as far as I can tell, no matter what "side" one is on regarding global warming, there are plenty of things that remain constant and sensible. It is sensible to conserve resources- energy, water, etc. It is sensible not to pollute our air or water (or anyone else's) more than necessary. It is sensible to recognize that we can't live on the planet without making some impact on the environment (which would include a certain level of pollution, for example). The practical ways to conserve resources and minimize pollution will vary from place to place. As one example, I would say that mass transit doesn't help very much in some parts of the world because of population density issues, but mass transit can make a huge difference elsewhere (cutting down air pollution as well as reducing fuel use). I can say with confidence that it is much better to avoid polluting in the first place, as much as is practical, rather than to pollute and then try to clean things up later- the cleanup process is incredibly expensive.
Just as an example of very practical ideas about green technologies and minimizing wastefulness, there is an interesting article about green building construction in the UK that I blogged at greenchemistry.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/10-most-innovative-and-green-buildi..., and which, as I just learned via a comment, is supplemented by information at the site livegreenlivesmart.org/
This site describes recent success with green home remodeling in the US and environmental problems with some current building or home remodeling practices. This could be very important to some people (and even if remodeling or home building is irrelevant to specific individuals, the site includes many good ideas worth thinking about).
In a broad sense, it is clearly very hard for many people to figure out what to think and whom to believe. However, I do think that this discussion started by GlobalGirl has made headway. I think that one conclusion is that the important question is "what do we do next?" rather than "whom do we blame or glorify?" Many comments have echoed this sentiment. And I can take this a step further by saying "let's not glorify anybody." Sure, we all are likely to have people we look up to, but they are human and fallible. They may get some things wrong. Getting things wrong, or possibly getting them wrong, isn't a reason to accuse people of crimes. Neither should people get a free pass because they once said something that inspired us or that we agreed with. Instead, we simply need to argue each case on its merits (we have been arguing quite a few cases here, which is great, as long as we don't confuse the issues).
So, I guess my final (or let's hope so!) comments for now are that the "Crisis of Global Warming" might well be a religion for some, but it is certainly is not a religion for many others: the 900 scientific papers on climate change cited by Naomi Oreskes that I mentioned above, and that did not disagree with "the consensus opinion on global warming", were written by individuals whose vested interest is in being correct. These individuals did their best to be objective in analyzing their own data. Is trying to be objective the same as being objective? Not necessarily. But, these contributions made by so many individuals from all over the world (which Crichton claims is the only way for science to be done) do not smell of conspiracy in any way. In fact, if I know scientists, and I do, many of these people probably can't stand each other and would be delighted to disprove each others' ideas. ... I promised I'd stop .... -
Oh no! I said I would stop, but this just popped up, so I thought I had better share it with those who might be interested. It is an interview from Fresh Air and WHYY with the very person we have been discussing (or at least one of them) and an author who has written a book about how the Bush administration has censored NASA's top climate scientist and his work on Global Warming.
Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming:
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17926941&ft=1&f=13-
I'll read this later (need to go) but why was this scientist censored by Bush?
-
-
I have been following Climate news for a number of years, and more aggressively the past two. It has been a roller coaster ride for me, because there's a dominance of news for Climate Warming, but with five minutes of work on the Internet, I discover a great deal of other news not main-lined - that shows a different picture of climate and climate change.
Looking at it from a reasoned-state of being, I simply want to see the spectrum of science and published work and weather news. Not someone's engineered spin & agenda.
There was an article in the New York Times that addresses the news coverage. The question that yells from the page is: main-line news is selective!
Good news warms the heart and soothes concerns. It makes you happy. Glad. At peace. But it rarely sells newspapers. I learned this years ago working for a newspaper, and its still true today. Bad news trumps good news when it comes to front page news.
Read how this affects your perceptions on Climate Change contra Global Warming.
In 2008, a 100 Percent Chance of Alarm
www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html
Today’s interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels.
When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored. A large part of Antarctica has been cooling recently, but most coverage of that continent has focused on one small part that has warmed.
Now, a healthy environment is still necessary. But do we want to be hi-jacked and kept hostage by news-slants & availability entrepreneurs? -
GET THE FULL SPECTRUM OF CLIMATE NEWS
Is ALL climate news relevant - or just news that supports a view?
Recent research on another amazing aspect of global heat reveals it can not only get blazing hot but POLAR ICE CAN GROW.
Ancient heatwave casts doubts on global warming
The Llaima volcano
Friday January 11 2008
www.independent.ie/world-news/ancient-heatwave-casts-doubts-on-global-warmi...
Glaciers persisted when the Earth was far hotter than today, scientists have found. The discovery casts doubt on predictions that global warming will melt ice sheets and raise sea levels, writes Roger Highfield.
The glaciers survived for hundreds of thousands of years when crocodiles roamed the Arctic and the Atlantic Ocean was as warm as human blood.
Earth was thought to be ice-free during the Turonian period, a "super greenhouse world'' between 93.5m and 89.3m years ago. But studies of marine organisms show that large ice-sheets existed about 91m years ago, during one of the warmest periods in the past 500m years, the team reports in 'Science'.
Meanwhile, scientists warned last night that the Llaima volcano, could be about to blow its top. Yesterday dramatic footage showed the volcano in Chile spewing smoke and lava 528 miles into the air. (© Daily Telegraph, London)
-
This is a longer article with more detail on the study.
Published January 10, 2008 03:01 PM
Glaciers grew even when alligators lived in Arctic
www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/29049
At the time, tropical surface ocean temperatures in the west Atlantic exceeded a sweltering 35-37 Celsius (95-99F), several degrees warmer than now, and alligators and plants such as tropical breadfruit trees flourished in the Arctic.
--
"Paradoxically, past greenhouse climates may actually have aided ice growth by increasing the amount of moisture in the atmosphere and creating more winter snowfall at high elevations at high latitudes," said Andre Bornmannn, who led the study from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in California.
The scientists said that the formation of ice sheets backed up evidence that sea levels abruptly fell by 25-40 meters at the time -- formation of ice sheets sucks water from the oceans. -
GlobalGirl: Hansen was censored because his work supports the idea that human-derived global warming is of great importance and a threat to national security, and the President disagrees for political reasons, so the White House tried to stop Hansen from disclosing his scientific results.
Yo Ink! Yes, we need to report all sides of the news, all news (including, for example, the side of the detainees in Guantanamo, the Panamanian civilians we killed in huge numbers in the invasion of 1989, the way the war is bankrupting us and killing large numbers of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.).
But, it doesn't sound like these stories you just brought up were suppressed! I am happy to learn about them, but they were reported in Science and The Telegraph. That's about as mainstream as it gets, and respected, too. So, where is the argument that this is being hidden from us?
Just in the last 24 hours, the National Science Foundation had a press release* on work that shows ponds, rivers and lakes in Wisconsin have been thawing sooner and freezing later over 150 years. So, what do we make of it all? It isn't obvious to me, and there are conflicting theories and predictions, but it is clear to me that we need to clean up the environment, minimize pollution and conserve energy, no matter what we believe.
*See greenchemistry.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/winter-ice-on-lakes-rivers-ponds-a-...
The comments are quite interesting, too. There is a lot from a "climate change denying person" that makes no sense at all to me, though I'm sure he believes what he says. This kind of apples/oranges denial doesn't help anyone. That is why the discussion here, on BlogCatalog, has been often very good.
Thanks again, inkhorn and globalgirl (and the group).-
Chemrat, Wherein in all my comments have I indicated news has been suppressed? This characterization does not describe my participation correctly and is not in keeping with my comments on this theme.
That you were unaware of two news items is one evidence of the fact that major new venues do not provide a spectrum of news that properly informs the public but consistently focuses on Global Warming as defined IPCC and Gore's campaign. I believe that Science would not be considered mainstream by many, and the Telegraph not frequented by many outside the UK. In addition, tho a good number of comments I have posted are derived from excellent websites, they can be considered third order or less as informative sources for the general public's awareness.
We may have significant differences in value drivers in this thread. Mine have been clearly explained in both GG's threads. And they play into my concerns regarding the political ramifications through, by and from the IPCC. Should you have read my comments in other threads, it will be clear why.
There is a great deal to understand regarding climate change and warming - and there's a great deal more to factor, if there are positions taken as to what is happening. The National Science Foundation press release is interesting, and not surprising. On the other hand there is news that the glacial ice is extending in one part of Alaska. Where's the difficulty? It's not a rhetorical question.
'So, where is the argument that this is being hidden from us?' The answer is, 'Are you daft? What argument?'
Nevertheless, I am glad you like the articles, and found your's informative, as well.
-
-
By addressing the remarks to you, I was merely referring to your latest citations and the information they convey. There have been many comments at this site, none by you, implying that "contrary" reports are suppressed. I know of many examples of the opposite in the US (global warming reports being suppressed, just as straightforward environmental science of an immediate nature has been suppressed by the Bush administration. One example being the recent suppression by the now disgraced Fish & Wildlife appointee. I was speaking to the group about suppression of the "contrary" reports, not to you, but using the examples you provided. Sorry for being unclear. Yet you still seem to state that these studies are under-reported. I thought that was the title of your post. So perhaps you'll forgive me for being confused.
To many in the world, the denial of global warming by the White House is very similar to the denial of mad cow disease by the British Government, and the denial of HIV transmission by French blood as carried out by the French health minister.
"Science" is the premier science journal in the world, as is Nature (yes, there are also 10 journals in the top 5, it depends on one's interests). So I don't understand your point about that. The Telegraph may be British, but so are many of the sources I have used. The Telegraph is a conservative (but) respected paper, it isn't a small village's local, neighborhood socialist or right-wing newsletter. I don't think it is significant that I hadn't seen these articles yet- I would have seen them when I got around to looking, in all likelihood. If I hadn't spent the day trying to explain the difference between climate and weather to someone who disputed the NSF study "because the trucks are out on the lakes by his town, now," I might have even seen them today. That doesn't mean that I'm ungrateful for your making sure that I didn't miss them.
Why is the NSF release not surprising to you? This point may have been buried, so perhaps you didn't see it, but the results are surprising to everyone involved because of the latitudes at which climate happened fastest: faster climate change happened in the lower latitudes in this study, which is, I believe, unprecedented (or relatively unprecedented).
The argument that you say doesn't exist is about global warming, and it has been going on here (the three faces of dispute: is it fact or fiction, do we act or ignore it, and what do we do if we act?). There is a sentiment here, by part of the group, that global warming doesn't exist except as a political or religious construct, and there have been a number of statements by this group about how we can and should ignore global warming, in some cases apparently meaning "take no action about any energy or environmental issues and the earth will take care of itself." I'm not claiming that you ever said this. I'm saying that it is a disturbing sentiment, however.
Regarding "the argument" that you say doesn't exist, I guess I am daft: my point is that a huge amount of data support the idea that man-made global warming is a serious problem, and, as far as I can tell, a smaller but real amount of data dispute this. Nobody knows how to reconcile all the data. This makes for a scientific argument in addition to the political arguments about global warming. The scientific arguments will go away when the data can be reconciled (probably). Who knows when the political arguments will go away? However, none of these data, as far as I can determine, support a "let's leave the earth alone, just keep doing what we are doing, and good old Daddy Nature will take care of us as always" attitude. Again, not an attitude you have ever expressed, but one that has appeared in or been implied by a number of the group's remarks.
So, in answer to the question of "what do we do?" that GlobalGirl asked, I argue for sensible curbing of energy use, especially in the US where we use a lot per capita; working with developing economies to help them avoid over-use of energy while modernizing, and to help them avoid polluting their own air, land and water the way we already have in many cases; working on better implementation of the cleaner energy sources that are available; cutting back on car use and improving gas mileage; conservation of energy and materials at individual, local, regional and national levels, including fossil fuels and other raw materials; in some countries or regions, investing in more mass transit, perhaps rather than more bombs and wars; leaving the rain forests alone so they can greedily chew on all the CO2 they want, scrub the air, and make oxygen; scrubbing any effluent out of any pipe when possible and sensible, and inventing more ways to make it possible and sensible (whether it is a tailpipe or an industrial "smoke-stack", and whether we are scrubbing CO2 or ozone or particulate matter or NOx/SOx, etc.); and recycling as much as possible (which has been called a waste of energy by some), including careful and clean recycling of electronic components. I can add more, but it is late.
So, if there is no argument, and I think I've identified about 6, I guess that means everyone agrees with everyone, and nobody will argue against anything I just said. I suppose we'll see.
But, as a further disclaimer, the bulk of these remarks are directed not at anyone in particular, but to the group as a whole, for consideration, digestion, discussion (and for use as ammunition in vilification of me if you so desire).
Warm wishes, Jim-
I understand and appreciate your points, Chemrat. I come from the soft sciences, and am driven by an orientation to studies, research and facts that requires more than the discussion, especially in the first thread, allowed. Recent posts are now addressed to a greater audience that no longer participates.
Having worked in news and politics (and PR), I am keenly sensitive to their interplay on high-profile issues. I believe they have definitely outpaced the science and, unfortunately, have exasperated discussions. Some, like you an I, can remain well informed comfortably on the subject, but if my conversations with those here in Europe are an indicator, even the best educated are wanting in their understanding of climate change beyond tabloid and TV news.
It is clear for us that the tenets of science rule; it is not too often this way in public discussions. If people, industry, and government would have been motivated to do things two or three decades ago that would have obviated present concerns and issues, at minimum, the environment would be healthy or at least healthier today. Such is my deepest interest, and confident science will work out the climate warming puzzle with all its apparent intricacies in due course.
GlobalGirl's central concern was focused on Gore's input and behaviour on the subject of climate by elevating interest by associating it with religion. I think, personally and bluntly, it was stupid on his part to do so; I have been among people and cultures where that would shut down interest in the subject of warming, not motivate to action.
By the way, I came across an article (in the news about some study, I believe) that said planting trees could be adverse to the environment. Admittedly, I read a couple of lines and said 'What stupidity' and closed the tab. In retrospect, I should have posted a comment on it, not to asperse science, but to give evidence that the air and climate are truly complex and understandings sometimes contradictory in the details.
What matters, like you write, is the environment, ecology. Immediately. The concern is meta-science. All your points about what can and should be done are urgent.
my best ... .ink.
-
-
Why cant you set up a group to talk about this?-
How do you mean, CRPitt?
-
I mean I am fed up with seeing this thing and there is nothing General about this discussion.
-
-
There are so many more discussions you can see. It's like window shopping. If there's something interesting you go in.
-
So its not telling you anything that Baking Soda is proving popular?
-
Your comment was about your own feelings, not mine. As for baking soda, it has its uses :-)
-
Really? it was about my feelings? I would of never figured that out for myself.
Of course it is just me that thinks that. -
Bravo! there's agreement. I wish you the best common to all :-)
-
I shall go with a super intelligent comment of: BLECK!
-
-
HERE'S A NEWS ITEM ABOUT A SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE ABOUT USING SUN TO MAKE ELECTRICITY.
Given all the financial demands on America, the question is how long can it go on, and how big an impact will there be on living standards & lifestyle.
With or without climate change / global warming Solutions and Changes are needed quickly... There's no telling where the price of oil will be in the future.
Plan for sun power from photovoltaic arrays in Southwest to end oil dependence, lower air pollution
INSIDE TECHNOLOGY BY JON VAN
January 14, 2008
www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-mon_notebook_0114jan14,1,4834967.stor...
A plan to use sunshine to end dependence on foreign oil, cut air pollution and put global warming on the skids is outlined in the January issue of Scientific American by three experts with decades of experience in solar power technology.
The Solar Grand Plan would cost an estimated $420 billion in government subsidies spread over many years. The authors propose to pay for it with a modest tax on carbon released by the burning of conventional fuels.
The plan assumes that energy demand will grow by 1 percent annually, and that by 2050 solar power would supply 69 percent of U.S. electricity and 35 percent of all U.S. energy.
Plug-in hybrid cars would become common under this scenario. Some three million new domestic jobs, many in manufacturing solar components, would be created, more than offsetting the decline in employment in the traditional fossil-fuels industries.
--
Besides its environmental benefits, the plan envisions reducing America's annual trade deficit by $300 billion a year. It would also greatly reduce the nation's dependence on Middle Eastern countries.
Even if politicians don't embrace the solar plan, many aspects of it could happen anyway, Zweibel said. "It may be that business-as-usual will start to look a lot like our plan," he said. "I don't think our country can afford to pay $100 a barrel for oil very long." -
CLIMATE CHANGES: SEARCHING FOR THE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
REading the news about shrinking ICE CAPS, I have looked for research comments about Polar precipitation and snowfall, without any results. The comments are about warming and warm air - and other factors like ocean currents.
But as for Polar meteorology, nothing. IF ANYONE has any information on this please post and comment.
I did come across a little article today quite by accident that does address precip and snowfall in regards to the 'Little Ice Age'. It's interesting.
The ‘Little Ice Age’ glacial expansion in western Scandinavia – summer temperature or winter precipitation?
www.bjerknes.uib.no/pages.asp?kat=8&id=1490&lang=2
A group of scientists led by Atle Nesje at the Bjerknes Centre has shown in an article in press in Climate Dynamics that the main cause of the early 18th century glacial advance in western Scandinavia was probably mild and humid winters associated with increased precipitation and high snowfall on the glaciers rather than cold summers as previously suggested.
Reconstructing the temporal and spatial climate development on a seasonal basis during the last few centuries, including the ‘Little Ice Age’, may help us better understand modern-day interplay between natural and anthropogenic climate variability.
Cold summers or wet winters?
The conventional view of the climate development during the last millennium has been that it followed a sequence of a Medieval Warm Period, a cool ‘Little Ice Age’ and a warming during the later part of the 19th century and in particular during the late 20th/early 21st centuries. However, recent research has challenged this rather simple sequence of climate development. Up to the present, it has been considered most likely that the ‘Little Ice Age’ glacial expansion in western Scandinavia was due to lower summer temperatures.
Conclusion
The authors conclude, on the other hand, that the main cause of the early 18th century glacial advance in western Scandinavia most likely was mild and humid winters associated with increased precipitation and high snowfall on the glaciers. -
The state of the environment is considered in peril with attention focused most on atmospheric warming. Science research has drawn persuasive conclusions for warming as a result of human use of fossil fuels and resulting aerosols. The problem cited by many is that those who champion th IPCC and Bali initiatives are contributing to the cause of the problems of their cause.
NOTE THE HEADLINE:
Survey shows eco-warriors are worst polluters
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 13/01/2008
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/13/eagreens113.xml
'A survey of travel habits has revealed that the most environmentally conscious people are also the biggest polluters.
"Green" consumers have some of the biggest carbon footprints because they are still hooked on flying abroad or driving their cars while their adherence to the green cause is mostly limited to small gestures.
Identified as "eco-adopters", they are most likely to be members of an environmental organisation, buy green products such as detergents, recycle and have a keen interest in green issues.
But the survey of 25,000 people, by the market research company Target Group Index, found that eco-adopters are seven per cent more likely than the general population to take flights, and four per cent more likely to own a car. The survey found similar trends in France and the United States.
Geoff Wicken, the author of the report, pointed to David Cameron, the Conservative leader, as a classic eco-adopter because despite styling himself as a green warrior he also takes flights in private helicopters and planes.'
What do you think?-
Nice one, alias. This goes to show how they types are sort of inherently self defeating.
I thought it was so funny when I heard how Al Gore took public transit to the Nobel ceremony. Like that one ride on a subway balanced out all the jet setting he does. -
yhc, I chuckled reading your comment. Self-defeating, yes, but 'redemption through a token'. :-)
There have been other articles of those stomping for Gore's Global Warming campaign, like, I believe, John Travolta with his fleet of personal jet airliners - by his home. -
I don't think the point is to nit pick the good things people are doing for the environment. That's kind of self defeating and I am sure most of those studies are done by people who are against the green movement. No one is perfect. If one person does some good things for the environment, even if it's a small token.. then it's better than nothing. If that one person turned to many; then even better. If we start making everything we do an environmental "sin" then people will get turned off by the whole dictator like attitude. It's better to gently encourage than to point to other who are actually trying to make a difference and saying it's not enough. (By the way I wonder, what do you do for the environment since you all seem to so knowledgeable about it)
One person can not fight the environmental decline by her or himself. I recycle, I buy Organic products, I use cloth bags, we have one car, but I like taking baths from time to time. We use CFL's. This doesn't mean that I am not doing anything. We can talk about it all we want but to me, actions speak louder than words anyday
-
-
The following news took me by surprise this evening.
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF IT?
Score one for climate science! Inhofe's Enviro Website Wins Coveted Award - 'Best of the Best'
Senate EPW Website (Inhofe) ^ | January 14, 2007 | Marc Morano
Posted on 01/14/2008 10:11:25 AM PST by EPW Comm Team
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1953525/posts
EXCERPT:
Inhofe's Senate Website Wins Top Award – In Large Part For A Balanced Presentation of Global Warming Skepticism
Note: For continuously updated international impact of U.S. Senate Report on Over 400 Scientists Chilling Man-Made Global Warming Fears Click Here: epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport ]
GOLD MOUSE AWARD: epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentR...
Inhofe EPW Website Wins Coveted Gold Mouse Award CMF Recognizes Inhofe EPW Committee Website as Among the “Best of the Best” Washington D.C. - Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was recognized today by the Congressional Management Foundation www.cmfweb.org/ (CMF) for having one of the top websites in Congress. The Inhofe-Republican portion of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee website www.epw.senate.gov/minority was awarded CMF’s prestigious 2007 “Gold Mouse Award." CMF is a non-profit, non-partisan management consulting and research organization in Washington, D.C.
The 2007 Gold Mouse Report and Awards are part of the “Connecting to Congress” research project, funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation. For this project CMF partnered with researchers from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, University of California-Riverside and Ohio State University to study how Members of Congress can use the Internet to improve communications with their constituents and to promote greater participation in the legislative process.
The Inhofe EPW website has been on the vanguard of cutting edge Internet and media savvy dissemination...
RECOMMEND READING THE REST OF THE ARTICLE .. AND POST A COMMENT. -
OFF TOPIC?
What does a UN Procurement scandal have to do with Global Warming? I think Everything. The UN has rushed into the Global Warming fray, closed the door on further discussion and latest research, and charged off to Bali for a conference. What will the consequences cost the US, and where will some of that money really go?
Here's what happened to some of your money already. Read:
U.N. Ignores Its Own Procurement Ban
Monday, January 14, 2008
By George Russell
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322470,00.html
EXCERPT
'How serious is the United Nations about much-touted reform of its scandal ridden, multi-billion-dollar procurement system? To hear senior U.N. officials tell it, very serious.
Chief among the questions is whether the U.N.'s left hand cares what the right hand is doing in an increasingly balkanized organization where the secretary-general, who appoints all the top officials, is apparently restrained from controlling their behavior afterwards.'
Alternate:
Surprise - U.N. Ignores Its Own Procurement Ban
www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/27963/
WHAT DO THINK?-
Alias, you know the source for that second link is a tinyurl.com link to the FoxNews story don't you? Fox News has a looooooong history of UN bashing so I don't even bother reading their views on UN topics. Any other source on that 'scandal' besides Fox?
-
-
Persnickety :-)
-
IS THERE MORE THAN ONE WAY TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF GLOBAL WARMING OTHER THAN WRITING A BOOK? MAYBE MR GORE HAS THE ANSWER :-)
Buying Forgiveness
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | January 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Environment: The Federal Trade Commission is taking a close look at the carbon offset industry with a series of hearings, but it shouldn't take much scrutiny to find out that it's a scam.
www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=285206360468304&src=ADARTCL
excerpt
'In the carbon-offset scheme — cleverly called the "21st century's answer to the 16th-century practice of selling indulgences for sins" by California state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore — an individual, group or company can purchase an offset for their CO2 emissions. Utilities, multinational corporations and firms set up to do nothing but market offsets sell them for between $5 and $50 per ton of CO2 emitted. The World Bank reckoned last year that this relatively new business has turned into a $100 million global industry.
Often the buyers pay for the planting of trees, which breathe in CO2 and thus neutralize the carbon emissions that buyers pump into the atmosphere. But increasingly, their dollars are — supposedly — used to invest in renewable energy development such as wind, solar and hydroelectric power or in energy-conserving technology.'
--
'However, at least a buyer has an idea of where his money is going. To atone for the CO2 spit out by his energy-draining manor in Tennessee and his frequent junkets on private jets, which are among the worst carbon emitters, Al Gore buys his offsets through Generation Investment Management. It's a corporation of which he just happens to be chairman and co-founder.
A Generation Investment Management spokesman said Gore does not profit from others buying offsets, yet his situation reminds us of an old and successful business model: work people into a lather over a speculative fear and then start a company from which the frightened and the image-conscious will buy what they believe to be solutions that will fix the problem.'
-- -
The cost of fixing environmental problems is going to be hefty for the average American. Lifestyles and budgets are going to be profoundly affected and government will also take more money in taxes to afford to fix these problems.
Maybe its long overdue, and America will finally feel the pain of its citizens not taking personal responsibility in their decisions long before now - like my professor friend at the university here says. In any event this article will trouble some and make others happy.
Maybe he's right. It hurts to hear it. But environmental matters should have been addressed long before. Now comes the reaper? And Financial experts are worried the government will raise taxes further after the elections, eventually going from 20% of GDP to 30%.
It would have been a lot easier to have planted trees twenty years ago and ... :-)
The Tax They Didn't Tell You About
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, January 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT
www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=285206321703284
Regulation: The new energy law contains stiff new fuel-efficiency standards for U.S. automakers. But make no mistake: What you got from Congress was a big tax hike. Just ask General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz.
Related Topics: Business & Regulation | Energy
That's right. The CAFE standards embedded in the Energy Independence Act require fuel efficiency to jump to a fleet average 35 miles a gallon in 2020 from about 25 mpg now. That means you will soon be paying more — a lot more — to buy a car.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? -
Global Warming. It has caused blood to boil in debates. Nasty business.
IPCC & Bali Conference rushed to 'fix' the problem.
I'm reading climate research that too often looks tentative. Some that don't fit with other studies. But I earnestly try to make sense of it all.
Now there's news - like last year - where things are getting mighty cold in some world joints.
Then I read this article, where one para about the UN has me drop my corncob pipe and nearly fall my three legged wood stool as my straw hat falls to the floorboards. Read on ...
Global warming or climate change?
Posted: January 16, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59697
On Dec. 4, in Seoul, South Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius.
On Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the low temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit – colder than the previous record low set in 1952.
South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.
This week, it snowed in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
NOW READ THIS:
More dramatic by far than any detectable warming of the atmosphere and oceans are the new word games played by the eco-freaks at the United Nations who have dubbed Jan. 23 – next Wednesday – "World Cooling Day."
"World Cooling Day." HUH? "Tell me it ain't so Joe."
:-)
Any thoughts? -
Has anyone read the article by Cardinal Pell regarding the subject of this discussion?
-
Haven't heard of it JohnMalenda. You have a link?
-
-
All I know is that I wish to heck it would friggen warm up... I'm tired of winter... -
From Tim Hermach; President of Native Forest Council
Collectively, we have arrived at the 11th house not because the earth will collapse tomorrow, but because the trajectory we have plotted and the speed with which we are moving toward disaster is seemingly irreversible. Our consumptive lifestyle is like a a supertanker plowing ahead at full speed, and those enlightened beings who understand the need to slow it, are trying to do so with kayaks and paddles. To be clear: The earth is not fragile. Far from it. It has withstood ice ages, meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions, tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, an industrial revolution, unfathomable amounts of pollution and 6.5 billion of us. The earth will survive cold or boiling hot; richly diverse or woefully impoverished.
What is fragile- and may not endure - are the very narrow conditions that support human life.
From Dr. Glen Barry; President and Founder of Ecological Internet
Pie in the sky climate techno fixes diver attention from reducing individual and societal emissions- the only way to save the climate, the earth, and thus ourselves. Appropriate technologies have a role, but their primacy int eh discussion diverts attention from the immediate need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now, yesterday, 10 years ago. Fast. Really Fast. As climate change becomes a huge fucking business, very little attention is paid to whether a particular product, method or way of something, anything (that does not require real sacrifice) , and worry later whether it was the right thing or ultimately caused more problems than it solved.
I have been reading this thread the last couple of weeks and it's great that so many are passionate about the Climate Change topic. However; it doesn't solve anything to sit here and talk about it. Hopefully those who truly feel that there's an Environmental decline will start reducing their carbon impact at home and start acting rather than just talking about it. And get involved in their community to make those changes happen. I think by action rather than pulling quotes or theories from various sources is more beneficial to the planet.-
Bravo, dharmagypsy7!
The clips are brilliant and your summation spot on. The thread has evolved, and addresses what is going on among professionals, but it's sub-theme is just as you say: doing things now, collectively, to 'heal our health' - not waiting for opportunistic Pied Pipers, or federal interventions with laws on light bulbs.
There is an urgency, not because its getting warmer or colder, but because the environment that sustains us is being 'poisoned' by us at ground level - and we will pay the ultimate costs with our health and, as some fear, our lives, if we don't resolve to act in concert and individually at ground level.
Otherwise, it appears, civilization wants to be saved while still being naughty. It will be saved when it does what is salubriously right.
To put it crudely, it cannot continue to pee in the well it drinks from and complain the well needs to be fixed. -
Dharmagypsy, yes, we do need to act, and now.
But the talk is important, because it can be confusing to decide which actions make sense. This isn't true in every case. The sensible conservation that you refer to is unquestionably valuable.
That is why the Ink and I can agree and disagree at the same time, and it doesn't really matter: we don't know what is going to happen in 20 years, and we may prefer different guesses or estimates, but we do know what we should do now is to make sure that in 20 years, pollution and other problems of industrialization are kept to a minimum. That conclusion doesn't require believing in or not believing in global warming.
For confusing details, examine the energy/fuel policy of Portland Oregon vs. that of the State of Missouri: they don't agree. Closer examination shows that Portland follows internationally accepted standards for biofuels, in other words, it doesn't allow biofuels that cause more net harm than good (palm oil biodiesel is a given example), and it requires a purity of biodiesel that is safe for diesel engines. Portland also helps you understand the process of switching a diesel car or truck to biodiesel- this is not something that should be done instantaneously, for a variety of reasons (I'll skip the details). Missouri, on the other hand, refers to no standards, objective or otherwise (say in the Governor's State of the State address the other night). No facts, no justification, no rationale, and the plan still gives huge tax breaks to corn ethanol while holding back the use of what I would call the very good idea of converting waste vegetable oil to biodiesel. This is my "why Willie Nelson is more on target than most politicians" platform. It is just true. The big forces in power are incapable of being objective, for the most part, and they get a lot wrong in the rush to feed corporate greed and campaign contributions.
Waste vegetable oil does not compete with food, it has already served its food purpose (healthy or not) and will simply be thrown out, or it could be turned into diesel fuel. To this, I see no downside. However, the Governor doesn't have a close relative with a Waste Vegetable Oil Biodiesel factory, just a close relative with a huge corn ethanol facility. This could be considered poor family planning, or just downright corruption. No wonder he had his staff erase all of their emails and is now being investigated by the State Attorney General. But I digress.
Some things that may seem "obvious" choices may not be good ones. At least by discussing ideas here, we will get a diversity of opinions and then we may be able to decide better for ourselves.
But, absolutely, conserve, carpool, consume less, get good gas mileage, use mass transportation, ride a bicycle, insulate the house well (even modern insulation can be very bad for you- watch out for breathing it in or touching it, but once it is in place, it is fine), and many more things that you can control yourself.
-
-
-
Thanks, John!
-
-
Regarding the new energy-saver light bulbs, on a cold winter's night here in NE I can be a quarter of a mile down the road before the new bulb puts out enough light to find my car in the driveway.
They work reasonably well if they are in a warm environment but not where it's cold.
Doing away totally with incandescent bulbs could be a mistake.-
they're hopeless and some of them buzz...i feel like i'm visually impaired when i use them
-
-
Chemrat, you make a lot of sense.
The real problem, even with good science and data available, is that the people along the path to personal financial gain pursuade the decision makers to make poor choices.
It seems that whoever has the most to gain pushes the hardest and therefore wins the argument and the rest of us pick up the tab.
We have the forum with the blogs that are being written but how do we present this to the public in a way that contributes to the decision making process?
Idealistically it would make sense to have not just 'interested' parties but scientists present their case before Congressional committees before some of these actions are taken that become laws.
I say 'idealistically' because watching CSPAN I see bills being passed with only a half dozen people present, again, only those who have perhaps a financial interest. -
I think its both climate change and global warming. Throughout earths history the climate has changed.
Personally I think spending money in trying to prevent global warming is a waste of time. I think we should focus our money and resources on adapting.
Sure we should recycle etc.. But really I think what is happening is the planet is just changing. Its easy for us to point the finger at technology, however technology didn't cause the ice age.
It is getting warmer though, I live in new jersey and for a few days there I thought I was living more south. -
The Global Warming debate hasn't cooled down.
Top Ten Reasons Not To Fall For The Global Warming Hoax
theaxisofstevil.com/2008/01/18/top-ten-reasons-not-to-fall-for-the-global-w... -
Is there a better way to shape the discussion on Climate?
'Eco-anxiety' gains status as mental-health disorder
Experts suggest getting kids involved in recycling program, planting garden
--News 14 Carolina, Raleigh
Updated: 01/16/2008 03:07 PM
By: Claudine Chalfant
news14.com/content/top_stories/591762/suffering-from--eco-anxiety-/Default....
NORTH CAROLINA -- Former Vice President Al Gore isn’t the only one concerned about the environment, as more and more people are starting to become aware of global warming and experiencing ‘eco-anxiety.’
"People are afraid of the future, they're afraid of what's going to happen,” said licensed therapist Melissa Pickett, saying of one patient, "She brought up during the course of our session that she had just read an article about the polar bears and the loss of habitat and she started crying … she said 'I just don't understand this.'" -
Funny, but not so.
This is regarding 'Eco-anxiety'
Driving home last night my wife mentioned that you never see searchlight beams in the sky anymore. They lit up the sky for carnivals and store openings but they are gone now.
I said that they were remnants from WWII when they used to scan the sky for enemy bombers. Of course, the US mainland was out of range for enemy bombers but we still had the anxiety about it.
US planes had to fly to South America then fly to Dakar, Africa for the shortest over-water trip.
We had Air Raid Wardens on the tops of our buildings and Civil Defense volunteers who walked the streets in the dark carrying clubs in case of an invasion. We painted our car headlights black and kept the shades drawn on our windows.
Then came the atomic bomb scare in the late 40's when anytime someone came down with a cold it was blamed on radioactive fallout from Pacific tests.
In the early 60's we were buying dosimeters (I still have one somewhere!) and stocking food and water in basements in case the Soviets attacked us. Kids hid under school desks and under beds.
Now we have 'eco-anxiety'. It seems that we need something to worry about at all times.
Going back to biblical times, it was the "Fear of God's wrath".
Bird flu is just around the corner if we decide to live with global warming. -
Climate Debate Daily is an excellent resource that provides essays and research supporting and challenging the idea that global warming poses a clear threat to humanity, that it is largely caused by human activity, and that solutions to the problems of climate change lie within human reach.
www.climatedebatedaily.com
This helps when talking with skeptics:
gristmill.grist.org/skeptics -
Living is easy with eyes closed... -
The future trends of climate change are difficult to predicts because of the chaotic nature of atmosphere-ocean system.
www.zimbio.com/science%2C+philosophy+and+technology
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
