Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Eric, where did Al Gore “heartily endorse” the movie? I wouldn’t be surprised if he said that making a movie about how humans can affect climate change was a good idea, but I hope you don’t mean to imply that he, or any other serious environmentalists, believe that the situation portrayed in the movie is even remotely possible. Because we don’t. None of us.

Anyway, I saw the movie last night and I thought it was hilarious. The Bush and Cheney characters were a hoot, and were dead-on accurate portrayals! :)

-Cf

Eric, I concur with what you are decrying it is actually a rather extremist scenario.

But I do agree that we do have alot of pollution here in this country that does need to be cleaned up. So don’t advocate the dismantling of the EPA just yet(not that you were).

***But actually many republicans, mostly hunters and outdoor enthusiasts, want the same EPA standards for our country too. So yes I agree that there is an extremist edge to it all with the eco-nightmare stuff, but if it serves to increase focus on reallistic environmental issues, what is the harm???

We’ll push Rush Limbaugh back in the ocean should he accidently get caught ashore.
;^D#

You need look no further than the fact that these ‘scientists’ point to ‘consensus’ to discredit them. There is no such thing as ‘consensus science’. It is an oxymoron. Science is about facts, not consensus and conjecture. There is no proof that the world is experiencing a sustained warming trend. At least half of models show no significant results. Beyond that, there is no proof that current observed increases in temperatures are the result of humans. I’ve yet to see the treehuggers wearing ‘Cap the Volcanoes’ t-shirts. Beyond that, there is no proof that any changes made in the developed world could have any effect on climate change. And, before we sign the death warrant of modern society, ‘We need to try something’ is not a good enough excuse.

You will of course note that Gore’s seminal comment about the science in this movie is that there are two fictions at play here - one being the disaster-movie nonsense science advanced by hollywood, and the other is the head in the ground, stubborn refusal to admit that the problem even exists by the Bush administration. Gore makes it very clear that the science in the movie is Bunk. However, he also thinks that the movie may increase people’s awareness of what is a real problem, and that is a good thing. Clear-headed thinking if I’ve ever seen it.

Damn, come to think of it…$$$$$

**Man, I need to get in on this Bush-bash money maker wave. If Michael Moore and others can make millions out of anti-bush fervor, I’m due for atleast a tenth of the market. (Where did I put that video cam?)

(1st director/producer Note to self: Don’t go through Disney)

Chris,

I saw clips of this. Al has obviously gone over to the dark side. Thank god the Supreme Court stopped his effort to overturn the election in Florida.

Former Vice President Al Gore says people should see the upcoming movie “The Day After Tomorrow,” in which global warming suddenly creates a new ice age that freezes entire cities.

Scientists and Gore agree that the movie is loose with the scientific facts, but the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000 said he hopes the film will get people to start talking about climate change.

“It’s an emergency that seems to be unfolding in slow motion, but it actually is occurring very swiftly — not as swiftly as the movie portrays, but swiftly in the context of human history,” Gore said Tuesday in a conference call organized by the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org. -msn.com

Eco-Doom. The funny thing is, that Gore thinks the movie will actually enhance Gore’s cause is almost plausable. Seeing as how the movie is just as believable as most of his dire claims of apocalypse.

Speaking of overly dramatized, nonsensical claims:

“The Kyoto Protocol is a fine first step in dismantling our industrial society”?

Belief that industrial society NEEDS to pollute in order to function, and that lack of pollution means lack of industry, is not supported by the facts. Yes, it does mean that industry will need to spend more money on advancements in technology to do their jobs cleaner, but while that will reduce industry profits for a time it will in no way eliminate them. Technological society has evolved beyond the need to pollute the world to use the technology man invents… it’s time mankind acknowledged that fact and stopped taking the lazy road of pollution.

I’m a green Republican—for preservation of existing wild areas, protection of species, etc—and think its a shame that both parties tend to look at science selectively in order to advance other parts of their agenda.

I have no doubt that there are industrialists whose main consideration is the bottom line and the environment be damned—and I don’t support those elements on the conservative side.

But there are leftists who also see the issue through the lens of their anti-west, anti-capitalist bias, and it takes some doing to sort through the science and really understand what’s going on. If ANY of us are getting the bulk of our information from political parties, then we’re missing the real picture.

Global warming is a fact. That humans are the the main cause is very debatable (as Eric points out). Six thousand years ag the earth’s temperature was actually 2-5 degrees warmer than it is today. What does this mean? Clearly that human behavior is not the only factor (shifts in the orbital position of the earth are also likely causes). And what will happen if the temperature continues to rise? Is it really just a dire, horrible picture?

One thing that all climatalogists agree on is that precipitation will rise as the temperature does. As northern regions (ie. Finland, Candada) can support greater concentrations of vegetation, arid regions like the Southwest will become “tropical.” The sum effect could very well be to the make the world greener. And due to increased photosythsisis by a greater level of plant live, increased levels of CO2 (carbon dioxide) will be converted back into increased levels of oxygen.

I’m not a scientist, and don’t see this as a partisan issue so much as interesting question. I don’t think political parties have the answers—and Hollywood definitely doesnt.

>The Kyoto Protocol is a fine first step in dismantling our industrial society

Oh for heaven’s sake. The Kyoto Protocol calls for countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases to 95% of the 1990 level. Remember 1990? Were we all wearing animal skins and leaving in caves?

Checked on some of these references:

Greening Earth Society - “not-for-profit membership organization comprised of rural electric cooperatives and municipal electric utilities, their fuel suppliers, and thousands of individuals” We wouldn’t be a little biased toward burning fossil fuels, would we?

John Daly - Background in engineering and economics, not geophysics. According to a sympathetic obituary posted on his website, “One of John’s great legacies is the use of the Internet to publish scientific articles that had been rejected through the ‘peer-review’ control system.” Anyone who knows anything about science can tell you that anyone even marginally competent can find a journal somewhere to publish in. The fact that he resorted to publishing on the Internet marks him as a crank, not a pioneer.

The Telegraph - The jist of the article is that using different methods to estimate temperature give different results. The article does not deny the phenomenon of global warming.

Actually, even George Bush acknowledges global warming. Is he a crazy, paranoid leftist, too?

>The Kyoto Protocol is a fine first step in dismantling our industrial society

Oh for heaven’s sake. The Kyoto Protocol calls for countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases to 95% of the 1990 level. Remember 1990? Were we all wearing animal skins and leaving in caves?

Checked on some of these references:

Greening Earth Society - “not-for-profit membership organization comprised of rural electric cooperatives and municipal electric utilities, their fuel suppliers, and thousands of individuals” We wouldn’t be a little biased toward burning fossil fuels, would we?

John Daly - Background in engineering and economics, not geophysics. According to a sympathetic obituary posted on his website, “One of John’s great legacies is the use of the Internet to publish scientific articles that had been rejected through the ‘peer-review’ control system.” Anyone who knows anything about science can tell you that anyone even marginally competent can find a journal somewhere to publish in. The fact that he resorted to publishing on the Internet marks him as a crank, not a pioneer.

The Telegraph - The jist of the article is that using different methods to estimate temperature give different results. The article does not deny the phenomenon of global warming.

Martin: if northern regions become tropical, what would happen to regions already warm enough to be tropical, exactly? And would the kinds of vegetation currently found in the newly-made tropical regions be able to adapt to the drastic temperature and rainfall changes? Failing that, could we reasonably expect vegetation native to tropical areas to spread, unassisted, to the newly made tropical areas when their own native habitats begin to change?

I would be dubious that the immediate effect of the situation you describe would be a greener earth. Perhaps after a period of evolution/adaptation, but I think the immediate effect would be mass extinctions of both vegetation and the animals dependent on it.

Ultimately, however, I think it’s stupid to base debate of environmental protocols on the reality or unreality of global warming. Here’s one thing we do know: we do not have the capacity to fully predict the results of human pollution on the environment. In many cases, our inability to predict such effects has resulted in harm to the environment and to human health from pollution. Therefor, shouldn’t we err on the side of caution and do everything possible to reduce what pollution occurs, rather than waiting till enough harm has accumulated that potentially harmful effects can be ultimately proven?

1. Kyoto protocal is kind of like the UN decleration of rights- I would rather have practical solutions that are proven to work than declerations that countries (even the ones attacking the US for pulling out) cant meet. Reducing global warming is a good idea, lets have a realistic plan.

2. You gotta feel for Al Gore, no matter how much you may dislike him. If it wasnt for Elian Gonzalez making to US shores he likely would have won florida by a couple of thousand votes and been president today. Instead, because of a hair thin margin, he is a laughing stock who gets mocked by republicans, ignored by dem’s like the drunken uncle at a family reunion, and has become completely irrelavent. it is an oddity of the winner take all system that a man that could have been leader of the most powerful nation in the history of the world can become so irrelavent based on a couple hundred votes…

Woody, Bush acknowledges global warming because it’s a fact. But it’s also a fact that the earth has heated up and cooled down many times on its own.

Six thousand years ago, well after the last ice age, the temparature of the earth was warmer than it is today. To the best of my knowledge, people weren’t driving around in SUVs six thousand years ago—so why was it warmer? There’s very likely a cycle at work here that has nothing to do with how much hairspray we use and how much the cows that produce cream for Ben and Jerry are farting.

It’s incredibly premature to hamstring our economy and allow mostly unregulated heavy industry—in China and elsewhere (whose practices are far more polluting than ours—compensate for our diminishing output and come to dominate the globe with their economies (and values) while we slip back into a pre-industrial age.

This isn’t about domestic political partisanship, though I feel that partisanship MUST end, if it ends anywhere, with any issue related to the survival of our planet and the conditions of our existence upon it. We can smear and distort each other for partisan ends—tongue in cheek, sometimes—but this isn’t the Iraq war (which pales in significance to mother earth). I tend to agree with Jarin that erring on the side of caution is a good idea. But poltical rhetoric is not the same thing as hard science.

Jarin: as I understand it, the “North,” i.e. polar-proximate areas, wouldn’t become tropical but arable. Tudras would become forests. The tropics (in the southern hemisphere) will extend into areas which are currently deserts (some of which weren’t always deserts—reinforcing the idea that these processes are cyclical). Also, it’s not clear than anything we can or might do would stop global warming.

In evolutionary terms, species adapt or they don’t, new species arise, and this is a process that has never been controlled by any human intelligence. We weren’t responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs, for example. Nothing we do—pro or con—will control this process. More—much more—data is needed to even begin to understand evolution.

And I for one am not ready to lie down and let the rest of the world, who doesn’t care about enviromentalism nearly as much as we do, dominate the world economy and pollute the earth while we sit around eating organic celery, driving hydrogen-powered cars, voting Democrat and sliding into obselescence.

And I for one am not ready to lie down and let the rest of the world, who doesn’t care about enviromentalism nearly as much as we do, dominate the world economy and pollute the earth while we sit around eating organic celery, driving hydrogen-powered cars, voting Democrat and sliding into obselescence.

Cute characterization. Democrat = obsolete tree huggers as the rest of the industrialized world passes us by since they care less about environmentalism than we do.

Funny how we’re the ones fighting not to be part of a huge treaty on environmental standards, huh? Funny how we’re giving tax breaks for people to get cars with worse gas milage, huh?

The idea that we’re the main champions of environmentalism in the world today, and the rest of the world are gleeful polluters who are going to pass us by and make us obsolete if we try to curb our own pollution, is a joke.

Woody,

Many scientists supporting radical solutions to ‘climate change’ are not climatologists. It is unfortunate that the environment as an issue has been hijacked by the left. I am reminded of the oft repeated refrain that Republicans want to poison the water and pollute the air.

I’m not sure I can acknowledge that there even is global warming. When I hear people like Al Gore and Gorbachav making it issue number one on their agenda. And as their solutions to it become more and more shrill I begin to wonder what’s really going on here. I don’t think the source is credible. Even if there are warmer temperatures, how do we know the exact cause is solely due to human action? I did have a local metorologist mention to me that he thinks most of these claims are bunk.

The rise of cities and large paved areas makes cities hotter. The sun itself is the source of all of our heat. Is it an exact constant, or should we expect some fluxuation in the amount of heat the sun might give out for periods? Solar flares and the like? What caused previous climate changes such as ice ages when people wern’t around to blame? What about the amount of particulates and such volcanos put out, far exceeding the entire amount of man made pollution?

And lastly how can we possibly predict the temperature for the next severalo hundred years when our climate science can’t even predict the forecast any more accurately than I can guess by looking out the window?

The movie “The Day After Tomorrow” was insipid, ludicrous and actually so bad it was unintentionally funny.

Acclaimed climatologist Dennis Quaid (I’ve already forgotten his character’s name) continually forgets to wear gloves, despite the severe cold. Despite the cold being so severe as to freeze the fuel lines of military helicopters, it is not cold enough to freeze the gas lines of a Wendy’s hamburger grill. After a several day snowshoe hike in blizzard conditions, Quaid removes his snowshoes in order to to run up a mountain of snow—-with no problem. The damn snowshoes must have been slowing him down!

Not only was the premise of the movie simplistic and ignorant, but so too was the final product. We do need to be watchful of our environment, of course. But if this movie is truly to be used by environmentalists as propaganda, then they better plan on doing a better job.

By the way, I drove my minivan to and from the theater with no visible ill effects.

>…we slip back into a pre-industrial age.

To quote Ronald Reagan, “There you go again.” Why does using less fossil fuel imply slipping back to a pre-industrial age?

Makes we wonder what people would have thought 150 years ago if someone proposed that society needed to curb its dependence on horses. No doubt some people (perhaps horse breeders) would argue that the person was a lunatic — civilization would obviously collapse without horses!!!

I’ve seen the movie. I don’t think it’s bad at all. I don’t trust most of the science, but the overall message is one I think we should heed.

Despite the cold being so severe as to freeze the fuel lines of military helicopters, it is not cold enough to freeze the gas lines of a Wendy’s hamburger grill.

Gas line. Think for a moment. Are we talking about the liquid fuel that a helicopter would run on, or the gaseous fuel a stove would use?

The better question is whether the gaslines would continue to feed the natural gas to the restaurant in the absence of electricity.

The oil which Quaid sets to burning would heat itself, unlike the fuel in the lines which would be at ambient temperature. As for the snowshoes, I’m not quite certain that taking off one’s snow shoes would be a universally bad idea.

People have had the notion for years that Earth’s resources and it’s ability to take in pollutants was boundless. The truth is that nature has it’s own limits, it’s own points past which it no longer preserves the natural order as it once was.

As much as I find the junk science that informs The Day After Tomorrow objectionable, I find the science that tell us everything is going to balance out to be far too optimistic and self-serving. Whether it’s more CO2 making more vegetation, or whatever else, it seems like your science is designed to tell you exactly what you want to hear: Either global warming is going to be counteracted by global cooling, the plants are going to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere as it shows up there, or global warming won’t end up being a bad thing, or it’s nature’s fault and the status quo should remain.

What I know of climate systems are that they are far more complicated than that, and far less convenient in their operations. I can think of one right off the bat: dessication. Just tens of thousands of years ago, the Sahara was a grassland. As the earth warmed up, though, the Sahara dried out. All that vegetation disappeared. So Global Warming may end up killing vegetation at the same time as it feeds it in other places.

The Global cooling a collapse of the North Atlantic current causes may not be as catastrophic and as quick as the movie portrays, but it sure as hell isn’t going to be gentle. It is a fact that Europe enjoys the warm temperatures it does on account of that current. Just look at it’s latitude, and compare it to the geography on our side of the world. If the worst does occur, then another Ice age is a possibility. We would do well to remember that Long Island and other features near New York represent an ancient glacial boundary.

As for Global Warming and rising seas not being a bad thing, take a look at a map and see what a 150 foot rise in seas will do to our coastlines. many of our most important cities rest on the coast, including mine. It won’t be Waterworld, since melting Icecaps would only cover parts of the coast, but it will sure as hell change the definition of beachfront property, should it occur.

It just galls me that the other side in this debate is willing to call us on the uncertainty of the the validity of our models, but they act as if theres are solid, and unquestionable. The reality is, to one extent or another, everybody’s model’s are tentative. But Average temperatures are rising world wide, and I doubt urbanization is the only force behind it. The reliable satellite data is confirming this.

We don’t know precisely what the future holds, but it is better to be safe than sorry. An economy can adapt to new technology. But imagine having to adapt to a change in coastal geography, to hundreds of our most important major cities, and just about all of our major ports. An ice age isn’t going to help us: sea levels would drop, landlocking many of our best ports. Whatever happens, the fact is the earth is warming up, and that will not be a change without consequences.

I thought it was a great movie; lots of fun. I didn’t understand why the kid could only be moved in an ambulance. They were in a hospital. Couldn’t they have taken everything they needed and loaded it and the kid into the snow plow?

And with millions of Americans pouring into Mexico, I was expecting some shooting. So does the Pentagon. They commisioned a report last year on the effects of global warming on national security. It’s a fun read.

Apparently the Pentagon felt they needed to start planning after Bush’s EPA issued a report in 2002 predicting temperature change, lowland flooding, damage to coastal cities, draught, and disease.

Woody, Bush acknowledges global warming because it’s a fact. But it’s also a fact that the earth has heated up and cooled down many times on its own.

Martin, it’s not so simple. According to what I’ve heard, we are in an interglacial period. How long? maybe tens of thousands of years, maybe a hundred or so. What effects are the tons of human pollutants having?

We’re trying to find out, but what is obvious is what we’re dealing with a much more sensitive system than scientists of the past thought we were dealing with. Clouds both reflect light and trap infrared (venus bakes under it’s clouds) Single digit degree changes can mean the difference of many miles in terms of the size of the polar caps, because those small increases dictate what parts of the arctic and antarctic remain below the freezing point persistently on average. Plant life, as I’ve said before, can be both killed and made to thrive by the way the climate changes. Just a change in the winds can affect what places become lush, and what become arid wastelands.

These patterns of sensitivity can add up to tipping points in the climate, that is, points at which conditions stop being driven by outside forces (like our pollution), and start taking on a life of their own. What makes this especially scary is how poorly we understand what those tipping points are. Past these points, cleaning up our act may no longer serve to stop the changes. Certain natural events may work to push us past these points, but we really don’t have any notion of how far our additional output into the system is pushing the system towards these thresholds.

If the Climate changes are metastable, things only get worse, because then nature works against our attempts to change things back. Where it worked to drive changes, when our emissions got past the tipping point, it will work to conserve the changes that have been wrought. It might then take a much greater effort to change things than we be able to muster.

We don’t know the layout of how these changes might occur. I would say that argues for caution, especially in the light of our inability to escape the consequences of our actions at present time.

This is more than just a political issue, this is an issue of how well our civilization survives in its environment. Evolution still functions, and we can still be selected out if we get too arrogant to recognize our effect on our environment and it’s power over us.

Stephen Daugherty: I’m impressed. Your post is a voice of reason.
But I have to put my own two cents in.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. Weather is a chaotic system. Chaotic systems are incredibly hard to model (its quite possible they can’t be modeled). Naturally occurring chaotic systems are usually very stable. When you start altering the original conditions of a chaotic system it may not react. But at a certain point it will attempt to find a new stable state. This will usually occur very rapidly.

It is not sane to screw with things you don’t understand. Especially when you are living inside the experiment. Mankind has already proven it can alter our environment in a disastrous way (just look up “dust bowl” on google).

If you ran across a grizzly bear would you throw rocks at it, and taunt it, till it attacked you? Or would you say “This thing looks big and powerful. Maybe I shouldn’t bother it.”

We do not have comprehensive climate data that goes back 100,000,000 years; we barely have 50 years worth. A sane approach would be to limit our impact on the environment, not play a global game of chicken with a weather system we don’t understand.

Some things are more important than politics or the economy. This is one of them.

As cartoonish as the Dick Cheney character was in “The Day After Tomorrow”, it is an accurate representation of what the Bush Administration’s policies (and Eric, apparently, as I interpret from his post) really think about environmentalism: that it’s all a load of hogwash, every word of it, something akin to Atlantis or UFOs.

I am willing to admit that some of environmental science is a bit shaky, and yes, the press likes to run with the more dire predictions. But there’s an awful lot of it that seems plausible enough to warrant a reaction besides the complete disgust Republicans openly show towards environmentalism.

Instead, Republicans have nothing but bitter ridicule for almost anything environmental or conservational in nature. They seize on any little flaw in environmental science to discredit the whole movement. It’s gotten to the point where some Republicans have bought into the hatred of environmentalism so thoroughly that they are now proud to say that they drive gas-guzzlin’ polluting cars. Proud!

The other subtext that I read in the right’s perception of environmentalism is undisguised greed, laziness, and selfishness. I’m talking more about the personal choices we make, not the industrial regulation level of environmental policy. I mean let’s be frank here, we’re talking about a simple, modest decrease in some already ridiculously extravagant aspects of the American lifestyle. While Eric writes about a radical rollback of civilization itself, he is perfectly aware that most of what good environmental policies really mean is that we’ll have to drive much smaller cars, maybe we’ll have to take mass transportation sometimes, maybe we wont have the freedom to live super cheaply on land that used to be a desert, maybe we won’t be able to leave our lights on all day and night, and that maybe we’ll have to separate our trash. All of these things seem pretty darn simple to me. Of course, it is not illegal or unconstitutional to advocate laws that prevent us from suffering these “hardships”, but I still think it’s selfish and lazy.

It’s funny how the Democrats used to be seen as the defenders of America’s right to be lazy and soft, but now it is the Republican Party who has assumed that mantle.

-Cf

It just galls me that the other side in this debate is willing to call us on the uncertainty of the the validity of our models, but they act as if theres are solid, and unquestionable. The reality is, to one extent or another, everybody’s model’s are tentative. But Average temperatures are rising world wide, and I doubt urbanization is the only force behind it. The reliable satellite data is confirming this.

Tentative models are not what I want to base major policy decisions on that will cost trillions of dollars and may or may not have an intended effect. This is precisely my point. The Bush administration had more concrete evidence of WMD and a better plan to invade Iraq than the plan to combat global warming.

What bothers me the most is that the same people who call the loudest for these changes are at the same time demonizing corporations as evil, greedy, lazy, oligarchic oppressors of the world. Which makes me wonder if the message of impending doom, which is designed to get me to acquiesce to all kinds of limits on economic activity and what is essentially ‘sanctions’ on American corporations, is really what it seems.

I consider myself to be the best kind of conservationist, I’m a capitalist. I don’t consider myself to be an environmentalist. The difference is in how I define those terms.

I don’t like waste. Waste is money. As an unrestrained capitalist I want to maximize my profit, limit my liabilities, and use my resources effectively. Pollution and waste is in fact money being wasted. I also don’t like taking out the trash at night. The less trash, the fewer times I have to take out the trash.

To me, the term environmentalist denotes something more than just conserving resources. It seems to me to project some kind of holiness and otherness to nature that excludes humans as even being a part of nature. Earth First, the environmental defense fund, green anarchists, the E.L.F., these people are over-the-top cultists who view nature as god and man as the devil. The mainstream environmental groups don’t seem to be that much better.

Now whether or not the claims are correct about global warming I don’t want any part of solutions proposed by such extremists.

We use the internal combustion engine because it is cheap and effective. Stop the scare tactics, come up with some alternatives that are also cheap and effective and you’ll have my support.

I mean let’s be frank here, we’re talking about a simple, modest decrease in some already ridiculously extravagant aspects of the American lifestyle. While Eric writes about a radical rollback of civilization itself, he is perfectly aware that most of what good environmental policies really mean is that we’ll have to drive much smaller cars, maybe we’ll have to take mass transportation sometimes, maybe we wont have the freedom to live super cheaply on land that used to be a desert, maybe we won’t be able to leave our lights on all day and night, and that maybe we’ll have to separate our trash. All of these things seem pretty darn simple to me. Of course, it is not illegal or unconstitutional to advocate laws that prevent us from suffering these “hardships”, but I still think it’s selfish and lazy.

Let’s look at these solutions.

Drive smaller cars: The high price of gas will cause this to take place. Kerry claims to want low gas prices, does he not?

Mass transportation: very impractical throughout most of the US unless everyone is forced by law to live in large metropolitan centers. (Smart growth advocates are already headed there.) Still, you never get there on time, you have to wait forever, etc.

Can’t live on cheap land in the desert: What kind of laws do we pass to effect this? See smart growth advocates above.

Can’t leave our lights on all day all night: Will we have light police?

Separate our trash: What if someone doesn’t do it? What’s the punishment?

Chris, your suggestions are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of individual requirements proposed by ‘environmentalists’. When we start down the road of sustainability we get government oversight of every minutiae of daily life.

There, state and local officials, along with the Portland mpo, regulate everything from the number and location of parking spaces that retailers can provide their customers to the number of people who can attend church services on Sundays. -Cato.org

The environment will be the reason for every new regulation. Too many cars, let’s limit the number that can be made. Too much gas being burned let’s mandate higher gas mileage. And it dovetails into anti-business rhetoric. Will supermarkets be considered un-environmental friendly?

Supermarkets import food over huge distances, often by air, resulting in large emissions of carbon dioxide. For example two kilos of baby carrots from South Africa will travel 9,622 km by plane and result in emissions of 10,969 grammes of global warming carbon dioxide [9]. -friends of the earth

What I begin to hear is that the ‘extravagant’ American standard of living must come down to match that of the third world. It’s the new face of redistribution.

“Now whether or not the claims are correct about global warming I don’t want any part of solutions proposed by such extremists.”

And this, of course, is the core of your argument: you don’t care about the facts, you don’t want to listen to the solutions if they are proposed by groups you see as extreme, and you see all environmentalist groups as equally extreme (you say so yourself: “Earth First, the environmental defense fund, green anarchists, the E.L.F., these people are over-the-top cultists who view nature as god and man as the devil. The mainstream environmental groups don’t seem to be that much better.”) so you don’t want to listen to any proposed solutions at all.

“Supermarkets import food over huge distances, often by air, resulting in large emissions of carbon dioxide. For example two kilos of baby carrots from South Africa will travel 9,622 km by plane and result in emissions of 10,969 grammes of global warming carbon dioxide [9]. -friends of the earth

What I begin to hear is that the ‘extravagant’ American standard of living must come down to match that of the third world. It’s the new face of redistribution.”

If that’s what you hear when you read that, you don’t hear too well. Supermarkets import food vast distances that can be grown locally, which is wasteful and economically unsound. That would be the lost money you say you are against. In many cases, things that are grown locally are shipped across the country to be processed or stored only to be shipped back to local markets to be sold again. Such shipment also takes time, and can result in a great deal of waste if there are refrigeration failures or other problems en-route. Also, it results in the food in markets being much less fresh than they could be if they were being sold locally. Farmers markets are one resource which works against this trend presently, by selling locally grown food at a local level. We’re not asking you to give anything up to stop the waste and pollution caused by importing food which can be grown locally.

jarin,

In many cases, things that are grown locally are shipped across the country to be processed or stored only to be shipped back to local markets to be sold again. Such shipment also takes time, and can result in a great deal of waste if there are refrigeration failures or other problems…

It may and it may not. That determination should not be made as result of eco-religious fervor. It would be an enormous mistake to mandate that all products be produced and sold within a local boundary.

I’m not against buying locally. I like it when people choose my business over others because I am local. I don’t think it would be right to force them to buy from me because I am local.

Back to global climate change. What does the Sierra Club say about this movie, “The Day After Tomorrow”?

The Solutions to “The Day After Tomorrow” Are Here Today

“The Day After Tomorrow” is what climate change looks like after screenwriters have gotten a hold of it. Although the film’s premise makes a perfect Hollywood disaster fantasy, the devastating impacts of global warming are all too real. The Pentagon’s own planners take the issue of abrupt climate change seriously enough to consider it a matter of national security. And the notion of a rapid climate flip, from gradual warming to the onset of an ice age, is considered by many scientists to be a distinct possibility. -sierraclub.org

Doesn’t sound much like they are downplaying the out-of-proportion danger the movie portrays. In fact they are using it as a vehicle to scare people into believing it is a possibility.

The goal is clearly to force action now.

We know how to make our homes and offices more efficient. We can get more of our power from clean, renewable sources and free ourselves from a heavy dependence upon coal as well as rapidly dwindling supplies of oil. The only thing we lack is the political will to make it happen. -sierraclub

The Sierra Club is a mainstream environmental group isn’t it? Here’s an instructional music video they are producing. “On the Brink” of what? The accelerating pace of climate change…

On The Brink: Solutions To Global Warming is a music-intensive documentary project about young people and global warming, created in response to the accelerating pace of climate change.

Featuring contemporary music, celebrity spokespeople, and leaders of the student environmental movement, the program will present information about climate change. The film will also integrate state-of-the-art visual effects and three-dimensional climate visualization models.

The existence of global warming is no longer a question of science. The evidence is incontrovertible. We know enough to know that we must act. The solutions are here, within reach, and this film portrays the many alternatives available.

DAMN-IT American Pundit!

Don’t tell me what happens in the movie. It will probably go straight to Cinemax and then I’ll know all the good parts(If any) when I watch it at 3 am.

***I’m sorry I can’t take this discussion seriously I’m in Florida, which as you know is only twenty-seven feet from the sun!

What is going to happen and when?

Sea level rises: At present some 46m people live in areas at risk of flooding due to storm surges. Scientists estimate that a 50cm rise in sea level would increase this number to 92 million and a one-metre rise would put 118 million in peril.

If the global ocean level went up by one metre

Egypt would lose 1% of its land area

The Netherlands would lose 6%

Bangladesh would lose 17.5%

Some 80% of the Majuro Atoll in the Pacific Marshall Islands would disappear under water

Crops and productivity: It is thought that total global crop production would be unchanged but regional effects would vary widely.

Those most at risk from famine would be people relying on isolated agricultural systems in arid and semi-arid regions

Populations particularly under threat live in sub-Saharan Africa, south east Asia and tropical areas of Latin America

Climate change could also alter the range of agricultural pests

Disease: Extensions of the geographical range and season for some organisms could result in increases of diseases like malaria, dengue fever and yellow fever.

If the temperature increases by 3-5 degrees Centigrade the number of people potentially exposed to malaria could go up from 45% to 60% of the world population and result in an extra 50-80 million cases a year

Air pollution and exposure to greater extremes in temperature could lead to a greater frequency of asthma and respiratory diseases

Ecosystems: Scientists predict that composition and range of many ecosystems will shift as species respond to climate change

Research models project that a substantial fraction of the world’s forests, and possibly up to two thirds, will undergo major changes. They say the species composiiton will change and some forest may disappear all together

Deserts are likely to become more extreme, resulting in increased soil erosion

Mountain glaciers could retreat and inland wetlands would be affected by global warming with resultant changes in habitat for the current species -news.bbc.co.uk

Could, should, might, possibly, maybe… are you scared yet?

Not scared Eric: concerned.

Also, consider this. If we go with a plan like Kerry’s to attain total energy independence, we get the trifecta: less greenhouse gasses, no more gas money funneled to terrorists, and no more need to station troops in the Middle East.

“It may and it may not. That determination should not be made as result of eco-religious fervor. It would be an enormous mistake to mandate that all products be produced and sold within a local boundary.”

And how exactly did we go from discussing the problem of shipping products that can be grown locally vast distances with no need, to discussing boundaries within which all products must be produced and sold? You’re making straw-man arguments against positions that have not been taken.

“I’m not against buying locally. I like it when people choose my business over others because I am local. I don’t think it would be right to force them to buy from me because I am local.”

Again, not an argument that has been made. You’re envisioning a world where companies would have to stay within little boxes and do all of their business locally. Environmentalists are talking about a world where the majority of produce is produced by local farmers and sold to the larger companies, so that they don’t have to be shipped vast distances without good cause.

“Back to global climate change. What does the Sierra Club say about this movie, “The Day After Tomorrow”?

The Solutions to “The Day After Tomorrow” Are Here Today

“The Day After Tomorrow” is what climate change looks like after screenwriters have gotten a hold of it. Although the film’s premise makes a perfect Hollywood disaster fantasy, the devastating impacts of global warming are all too real. The Pentagon’s own planners take the issue of abrupt climate change seriously enough to consider it a matter of national security. And the notion of a rapid climate flip, from gradual warming to the onset of an ice age, is considered by many scientists to be a distinct possibility. -sierraclub.org

Doesn’t sound much like they are downplaying the out-of-proportion danger the movie portrays. In fact they are using it as a vehicle to scare people into believing it is a possibility.”

It really seems to me that you’re reading into it what you want to read into it. The first line says that the danger is stretched out of proportion: “The Day After Tomorrow” is what climate change looks like after screenwriters have gotten a hold of it.

They go on to say that the concept of climate change is real and that even the pentagon considers it serious enough to be a matter of national security. They don’t say this, as you have asserted, to scare people… they say it because it’s the truth and it should be used to increase public awareness of the real dangers that the movie is based on, however exaggerated its actual plot may be.

“The goal is clearly to force action now.”

I agree, but not the sort of action that you seem to be thinking of. The action that they are trying to force now is for people to become aware of the issues and start taking them seriously.

“We know how to make our homes and offices more efficient. We can get more of our power from clean, renewable sources and free ourselves from a heavy dependence upon coal as well as rapidly dwindling supplies of oil. The only thing we lack is the political will to make it happen. -sierraclub”

You’ve pointed to this as an example of them trying to force action… well, which of these goals are you against, exactly? Efficiency? Clean, renewable sources of power being used instead of near-total reliance on coal and oil? Both of these things save us money and set the groundwork for a more stable america in the future… things you have said you are for. Is the only reason you are against them now the fact that they have been proposed by an environmental group?

“The Sierra Club is a mainstream environmental group isn’t it? Here’s an instructional music video they are producing. “On the Brink” of what? The accelerating pace of climate change…

On The Brink: Solutions To Global Warming is a music-intensive documentary project about young people and global warming, created in response to the accelerating pace of climate change.

Featuring contemporary music, celebrity spokespeople, and leaders of the student environmental movement, the program will present information about climate change. The film will also integrate state-of-the-art visual effects and three-dimensional climate visualization models.

The existence of global warming is no longer a question of science. The evidence is incontrovertible. We know enough to know that we must act. The solutions are here, within reach, and this film portrays the many alternatives available.”

I don’t really see what’s so objectionable about such a video that it makes you classify the sierra club as extremist… I also don’t see any details on what solutions is proposes, or what evidence it offers… all it says is that it’s a music documentary on the subject, and the only thing you can really offer that seems to show a drastic slant is the movie’s title being “on the brink”… a title very likely chosen by a PR department who knows it will attract more viewer than a title like “the possible dangers of climate change”.

Btw - what’s the markup for inserting things as quotes, as you have done with the articles you’ve cited? It looks a lot better than resorting to mixtures of italics and bold like I have been.

Never mind, realized it was just a css styled blockquote element.

Of course the oceans are rising, but it’s not from global warming. We’ve been dumping our waste water into rivers and streams and of course the level in the oceans is rising. If we don’t start recycling this water, we will die of thirst, but not from the heat.

Jim, what the heck are you talking about?

-Cf

Jim said:

Of course the oceans are rising, but it’s not from global warming. We’ve been dumping our waste water into rivers and streams and of course the level in the oceans is rising. If we don’t start recycling this water, we will die of thirst, but not from the heat.

I’m hoping that this post was an attempt at sarcasm, really… but in the event that it was not, please refer to the following link regarding the basic science behind the water cycle:

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycle.html

Jim, that waste water came from those same rivers and streams, or at least from sources already present. If extra water’s getting into the system, it has to be from somewhere. Volcanoes? Too Slow. Ice Comets? None recorded. But Sea levels being affected by glacial and polar cap activity? That’s actually happened, and the Ice caps actually have melted somewhat. The change in global temperatures is real. That temperature change can reduce the amount of ice that stays frozen, as average yearly temperatures rise at higher latitudes.

If those temperature averages go above freezing enough, the ice isn’t going to stick around. It’s going to melt, or not become ice in the first place. That’s what’s raising sea levels.

As for whether raising sea levels by a foot is important, you have to think in terms of the countours of the coast, and the areas that remain above water consistently is going to change. Additionally, storm surges are going to come in on top of that new sea level. The familiar boundaries will be changed in ways that aren’t necessarily intuitive.

“Gore makes it very clear that the science in the movie is Bunk. However, he also thinks that the movie may increase people’s awareness of what is a real problem, and that is a good thing. Clear-headed thinking if I’ve ever seen it.”

Let’s get one thing clear…Gore is a politician. Ever read “Trashing The Planet” by Dixie Lee Ray? Her credentials with respect to energy policy & environmentalism were every bit on par with Gore’s but alas, she had an opposite view. Somehow what she had to say didn’t seem to matter with the rabid environmentalists because it was THEIR ox she was goring.

Eric, why do you insist on continally mischaracterizing John Kerry’s position when you write about the issues? (Actually I know the answer and reveal it at the end of this post.)

You preface your far-fetched view that the Kyoto Protocol would “be a fine first step in dismantling our industrial society” with this:

“Kerry seems to be all for it.”

Seems to be?? Kerry did not, does not, and never has supported Kyoto in its current form. He has repeatedly argued that the Kyoto Protocol, in its current form, is unacceptable. Here’s a quote from an interview with Grist Magazine.

Grist: What would you do as president about the Kyoto Protocol on global climate change? Would you submit it to the Senate?

Kerry: No, not in its current form. It does have some flaws. It doesn’t ask enough of developing nations, the nations that are going to be producing much greater emissions and which we need to get on the right course now through technology transfer. I would reopen the negotiating process, fix the flaws, and move forward.

Here’s the link:

http://www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/kerry092303.asp

You’re a talented writer and I respect your conservative positions, Eric. However, I wish you would stop resorting to the kind of misrepresentations and half-truths that have become the hallmark of Bush/Cheney and the GOP of late. Another example can be found on your Dar Al-Harb web site, on which you quote Kerry as saying:

“I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

Of course you fail to mention that his comments came in 1970, when he was running for Congress as a 26-year-old freshly back from two tours in Vietnam. And also that, soon after, he repudiated this position and that he has consistently supported America’s right to defend itself around the world.

It seems to me, Eric, that you’re willing to do whatever it takes to see Bush re-elected. Just as Bush and his campaign were willing to do whatever it takes to get elected themselves. To them, and you, the end obviously justifies the means.

Jerome,

Kerry likes to take both sides of the issue. If you look for reference to Kyoto on his website you’ll first find only a vague reference.

Unlike the Bush Administration, John Kerry will not abdicate this responsibility and opportunity. When John Kerry is president, the U.S. will reengage in the development of an international climate change strategy to address global warming… -johnkerry.com, under ‘Reassert US leadership in Global Environmental Progress’.

You have to look longer for more details. Admittedly it has the nuance of a pre-nuptual agreement, but Kerry does not voice any concerns about Kyoto. In fact he claims that somehow international climate change regulations will actually create jobs!

V. REASSERTING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY The Bush Administration has reversed decades of American leadership in the world, putting the US on a “go it alone” path that has threatened our security and economic well-being.

This destructive path extends to the environmental arena, where the Bush Administration is imperiling America’s economic future by checking out of international climate change negotiations, ignoring international marine threats, and giving only lip service to global biodiversity protection.

• Reengaging in the development of an international climate change strategy. Bush’s abrupt and unilateral decision to abandon discussions with the world community on climate change was early evidence of this Administration’s misguided approach to dealing with the community of nations. Dropping out of international implementation of the Kyoto Protocol was foolhardy then, and it is even more obviously foolhardy today. In our absence, many of our major trading partners in Europe and elsewhere have been working on the details of international programs to manage greenhouse gas emissions. American interests are on the sidelines, having no ability to influence the development of a system that will profoundly affect the global approach to resource protection and investment in climate change technologies — issues in which American companies who conduct business around the world have a vital interest in.

A Serious Commitment to Climate Change: John Kerry participated in the original Rio summit and, throughout his career, he has demonstrated leadership in addressing climate change – the globe’s most serious environmental challenge. John Kerry will reinsert the United States into international climate change negotiations. He will reestablish our nation’s credibility and influence over the process.

The Kerry Administration will come to the international table with a serious domestic climate change program in hand (see Section II, above), thereby ensuring that American interests have a strong voice as the global community works toward developing a sensible and fair program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in both the developed and developing world. -johnkerry.com, long_enviro.pdf

Human induced climate change is not a fact. It is an article of faith.

Actually, Eric. According to Bush’s EPA, it’s a fact. I think that’s why Bush gave Whitman the boot, but he never retracted her conclusions either. :)

And the Kerry position you cite is right on. By pulling out of the negotiations for the protocol, Bush gave up the opportunity to make it work for us. With Russia signing on, it looks like the Kyoto Treaty will go into effect, and we’ll eventually be stuck signing on to a program that we had no role in shaping.

The same thing is happening with the ICC. By pulling out of the negotiations, we lost the ability to shape the courts and became a “rogue nation” of sorts to the international community.

We lose legitimacy every time Bush does something like that. That’s why Bush has repeatedly capitulated to the French on changes to the Iraq resolution. He needs legitimacy.

It’s just short sighted to withdraw from shaping international treaties.

Eric, I’m obviously reading this differently than you. The way I read Kerry’s comments, both on his web site and in his public statements, is that Kyoto is a good start toward addressing the global issue of climate change and that America should be involved in that debate. No nuance. No two sides of the issue.

It’s easy to say someone is a flip-flopper, especially someone who has made thousands of votes in the Senate. Most voters don’t pay that much attention to the issues, nor do they understand the voting process in Congress. So the GOP’s (very effective) tactic is to keep repeating these charges to the short-attention-span bunch and hope it sinks in.

You play the part well.

(My apologies if this posts twice…)

Eric, I’m obviously reading this differently than you. The way I read Kerry’s comments, both on his web site and in his public statements, is that Kyoto is a good start toward addressing the global issue of climate change and that America should be involved in that debate. No nuance. No two sides of the issue.

It’s easy to say someone is a flip-flopper, especially someone who has made thousands of votes in the Senate. Most voters don’t pay that much attention to the issues, nor do they understand the voting process in Congress. So the GOP’s (very effective) tactic is to keep repeating these charges to the short-attention-span bunch and hope it sinks in.

You play the part well.