Global Warming: Truth or Myth?

Al Gore’s global warming documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, is causing quite the stir in Federal Way, Washington schools according to an article at seattlepi.com. Some parents have complained about the film, claiming it does not present an opposing view of global warming, such as creationism and the Bible.

As someone who has not yet seen the film, I cannot offer a valid opinion regarding Gore's film or the reasons behind the opposition.

What I can say is that as a Catholic, I do believe in creationism. I don't oppose sexual education in schools as one parent does, but I do oppose certain methods of teaching America’s children about sex.

When I was in elementary school nearly 17 years ago, I remember learning about pollution, global warming and Darwinism. At such a young age of 11 years old, these were topics of science class that contradicted everything I knew from the Bible.

"God created man, we didn’t evolve from apes," my catechist once told me. "Global warming is a myth, a theory. God controls the climate of our planet. If we are abusing his land, of course things will be destroyed."

Thinking back on this now, as an adult and as a mother, I wonder about the state of our planet. It’s January and here in Wisconsin, the "frozen tundra", we have no snow. The last few weeks our temperatures have been at 40 degrees. When I was in second grade we had 11 snow days in one school year due to heavy snow falls and numerous cold days of negative degree weather. Maybe global warming isn’t as farfetched as my conservative counterparts believe.

These parents are concerned about students hearing the side of the global warming skeptics as well. They feel that Al Gore is just recounting scientific findings, and that may very well be, but I think we owe it to our children to be educated and to see things from more than one angle. Our kids will inherit these environmental problems one day; we must really listen before making judgments.

Global warming is a big important issue and I believe it will be a hot button with the upcoming elections as well. I want to know if Al Gore’s film is the view of a politician, the view of a father, the view of an American, or all three.

I bought the DVD online today at the film’s website, where it states:

"Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced."

I admit that when I read those words I became skeptical but also afraid. Ten years? Ten years!

I’m taking my own advice. When the film arrives at my doorstep, I will watch it unbiased and then form my opinion and report back to you. I’m considering it an addition to my New Year's resolutions. After all, what are the resolutions of Mother Nature? How can we save her, our home, our planet Mother Earth? Ten years really isn't very long.

Posted by Dana J. Tuszke at January 14, 2007 8:26 PM
Comments
Comment #203247

Yes, Global Warming is real. The New York Times had an article discussing how the evidence for human-influenced global warming has been growing better and better.

If thought of as a painting, the scientific picture of a growing and potentially calamitous human influence on the climate has moved from being abstract a century ago to impressionistic 30 years ago to pointillist today.

It’s real.

It frightens me to start this conversation with someone who is an avowed Creationist. Since you are proud of the fact that you reject the results of scientific inquiry in that field, why would this field be different?

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 14, 2007 8:49 PM
Comment #203248

Also, while the historically warm winter we are having could be a result of human-caused global climate change, it is not by itself enough to say that Global Warming is occurring. There’s just too much normal variability in weather for a single year to indicate any causation to the correlation.

However, the accumulated worldwide trends over many years are strong evidence, but only a fraction of the whole picture which points to human-caused global climate change.

I say this because placing too much emphasis on one year’s results could lead us to the opposite conclusion when we have a winter that’s on the colder end of the current spectrum.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 14, 2007 8:58 PM
Comment #203249

“What I can say is that as a Catholic, I do believe in creationism.”

Excuse me but Catholics don’t belive in creationism. Better find out what our church belives before you speak for it. PS the father of genetics was a monk, remember Gregor Mendel?

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/new-age/NA0899W3.htm

Posted by: 037 at January 14, 2007 9:01 PM
Comment #203250

Due to our limited ability to even control our own excessive emissions (quadruple of any other nation), much less those of other nations, caution is advisable.

If we screw up our own environment, all these other problems won’t matter.

Even if it’s not a 100% definitively proven fact that human activity is affecting the environment to any degree to be concerned about (which is quite a stretch), the prudent action would be to try to find out more about it … not summarily dismiss it as a myth.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 14, 2007 9:09 PM
Comment #203251

Dana can you even site any of the evidence for global warming???? In the words of Bob Dylan “Don’t criticize what you can’t understand”
Here is a challenge: name one peer review scientific journal that supports global warming and your opposition based on facts supported in another peer reviewed scientific journal.

Posted by: 037 at January 14, 2007 9:10 PM
Comment #203252

037, check out the links above and run some searches. The evidence is mounting, and with the growing economies in 2.3 billion people in China and India, it is hard to ignore the impact of so many people. China is starting the construction of a new electricity power station somewhere in China ever 7 days. Do the math. There is growing reason for concern.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 14, 2007 9:29 PM
Comment #203253

Moving forward, how can our country and the U.N. help address our global ecology? Regardless of whether you believe in global warming or not, I would bet most believe that polution can cause problems.

Asia/India is going to be a problem. How do you convince two billion plus people that they can’t have access to the creature comforts of cars, refrigerators, even hair spray? I don’t believe China or India is building an economy based on ecology.

Any future leader of the United States could take stronger stand on polution. However, given our popularity as a country (lack of), can a strong, ecology minded President get China and India to create a policy hear?

It is important to try, however, the possibility that this is an important issue in the upcoming election of our new President seems low.

Posted by: Edge at January 14, 2007 9:34 PM
Comment #203254

Dana check out the book “Finding Darwins God”. It is written by a Catholic who provides a great deal of insite into the current controversy about Evolution and the role of science in understanding our theology. PS He also explains how we know how old the earth is. God gave us a brain. He expects us to use it.

Posted by: 037 at January 14, 2007 9:35 PM
Comment #203257

Edge,
I don’t quite agree. China is investing in solar power on a huge scale.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/09/1068329420916.html
They have a tendency to skip to the front of the line. They did this with telecomunications. They were pathetic with land based phone lines, skipped fiber optics and are going straight to satellite. I bet they start looking to hydrogen as a fuel soon.

Posted by: 037 at January 14, 2007 9:45 PM
Comment #203259

Catholicism’s current position, and mine before I became confirmed, is that evolution is no mere theory. It has been well provent.

The question is whether you believe that truth can contradict truth. To me, the bible offers one kind of truth, and science offers another. The Bible tells us how to live our lives, God tells the world how life was to come about. If Evolution seems to be how life came about, according to those who know the subject, then we should reconcile our view of God with it.

If you understand the complex implications of Evolution, the way in which the laws of physics, the emergent between genes and the living creatures that carry them, animals and each other, animals and their environment, or rather admit that its so much more than one person could understand altogether, as science puts it…

Well then, you can understand the greatness of God, and the smallness of your own presence and intellect in comparison. Evolution is not mere accident… Moreover if you think about accidents, God is in a position to know and understand everything about his world. I think we are insufficiently gifted with intellect to understand God’s concept of design. If you think of a God capable of creating an intricate complex universe like ours, how could be so arrogant as to believe that his designs would all be obvious to us?

Genesis is our ancestors struggling to understand their origins. Science is currently better informed, but we still struggle to understand this world of ours. We’re just confronted with much more challenging ideas to old fashioned faith, but being better informed has only opened up a whole new can of worms.

Genesis has served one purpose. Maybe in terms of nature, we are an accident, but in terms of God, we are not. Moreover, what science tells us is that our understanding and wisdom about the nature of the universe is nowhere close to Godlike, even while far superior to our ancestors.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2007 9:48 PM
Comment #203261

037, no doubt those are good things. However, my first and only time in China (Bejing and Shanghai) in 2003 was worrisome. Smog and polution was thick, on the sunny days you could not see the sun clearly downtown.

To my point above, your comments are encouraging. I would rather them drive any type of ecological efforts internally. Pressure from the United States and the U.N. will not be a successful as a countries own internal recognition of the ecology. And their role in protecting it.

But the sheer numbers … 2007 Edition of the Pocket World Figures by “The Economist” magazine states that in 2050 there will be 1.6 billion people in India passing China that will be at an estimated 1.4 billion.

Alternative energy must be more accessble and affordable for that many people to adopt it as they eek out their existence.

Posted by: Edge at January 14, 2007 9:55 PM
Comment #203262

From what I’ve read, both 037 and Edge are right. China is building lots of new power plants, using both fossil fuels and the sun as sources. However, most of them are the traditional polluting plants.

Sorry, no sources.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 14, 2007 9:57 PM
Comment #203263

At least we are pushing them, found this from CNN. I did not think to look before I posted my comments above, so hope you don’t mind these links related to my comments. Check out this quote (Also, oddly enough the third link includes a picture of my Uncle Don, he smokes and apparently moved to China):

“China is opening a new coal-fired power station every week and it’s clear we can’t achieve any of our objectives on emissions without China,” Ferrero-Waldner’s spokeswoman said.

To my point, this is what I worry about it. The US can elect a Green Presient, however, it has to be China that drives results.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/01/14/eu.china.reut/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/12/17/china.westinghouse.reut/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16500200/site/newsweek/


Posted by: Edge at January 14, 2007 10:07 PM
Comment #203264

Oh golly, let’s see…evidence of green house gases, ice caps melting, sea levels rising: Hey kids, let’s not err in the way of common sense! Party on! Burn those hydrocarbons! Make more sulphurous emissions! God will provide! All is well! Some day Bush really will make an entire sentence! Pollute ‘til it hurts! Waste makes Bounty!

…and, of course, I’m the Easter Bunny (sigh)

Posted by: Blue at January 14, 2007 10:26 PM
Comment #203265

Now consider this: Our little excursion into Iraq wasn’t for WMD or establishing democracy. We all know that. Many think it was for oil. But what if it wasn’t to get oil for ourselves. We have other sources. Our imports were about 5%. Suppose it was to keep the Chinese from getting Iraqi oil?

http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/11402

Posted by: 037 at January 14, 2007 10:26 PM
Comment #203266

I’ve always found it dubious that societies must recapitulate all the steps we’ve taken between old technologies and new. We only took that long to go through them all because we were busy getting them invented. Now that they’re out there, there really isn’t any need to redo our entire technological progress in every nation, any more than there is the need for people to be born fish in order to grow up human.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2007 10:30 PM
Comment #203267

037, Or suppose it was to allow our corporations, also known as W’s base, to be the ones to sell the Iraq oil to the Chinese?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 14, 2007 10:36 PM
Comment #203273

Edge, China itself is concerned about its pollution and about climate change, because they’re already experiencing serious water pollution problems, and they stand to lose a lot with the climate heating up. Here’s one source of information:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061227/sc_nm/china_climate_dc_1, and there’s always new information coming up in Yahoo!’s environment section:
http://news.yahoo.com/i/2736
One thing that keeps being said over and over on this issue is that the poor will suffer the most globally, and although China is experiencing rapid development, along with India, there are still many poor people there, with limited means of dealing with changing weather patterns and natural disasters.

On the subject of this post, apparently there are many Christian figures who are already working for emissions cuts, having reconciled their religious beliefs with the idea that humanity might be affecting the world’s climate through our activities. Even if you’re not totally convinced, reducing climate change causing emissions is still beneficial. Car exhaust, pollution from burning coal and other fossil fuels often contributes to asthma, other respiratory diseases and even premature death, so any way you look at it, cutting back on those sorts of emissions is going to be good for society.

I’m not from the U.S., but I don’t see this as a political issue. The state of our environment affects us all, it would be nice if it could be protected outside politics. Without a healthy environment, none of the other “issues” matter.

Posted by: jl at January 14, 2007 10:50 PM
Comment #203276

jl thanks,

I think my comments how that I agree, that the environment affects all of us. Here is the quote from this article that got me thinking:

“Global warming is a big important issue and I believe it will be a hot button with the upcoming elections as well”

It would be surprising to see the ecology be a serious platform in the upcoming election. Idealistically sure, realistically it will not. It is a sound bite given the United States ability to affect change. I think 037’s comment/article agreed with this.

I have to laugh, if you boil it down to say young men in China and India, will they be more interested in the freedom money, cars, and jobs have to offer or more interested in the ecology? 10 minutes in a high school will demonstrate why this worries me. This is a massive population set, the world has never seen so many kids growing up with access to all things capital. It will be a struggle for statement in India and China to ensure ecological success.

Posted by: Edge at January 14, 2007 11:14 PM
Comment #203279

“Please, Lord, Please, help me win this next throw of the dice. If I win, Lord with your help, I can still pay this month’s rent, feed my 2 kids, and keep my wife from leaving me, Lord. Please, Lord, Please, help me win this next toss of the dice.”

The problem with this individual is though he has faith, he hasn’t used the sense God gave him. If he would put his dice down, never to pick them up again, his future prospects would be much brighter, and the Lord helps those who help themselves.

That’s the same with Global Warming. If we believe God will punish us who care not for his creation by causing his creation to stop sustaining us, then, it behooves us to care for his creation. Not to pray that he keeps his creation from falling out from under our feet for continuing to abuse it so.

That’s the same as a sinner refusing to cease sinning while praying he never pay the price for it. The Lord, Buddha, Allah, Great One, whatever, recognizes a con job when s/he sees it. If you don’t agree with this, then you have a fool for a God/dess.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2007 11:38 PM
Comment #203280

I think some of you are being hard on Dana. I congratulate her for buying the video with plans to watch it with an open mind.

All of righties slam Al Gore outright. Most haven’t actually listened to him. Al Gore is a true statesmen….looking well into the future rather then just the next election.

Posted by: muirgeo at January 14, 2007 11:43 PM
Comment #203284

Sorry Mr. Remer, could you dumb down your post for me. I don’t follow.

Here’s a shot, we don’t want Global Warming to screw us and pray it does not while we go ahead and drive cars that use fosil fuels?

You are always patient in your posts, I sincerly ask for clarification.

Posted by: Edge at January 14, 2007 11:50 PM
Comment #203292

Muirgeo,
Just want to echo your comment. If Dana is willing to take her time to watch “An Inconvenient Truth,” and look into the topic of Global Warming, more power to her.

Some Christians view Global Warming as a theory, somehow at odds with the Bible. I do not understand this. As far as I know, the Bible does not address such topics. Some people dismiss Global Warming because they believe the Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but even that conclusion is subject to interpretation; most people would agree parts of the Bible should be taken as allegory or metaphor, as instruction on approaching the “whys” of life, as opposed to the “hows.”

2006 was the 6th warmest on record, and the warmest recorded in the US. With an El Nino shaping up for the spring, there is a good chance 2007 will break all records for warmth. However, I just returned from Las Vegas. When I went outside to the vast, beautiful pool complex, I stood alone amidst lush tropical vegetation and palm trees, and it was snowing! They are undergoing one of their coldest snaps in twenty years. The point being, we should all be cautious about identifying any single weather occurrence as an example of warming- but neverthelss, the overall trend is abundantly clear, and all fingers point towards human activities as the cause.

Posted by: phx8 at January 15, 2007 12:52 AM
Comment #203293

As I sit here and read these messages about global warming it is a nice -12.5 degrees and the high temp today was only 17 deg. today and it’s expected to go to -25 tonight. My water has been frozen for the last 3 weeks. Send some of that global warming this way.
P.S. I live in Nevada…..

Posted by: Bobbzap at January 15, 2007 12:57 AM
Comment #203294

To be honest, no one really knows what tomorrow will bring. Just ask those in New Orleans! It may be sunny, it may be rain.

However, I know environmentalism means big money in Washington. The adoption of some isues on both sides of the aisle can be based on truth and fact, or just on the riches that certain beliefs can bring.

I am old enough to remember this ecology and environmental thing coming from the new-age left parading hippie types singing “Dear Mother Earth” and showing an Indian riding his painted pony down a littered highway. My how we’ve come a long way! I also remember how these issues predominantly of the left were paraded into the classrooms of schools much as Al Gore’s movie is apparently now being shown.

Perhaps, that is why many are still skeptical. The hippies are gone, and we are still here. We’ve realized the Indian was just an actor. We realize that Al Gore is just a politician. Yes, keeping the environment in which you live clean is a good thing, but then, it is not necessarily everything. Someone’s definition of clean is completely different from that of another. I’ve known those who will not let someone enter their house without taking off their shoes, (and not because of stereotypical Japanese custom either). They were just clean freaks.

So, who decides on what is too much dirtiness, and what is just enough?

JD

Posted by: JD at January 15, 2007 1:04 AM
Comment #203298

JD, the hippies aren’t gone, they’re just older.

I’ve never been overly enthusiastic about ecology nuts. Living with nature is fine, if you want to live like our forefathers did, bathing monthly or yearly in cold water, waking up with ice on your face, and wearing yourself out to feed, clothe and house yourself. The only problem is they deforested the US and there weren’t nearly as many of them as there are us.

I have no issue with finding clean sustainable energy. It seems like a no-brainer to me. I am currently looking into building an energy independent house. I can tell you it isn’t cheap. I just don’t want to be held up by government endorsed, lobby bought, corporate theives. If the enviroment benefits…great.

When Al Qaeda comes they’ll find me in the hills with the rest of the hilbilly’s, in American Tora Bora cooking ‘shine and with a shotgun fer the foreigners and revenuers.:)

Posted by: gergle at January 15, 2007 4:52 AM
Comment #203303
“What I can say is that as a Catholic, I do believe in creationism.”

Excuse me but Catholics don’t belive in creationism.

Agreed.
All creationists are catholics, though.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 15, 2007 8:05 AM
Comment #203304

Phillipe-
There are a bunch of fundamentalists, evangelicals, and protestants that would find that conclusion counterfactual.

Catholicism accepts deep time in its various aspects: the age of the world, evolution, and “big bang” cosmology. It has since Pope John Paul II, at least.

In all actuality, only a minority of Christian Churches of various denominations believe in what is called Young Earth Creationism. Most others accept what science tells us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 15, 2007 8:34 AM
Comment #203305
All creationists are catholics, though.
There are a bunch of fundamentalists, evangelicals, and protestants that would find that conclusion counterfactual.

Damned, my atheist’s religion ignorance is showing. Sorry.
I must confess I’m not that fluent with every christian churches, and tend confuse christian and catholic.
I stand corrected. Thanks.

Does “All creationists are christians” more factual, then?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 15, 2007 8:46 AM
Comment #203306
Does “All creationists are christians” more factual, then?

Unfortunately, no. There is now a movement of Muslim creationism growing in Turkey.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 15, 2007 8:52 AM
Comment #203310

“All creationists are catholics, though”

Not even close Philippe.

A christian is anyone who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ. They come in many denominations.

Creationist usually refers to those who believe that the Bible is a literal account of how the earth came in to being.

All sots of religions have an accounting of the Earths creation.
I apologize to Dana if I appear harsh. That was my intent. But I take acception to the statement that she believes in creation because she is Catholic. The Church has no position on this. They learned their lesson with Galileo.


Posted by: 037 at January 15, 2007 9:55 AM
Comment #203311

Is global warming happening, yes. Is it as bad as some say, that is up in the air(no pun intended).
We as humans are the cause of a lot of problems with mother earth. Yes polute the air,water and kill animals until there is no more, and for what, because we like the fur coat, we want to go faster, we want to look prettier. In the end what is going to kill mankind is mankind itself, maybe with nuclear weapons, maybe over population, maybe pollutation of the air/water. Our time will end unless the human population makes some hard choices.
Oh JD I am a hippie, just a little older then I was in the 60’s, and no I didn’t go to Woodstock but wanted to.

Posted by: KT at January 15, 2007 10:03 AM
Comment #203315

I think you’ll like the movie. Does it “prove” that global warming is coming? No. But the movie does show that CO2 emissions in the atmosphere have generally been in synch with the earth’s temperature, according to data stretching back hundreds of thousands of years. Also, our CO2 emissions are going through the roof. It’s not proven, but you have to willfully turn your back on evidence like that. Kind of like believing God put dinosaur bones in the earth to test peoples’ faith. Anyway, I don’t think the church has taken any official position on global warming, so you are not being asked to turn a blind eye to reason in this case.

Posted by: Max at January 15, 2007 11:08 AM
Comment #203318

Max

“data stretching back hundreds of thousands of years”?

Who kept track of the data even 1k years ago?

You sure a stretching the statement. Even if you want to believe that data was kept (which it was not) to the first written records of history, it certainly does not cover 10k years. That statement on data is called propaganda. It has no merit.

Posted by: tomh at January 15, 2007 11:33 AM
Comment #203320

tomh,

The science behind that statement is based off of CO2 levels in ice cores that date back that far…

I don’t think that sound science and propaganda are the same thing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2007 11:41 AM
Comment #203324

Tomh,
Dendrochronology- the study of tree rings- gives a climatic record going back 8500 years in Germany through the live oaks, and over 10,000 years in the US through Bristlecone pines.

As Rhinehold mentions, atmospheric records can be discovered by measuring the steady state of decay of carbon isotopes in core drillings- samples from ice cores, sedimentary cores, and others- going back over 600,000 years.

If you reject the scientific fact of the steady state of decay of isotopes, you must also reject carbon dating, potassium-argon dating, and all nuclear theory.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Rejecting those means you also cannot “believe” in nuclear power, since it is based on an understanding of the steady state of decay of isotopes.

The list cascades beyond that. If I recall, you are a fundamentalist (?). You are most welcome to believe all science is magic. But even as magicians, we have a responsibility to use our magic for good, and cast spells through science and prayer, in order to prevent the magical occurrence of Global Warming.

Posted by: phx8 at January 15, 2007 12:00 PM
Comment #203325

LawnBoy,

Unfortunately, no. There is now a movement of Muslim creationism growing in Turkey.

Glup. Okay, so what about… all creationists are religious people ?

;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 15, 2007 12:09 PM
Comment #203326

There is no place in the U.S. that has pollution as bad an average chinese city. In fact the future of pollution is in China & India et al.

The U.S. produces about 25% of the CO2 (and BTW NOT 25% of pollution, not the same) because it produces about 25% of the world GDP. We can and must become less carbon intensive, but please remember that the U.S. cannot simply cut comsumption. America’s share of CO2 has been DROPPING, not because we produce less, but rather because other world economies are growing and catching up. This is how the equation works.

The problem is actually MORE serious than many people imply. As China and India grow, there share of global CO2 will rise and the total will rise even more.

We need to reserach alternatives, which requires higher energy prices AND we need more and more efficient nuclear power. Nuclear power, in the short & medium term, is our only real hope.

Posted by: Jack at January 15, 2007 12:13 PM
Comment #203327

tomh,

“data stretching back hundreds of thousands of years”?

Who kept track of the data even 1k years ago?

Ice.
Gases trapped in ice, in particular.

Hum? What? Ice is left biased!?!
Okay, I’m done, that’s a lost cause.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 15, 2007 12:13 PM
Comment #203329

phx8,

Dendrochronology- the study of tree rings- gives a climatic record going back 8500 years in Germany through the live oaks, and over 10,000 years in the US through Bristlecone pines.

Oh, please!
Everybody knows that trees are left biased. They *love* Al Gore. Trees are lobbying for the left since decades!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 15, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #203332

Jack,

We need to reserach alternatives, which requires higher energy prices AND we need more and more efficient nuclear power. Nuclear power, in the short & medium term, is our only real hope.

Too bad the most wealthy nation on earth didn’t start to build huge numbers of nuclear power plants years ago, leading the world by example. Like 10 years ago.
Like right after Kyoto.

10 years wasted. Wasted denying climate change and human polution world inpact.

Meanwhile, China and India have built numbers of nuclear power plants, huge hydroelectric dams, solar powerplants and windfars…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 15, 2007 12:28 PM
Comment #203333

Supposedly Bush will address Global Warming in his upcoming State of the Union address, fully accept that humans are causing it, and get the US involved in an international approach.

Posted by: phx8 at January 15, 2007 12:33 PM
Comment #203340

Philippe

You know I admire your country’s push into nuclear power. The U.S. has had serious trouble with anti-nuke activist, who effectively used the Three Mile Island accident (in which nobody died or was seriously injured) as a club to chastise the industry. As a result the U.S. has lost 25 years. Finally, we are starting to look seriously at nuclear power again.

Some of the same people who now yelp loudest about global warming are the ones who helped cripple nuclear power in the U.S. and the world.

Phx8

I believe humans are contributing to warming, but probably not causing it. The earth has been warmer in the recent geological past. We still do not know what caused these past fluctuations. Since it is easier to “predict” the past than the future, where does that put us?

The problem for all of us is that the steps we need to take to fight global warming are higher energy prices & more nuclear power. When gas prices rose a little bit, people went nuts. We are talking MUCH higher prices. And we have to suppress the luddite anti-nuke folks.

Posted by: Jack at January 15, 2007 12:48 PM
Comment #203346
I believe humans are contributing to warming, but probably not causing it. The earth has been warmer in the recent geological past. We still do not know what caused these past fluctuations. Since it is easier to “predict” the past than the future, where does that put us?

Here’s what the movie says about this. Looking back 300,000 years or so CO2 emissions and the earth’s temperature have been in synch. Lately, there has been a huge jump in CO2 emissions - enormous on a scale never seen before that starts around the time of the industrial revolution. Coincidence? Maybe. But if there is a correlation (as there has always been), it is likely there will be a huge jump in the earth’s temperature, something we are already seeing with the ice caps melting etc.

Does this “prove” humans are causing global warming or that the trend will continue? No. Just as evolution is simply a theory and dinosaur bones support the theory, but don’t prove it. However, if the theory is right - it could mean the end of the world. Doesn’t it behoove us to do something about global warming, which looks like it could be very real, just in case? Wouldn’t God want us to protect ourselves against a threat like this?

Some of China’s cities are more polluting than our own, but not their cars, which produce less CO2 than ours did in the early 80’s. We can’t very well talk to China about cleaning up their cities without doing our part and cleaning up our cars. We can’t lecture the rule and yet be the exception.

Nuclear power alone is not a viable alternative. Why not? You would need a large amount of large reactors, at which point the chances of there being Chernobyl-like accidents or terrorist threats is too high. We need to attack global warming with everything we’ve got.

Posted by: Max at January 15, 2007 1:30 PM
Comment #203349
the chances of there being Chernobyl-like accidents

You do realize that ‘Chernobyl-like accidents’ in US water-cooled reactors is impossible, right?

There are a large number of nuclear reactors, both in the US and in the military and there aren’t accidents because the plants are designed that way. Chernobyl was a sodium-cooled reactor that was not designed fail-safe…

Nuclear power is and has always been a viable alternative except by those who fear it, mostly through ignorance of the technology as I see it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2007 1:40 PM
Comment #203351

“Nuclear power, in the short & medium term, is our only real hope.”

Jack I have no fear of nuclear power. In fact I have worked in 3 nuclear plants. But I don’t agree with this statement. Hydrogen through Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) is a viable alternative. Infact it was being researched by several companies when the government in California was going to make use of alternative fuel mandatory. (I don’t quite remember at what level). But the point is the government can provide economic incentives through regulation not just by getting rid of regulations.


check out the technology and related industries here:
http://www.ocees.com/main2.html

Posted by: 037 at January 15, 2007 1:49 PM
Comment #203353

Jack said:
“I believe humans are contributing to warming, but probably not causing it.”

Jack, there is more and more evidence that humans are causing current global warming. Yes it has happened in the past, could it be for the same reason? Addition of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. human are not the only ones capable adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. volcanoes and termites do a good job of it. But there is an amazing correlation to the amount of CO2 and the onset of the Industrial Revolution.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14basics.html?ex=1326430800&en=2c574ba54ccfcf47&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

Posted by: 037 at January 15, 2007 2:10 PM
Comment #203354

Rhinehold-
Chernobyl was run on a design that used a mixture of water and steam. The steam element of the coolant reduced the efficiency and the stability of the reactor.

Liquid sodium is used in breeder reactors, not RBMK’s.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 15, 2007 2:11 PM
Comment #203355

Max said :

“Kind of like believing God put dinosaur bones in the earth to test peoples’ faith.”

not so Max, Satan put them here to confuse us. Do you think it is random that some dinosaurs had horns and pointy tails??

Posted by: 037 at January 15, 2007 2:16 PM
Comment #203357

To get the power we would need from a nuclear-only perspective, we would need breeder reactors. A lot of them. The high number of large reactors make this alternative very risky.

For the record, I am not against using nuclear power. We should use more of it, but I don’t think we can rely on it exclusively, because of the risks of accidents and terrorism. It only takes one bad incident.

Posted by: Max at January 15, 2007 2:23 PM
Comment #203359

Darn it Jack, you beat me to the punch!

Phillipe,

It’s not just wasted years on nuclear power. We now have incredibly efficient burning resources of all kinds. However, the way the energy companies are treated today in America, no dam is gonna be built if some environmentalist wacko can find a snail darter, or on a waterway where trout or salmon swim upstream.

No power plant will be built of any kind if it is within hundreds of miles from a migratory waterfowl refuge.

I could go on and on, but you probably get my point. This is why any mild, let alone severe storm can knock out power to thousands of people in the United States regardless of where we live. While our cities and towns are growing, our power facilities of all kinds are crumbling around us. Corporations that provide power are some of the most viciously attacked corporations in America. When they start making a profit, instead of being able to use those profits to invest in better equipment and more efficient plants, politicians hoping for a quick voter bump in the polls demand they give profits back to the public in lower rates. You can not develop new technology if you are continually attacked and run out of Dodge every time you want to build a new facility.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 15, 2007 2:41 PM
Comment #203361

Max said “I don’t think we can rely on it exclusively, because of the risks of accidents and terrorism. It only takes one bad incident.”

I disagree Max

“The risk analysis studies estimate that 1 in every 5000 meltdowns would result in as many as 1,000 deaths. There are about 10,000 deaths per year from coal… For nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal we would have to have several several meltdowns per year. Since we have been no fatalities from nuclear power it is clearly safer than coal”

~Trashing The Planet by Dixy Lee Ray
ISBN 0-89526-544-3

Posted by: 037 at January 15, 2007 2:47 PM
Comment #203364

Stephen Daugherty
The major design flaw at Chernobyl was lack of a decent containment structure outside of the reactor core. It was basically a reactor in a metal shed

Posted by: 037 at January 15, 2007 2:57 PM
Comment #203366

Stephen,

You are right, I’m not sure where I got it in my head that Reactor No 4 was sodium-cooled, I must have combined two separate articles I read together over years in my mind.

However, my original point was still valid, the configuration of the plant was one that is highly unstable. That accident would not be able to occur in a US power plant.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2007 3:01 PM
Comment #203368

037,

That was one design flaw, there were others. For example:

“Since the Chernobyl accident, all remaining RBMKs have been retrofitted with a number of updates for safety. The largest of these updates fixes the RBMK control rod design. Previously the control rods were designed with graphite tips, which when initially inserted into the reactor sped up the reaction, instead of slowing or stopping it. This design flaw caused the first explosion of the Chernobyl accident, when the emergency button was pressed to stop the reactor.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2007 3:05 PM
Comment #203370

yes but the initial cause was that power was shut off to the cooling pumps to conduct an experiment on the functionallity of the back-up generators. When the water vaporized it blew the cooling pipes all to hell. If I remember correctly (usually I don’t) The heat caused the controll rod cases to expand so that they could not be fully inserted. The resulting heat caused the steam vapor pressure to shoot up the rods and blow the roof off. The burning of the graphite rod was secondary and caused a great deal of the actual contamination.

I guess this could be considered a design flaw. I think it was basic stupidity and lack of redundent safety systems.

A passive system of borinated water would have been helpful as well. Todays plants are idiot proof for the most part.

Posted by: 037 at January 15, 2007 3:15 PM
Comment #203372

In either case most plants that I have seen (US only) have a secondary containment structure outside the primary containment. I believe this is what saved Three Mile Island. There was a melt down but it never passed outside the secondary containment structure. The result was that the popultion that was exposed only got a dose of about 10mrem the equivilent of smoking two cigaretts or one cross-country airplane flight. I believe the background exposure is about 350 mrem per year. or as high as 600mrem if you happen to live in parts of the Rockies.

Posted by: 037 at January 15, 2007 3:29 PM
Comment #203373


Jack: In my opinion, you and others who advocate fision nuclear power are the true Luddites. The money that would be required to build, maintain and dispose of the radioactive waste generated by those plants could finance a space based solar energy industry that would have far greater benefits to our people, our country and our planet. That money could also create a whole new nuclear industry based on the fusion of H3. However, both of these new industries would also require a much more vigorous and productive space program.

Many will say that these new technologies are just dreams that cannot be achieved in the near future. Everything of significance that the Human race has achieved has been based on the dream of what could be.

Today, that dream has been distorted to mean that anything and everything that should be achieved can only be done if it provides nearly immediate wealth for the few and in a trickle down sort of way, the masses. Today, SUV’s, Blackberries and other consumer items are touted as great achievements, while great achievements are left undone. With today’s attitude of expected immediate gradification, the vast majority of money’s needed for investment is being used for producing hedonistic consumer generated wealth. Therefore, the burden for investing in virtually everything that could have a significant impact on the Human race and it’s continued existance is placed on the taxpaying workers of this planet.

We in America, tend to look at things in relationship to how they affect our daily lives. We are all concerned about where the energy that we need to maintain our lifestyles is going to come from in the future. Some of us talk about being selfsufficient, more drilling or nuclear power plants. Some of us talk about selfsustaning energy sources that will cleanup the environment and make us much less dependent on natural resources for the energy that we need. The latter takes vision and investment in the future. The more money that is invested in a project, the faster that project comes to fruition.

Today, we have a perfect example of what a lack of vision and a lack of investment will get us. It is called the Iraq War. It has the potential to be an enlightening experience for all of us who are willing to open our eyes.

America and it’s people can lead the Human race down the same path that we have been on. We can help make the 21st century the bloodiest and deadliest century ever, just as every previous century has broken the record. So far, we have a real good start on breaking that record.

America and it’s people have the ability but lack the vision and the will to lead the Human race down a different path. Yes, there are many hurdles that must be gotten over on the other path. Human population, hunger, poverty and depletion of natural resources are hurdles that can be gotten over with vision and will.

The Human race has confined itself to a tiny fraction of it’s birth right. We have decided that it is best to limit ourselves to a little molten, crusted over rock cruising around a FUSION FURNACE at 57,000 miles an hour. There is no energy crisis. The crisis is a lack of vision and will. We war against and slaughter each other for control and use of the resources of this planet when the solar system contains a billion times the wealth that is available on this planet. God, if you will, has given us more wealth than all of us put together could every possibly use. We would rather squander wealth and millions possibly billions of lives fighting over a tiny fraction of what we have than invest that money in what is out there. Vision and will, the investor class doesn’t have it, want it, need it, the rest of us need it badly.

Posted by: jlw at January 15, 2007 3:43 PM
Comment #203375

I live in the Inland Empire in CA, we average 310 sunny days a year. I don’t uderstand why solar is not mandated on new construction. We do have rebates for retrofit, however solar is still not a good cost effective power source. I understand that there is new micro conducter technology that should soon boost the effectiveness of solar cells by approximately 30%.

I have converted all my light bulbs to CFL’s the local store had a deal for .48 ea! I was thrilled and I don’t yell at the kids nearly as much now…

What about the pebble bed reactors I’ve heard about? Supposed to be very safe and low waste. I really believe that wast storage is the biggest impediment to nuclear progress. Until we have a truly safe way of dealing with the waste the NIMBY mentallity will prevent atomic energy from becoming viable.

Someone (sorry forgot who) commented above that whether you believe in global warming or not, that everyone wants to protect our environment. I hope so, but look around and it’s easy to see that most don’t really care if there is any inconvenience to them…


JT

Posted by: JayTea at January 15, 2007 3:51 PM
Comment #203377

“The risk analysis studies estimate that 1 in every 5000 meltdowns would result in as many as 1,000 deaths. There are about 10,000 deaths per year from coal… For nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal we would have to have several several meltdowns per year. Since we have been no fatalities from nuclear power it is clearly safer than coal”

~Trashing The Planet by Dixy Lee Ray

Maybe there are only a thousand deaths, but those are gruesome deaths. Using your logic, cars or cigarrettes are a greater threat than terrorists because car accidents kill more people than 9/11. Also, these accidents or terrorist actions can result in a city needing to be evacuated permanently. Can you imagine if everyone had to leave New York and never return because of radiation? That would be a catastrophe.

Anyway, I think there’s room for a middle ground here. More nuclear energy, and more researching other alternative renewable methods.

Posted by: Max at January 15, 2007 4:12 PM
Comment #203378

Adding to my own post:

Too bad the most wealthy nation on earth didn’t start to build huge numbers of nuclear power plants years ago, leading the world by example.

I always forget! One first step that should also being made: reduce our/your energy needs.
We’re wasting too much amount of energy stupidly.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 15, 2007 4:16 PM
Comment #203384

Max

“Can you imagine if everyone had to leave New York and never return because of radiation? That would be a catastrophe.”

Yes, it would. But that’s not what would happen in a nuclear plant accident. There are many kinds of radiation. Radiation that’s really hot burns up quickly. Radiation that’s not hot doesn’t produce much damage. Look at Horoshima & Nagasaki. They are both thriving cities…and my calendat doesn’t read 10,000 ad yet.

The kind of fallout produced by Chernobal is rare and was a product of design flaws and ignorance (stupidity with the excuse that they didn’t know any better). Modern reactors simply CANNOT produce that kind of fallout no matter what the failure mode.

However, I am against nuclear power. Just too expensive for what you get. I’m a fan of geothermal & solar. Especially orbital solar power with microwave transmission to Earth. Very efficient and much lower atmoshperic heat loss than burning oil, coal, wood, etc. Would need lots of safety interlocks to protect people from either wandering into beams or beams wandering into them. But that’s relatively easy from an engineering perspective.

Posted by: Martian at January 15, 2007 5:05 PM
Comment #203385

Max read the post again. You need 5000 meltdowns to get 1,000 deaths. We have only had 2 meltdowns in 40+ years of nuclear power. 30 people died at Chernobyl. As well smoking and driving are choices with assumed risk. Nuclear power is not the disaster waiting to happen people think it is.
But if you read my other post on this site I am not advocating it either. I think hydrogen from electrolysis of water using OTEC is the way to go. Abundent energy, zero pollution.

Posted by: 037 at January 15, 2007 5:06 PM
Comment #203386

Nuc power tide of the future, not the way it is now. I would recommend that the following book be read, and see how many nuc failures and almost melt down had happened in the us. The book is “We Almost Lost Detroit” by John Fuller. It will tell you why Fermi One is shut down for the next 10000yrs and how the shoddy construction inside the reactor cause the nozzles with the liquid sodium, were blocked and almost melted into Lake Erie. China Syndrome not as far fetched as some think.

Posted by: KT at January 15, 2007 5:09 PM
Comment #203388

jlw,

It may be vision, it may be sheer stupidity. Man is notorius for not seeing ahead. At the same time, if you don’t have an answer, then it’s kind of unfair for you to criticize. Newton’s and Einstein’s aren’t born every year. As of now, Solar and Wind power just can’t meet our demands. Nuclear power IS a short term answer, but it won’t replace the plastics and other oil products we now use.

Posted by: gergle at January 15, 2007 5:17 PM
Comment #203390

Progress, my friends! I read through all this (OK, I skimmed a lot) and didn’t see a single post that called global warming a hoax! And this is on the CONSERVATIVE side of the blog!

Gore’s documentary is great. It’s power is in making the science understandable to the educated but non-scientific public. Just listen to the science, and listen to the facts.

Then ACT. BUT CARBON OFFSETS!

Posted by: bobo at January 15, 2007 5:24 PM
Comment #203394

bobo,

There is a difference between global warming, which keeps us alive and kicking on this rock, man-created increases in global warming and natural increases in global warming…

The problem is that no one disputes that global warming exists, our being here proves that. And very few are suggesting that we are not in a warming trend. There is even little dispute that some of man’s actions could be helping that warming trend along. The dispute is how much and what, if anything, would really make a difference and what the net good/bad would come from those actions.

Stopping all use of fossil fuels tomorrow isn’t going to happen. Implementing hydrogen cars and solar/wind power isn’t practical tomorrow. Moving towards those energy sources is a great idea that I think most everyone will agree with, not just for ‘global warming’ reasons but general energy independence and conservation. But we should make sure we do it right and not bankrupt the US doing so at a pace we aren’t ready for if there isn’t an outweighing cost.

So far, that hasn’t been proven.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2007 5:44 PM
Comment #203396

Rhinehold,

Keep in mind that the rest of the advanced industrialized world uses far fewer fossil fuels per capita that Americans do and live very comfortable lifestyles thank you very much.

Americans can do a lot, right now:
1. Make your next car a fuel efficient car (i.e., skip the SUV)
2. Take public transit (I do)
3. Switch to compact flourescent bulbs
4. purchase your energy from a wind farm (you can do this).

I don’t think any of those will bankrupt or hurt anyone in anyway. Yes, they will cost a little more in time and money. But not as much as you may think. My carbon offsets for a family of 3, 2 cars, single family house (with lots of heating and cooling) come to only $20 per month.

In the longer run, some will even save you money (public transit and flourescent bulbs). I realize many of these can’t be done right away (buying a new car) or perhaps ever (not much public transit in small towns), but you’ve got to make the commitment. That’s all we are asking. I don’t expect US use of fossil fuels to drop to zero anytime soon. But it would be a great thing if fossil fuel use just started to stop growing.

PS. I meant to say BUY carbon offsets above.

Posted by: bobo at January 15, 2007 5:56 PM
Comment #203397

bobo,

If that is all that people are asking, there wouldn’t be an issue. It wouldn’t be ‘political’. That’s the problem, it’s a political issue now with desires on increased tax income (read: power) for groups seeking to exploit the fear of global warming for their own political designs.

The Kyoto treaty is a prime example of this.

BTW, dump flourescent bulbs and move to LED bulbs, they are much more energy efficient…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2007 6:06 PM
Comment #203398

bobo

You heard it here. In my opinion the “global warming theory” is a hoax.

There that ought to stir the troops.

Do I need to document my opinion?

Tough world we live in.

Posted by: tomh at January 15, 2007 6:12 PM
Comment #203399

Rhinehold,

Besides Kyoto, can you point to any other specific example of (using your words here) “groups seeking to exploit the fear of global warming for their own political designs”?

And, did their “exploitation” not address a real concern in a legitimate way?

Speaking of Kyoto, why do conservatives persist in bring it up? The treaty expires in 5 years. Despite its imperfections, it at least had the value of addressing the issue on an international level and saying we needed to so something.

Yes, LED’s are better — but they don’t appear to be readily available yet. Perhaps when my flourescents burn out in 3 or 4 years.

Posted by: bobo at January 15, 2007 6:15 PM
Comment #203400

tomh,

You still haven’t addressed the facts that were presented to you many posts back (pbx8, phillipe) about how there IS data available from more than 1,000 years ago, so your belief in the “hoax” just doesn’t hold. If you show a willingness to address the science in a responsible manner, then perhaps you can get somewhere.

Posted by: bobo at January 15, 2007 6:21 PM
Comment #203401

I think if everyone was as creative and serious about stopping terrorism as they are about stopping global warming, we might be able to save the world now, rather than 300, 3,000, 3,000,000 years from now.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 15, 2007 6:22 PM
Comment #203404

bobo,

Well, quickly I could point you to the Green Party website at www.gp.org, where you will find many things such as a carbon tax, demands to legislate a 50-70% reduction in CO2 emmissions, etc…

If you like I can search out other organizations demanding government involvment.

Personally, I’m more aligned with the Nature Conservancy and how they are using private funds to secure and protect areas. A private endeavor to educate and develop newer cleaner technologies is the best chance IMO.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2007 6:40 PM
Comment #203405

BTW,

http://www.theledlight.com/

They Deliver! :)

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2007 6:42 PM
Comment #203406

Many scientists use a variety of dating methods and none of them are accurate. Carbon dating has been debunked long ago. All the other methods are not reliable. The troubel with the left/liberal/science is absolute crowd is that when somebody writes something and they are from the scientific community they jump on the bandwagon and shout for joy for the new gospel. They don’t have the expertise to validate it. But when someone else comes along and disputes the concept in question, those same group will castigate anybody who dares question them for their beliefs. There are many scientists in this world who differ on a wide range of subjects. There is a wide base of beliefs as to the beginning and continuation of this world as well as its age. One can continually pick up what is considered respected writings and find a variation of the earths age from 6k to billions of years with all kind of numbers in between. So people are going to follow their Hawkings and Goulds et.al. and procalim them as the supreme authority on whatever comes down the pike. These are all relative approaches. When one finds an absolute approach to depend on then it could lead to the truth.

Posted by: tomh at January 15, 2007 6:48 PM
Comment #203408

tomh-
So you’ve seen people forging temperature records, have you? And people are just imagining the years where each is hotter than the next, where record storms are a more and more common occurence.

Never mind the uniquely human chemical signature that ties document rises in carbon dioxide levels with human activity. Never mind that we’re putting more of that stuff in the atmospheres than even volcanoes do.

It’s all just a conspiracy by the liberal elitist scientists who just want to destroy the economy so that communism can take over. Yeah, that’s right. Though not one person has come forward to detail this massive plot among the vast majority of climate scientists, it just has to be somebody trying to push the leftist line on you.

I’m not making stuff up here, but repeating what the people you’re listening to have alleged. It’s crazy. It’s like something out of Michael Crichton Novel- oh wait, it is out of a Michael Crichton novel! Yes!

People have been selling the fear of science for some time now, and they will do so for some time to come, because it’s easy to sell people on the fear of the unknown. What we have here, though, is a consensus that has emerged over the last three decades, and is only becoming more credible the more our technology is refining to calculate and observe the changes spoken of. The other side grasps at straws, letting others feed them objections that are often, in fact, already answered, or based on fundamental misunderstandings of what actually goes on. For example, the use of the heat island effect for an objection neglects the fact that the same trend shows up in both oceanic and urban temperature readings- a trend that would not show up where there weren’t cities if the objection was right.

From my perspective, knowing what I do, a lot of the objections made by conservatives are second-hand quibbles, talking points givento them by people paid to find reasons for certain legislation not to get passed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 15, 2007 6:53 PM
Comment #203409

BTW, Again,

http://www.ccrane.com/lights/led-light-bulbs/index.aspx has a great cost savings table

But, I’ve also heard that it’s not our automobiles that are the problem. It’s the CO2 from our lawnmowers that are the real issue.

Garden equipment engines, which have had unregulated emmissions until very recently, emit high levels of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, producing up to 5% of the nation’s air pollution and a good deal more in metropolitan areas.

A conventional lawn mower pollutes as much in an hour as 40 late model cars (or as much as as much air pollution as driving a car for 100 miles).

Or as much pollutants as 73 new cars.

http://www.peoplepoweredmachines.com/faq-environment.htm

So, we should all get goats or solar powered lawnmowers… (actually, a solar powered lawnmower makes sense, who mows their grass in the dark!)

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2007 6:56 PM
Comment #203411

JD-
There are a lot of feedbacks and processes to global climate change, such that effects can lag what we do in any given timeframe.

The thing to understand is that CO2 will persist in the atmosphere for a long time before it’s sequestered again. What we’re putting in to the atmosphere is coming back out any time soon. Another thing to understand is that we will likely continue to put out some carbon emissions for some time to come, even if we dedicate ourselves to reducing our output.

Global Warming, sadly, is a given at this point. The real question is how profound the change is. What we do in the next decades decides the dynamic of what happens to our planet. It’s not going to be easy, and we’re not going to have a clear cut answer of how this all ends until we reach whatever equilibrium we get.

One thing for sure though: we could really screw things up for ourselves if we don’t get ahead of our fossil fuel emissions. Climate change will create winners and losers, but we cannot ensure that we will be the winners. The process itself is beyond our power to control, and it could have effects that are very destructive to our interests.

There’s something of Pascal’s wager in this: if we develop efficient technologies, and things turn out to be not so bad as we feared, we still can do more work for less energy. If we really have a problem, then getting ahead of things means we’ve avoided what could have been a disastrous course, avoiding the problems that would have laid us flat on our back.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 15, 2007 7:05 PM
Comment #203414

Stephen Daugherty

Nothing of what your said makes any sense or applies to what I posted. All I said was that there were too many differences of opinion of scientists and that there was no overwhelming position among them. On rare occasion there is a large number of them that agree on a position. More often than not there is wide discepancy. It was only 3 decades ago that we were going to freeze to death. That did not happen. There was a wide degree of agreement or disagreement on the freezing event that did not happen. If there are eons of time data supporting global warming then why did the global freezing gain such wide acceptance?

Posted by: tomh at January 15, 2007 7:09 PM
Comment #203415
Many scientists use a variety of dating methods and none of them are accurate.
None are accurate in all situations, but they are all accurate to known levels when used correctly.
Carbon dating has been debunked long ago.

No, tomh. We’ve been over this before. Carbon dating is an effective and accurate dating technique when used appropriately. The “debunking” you’ve seen is nothing more than people misusing the technique and pointing to mistaken results without taking responsibility for intentionally doing it all wrong.

The troubel with the left/liberal/science is absolute crowd is that when somebody writes something and they are from the scientific community they jump on the bandwagon and shout for joy for the new gospel. They don’t have the expertise to validate it.

Actually, I do have the experience to validate that you are wrong.

But when someone else comes along and disputes the concept in question, those same group will castigate anybody who dares question them for their beliefs.

It’s not castigation to use logic and facts to show that the claims are wrong.

There is a wide base of beliefs as to the beginning and continuation of this world as well as its age.

True in the full world, but not in the world of science. There is consensus amongst the experts, and you are wrong.

It was only 3 decades ago that we were going to freeze to death. That did not happen.

So? We’ve since learned things we didn’t know then. How does the fact that we know more than we used to mean that it’s ok to deny scientific discoveries that you don’t like.

If there are eons of time data supporting global warming then why did the global freezing gain such wide acceptance?

Because it was the best explanation given the limited knowledge at the time.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 15, 2007 7:26 PM
Comment #203416

Rhinehold
Not being smart but if we went back to the old fashion push mower we could kill two birds,
1. High levels of emmisions power mowers put out
2. And get rid of the high levels of obiesity of the american people

Posted by: KAP at January 15, 2007 7:34 PM
Comment #203417
All I said was that there were too many differences of opinion of scientists and that there was no overwhelming position among them. On rare occasion there is a large number of them that agree on a position.

This is also incorrect. On the issues of Global Warming and Evolution, the scientific consensus is nearly complete, and the only legitimate differences are on minor details.

For example, the Discovery Institute is proud of a list it has of something like 300 “scientists” who “doubt evolution”. It is important to note that many of the people on the list work in fields quite separate from any of the dozens of scientific fields that support and rely on evolution.

In response, the National Center for Science Education created a list of 775 scientists that work specifically in fields involving the history of the planet. Not only the list much larger than the other list, it is limited only to scientists named “Steve”. Yes, Steve.

In this thread and others, you have based your argument on the idea that the science is under dispute. It isn’t. Just because someone with an agenda puts together a website of pseudoscience doesn’t mean the is in doubt.

Human-caused Global Warming and Evolution are scientific facts. Get used to it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 15, 2007 7:40 PM
Comment #203418

Tomh-
This may not be your source, but this guy exemplifies some of the problems people have with the science behind carbon 14 dating

In this instance, the guy claims that because of the limits on carbon 14 dating, other kinds of dating are impossible to use, since there would hardly be any carbon 14 left in them. Making this claim (which I think he honestly believes), he makes the critical error of assuming that carbon 14 is used in all these different dating systems. It’s not. Potassium/Argon and other radio-isotope dating systems work off of different elements with different half-lifes. Here, for example, you’re trying to determine the ratio between relatively unstable Potassium isotopes in a rock, and the Argon decay products that are trapped within the solid stone as the Potassium atoms decay.

These dating systems can be used inproperly, not calibrated like they should be. That isn’t a general tendency of the systems, though, just one that comes up when people fail to get an uncontaminated specimen, or botch the procedure.

Aside from that, though, the decay is a known quantity, and such systems have yielded fairly consistent results.

The proof is in the pudding with science, because the same physics that create these isotopes and determine their rate of decay, functions in our nuclear reactors and in our weapons. You can’t have one operate according to these laws, then say the others don’t.

If nuclear reactors work dependent on the decay of Uranium atoms, then radioisotope dating should work, because its part of the same principles.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 15, 2007 7:44 PM
Comment #203419

Stephen Daugherty - your link didn’t work.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 15, 2007 7:45 PM
Comment #203421

Rhinehold:

I was hoping you could come up with a group that has a little more clout that 2% in the polls.

In spite of that, what’s so alarmist about a carbon tax? Some Conservatives (such as Charles Krauthammer) have started to endorse it (in his case, for security). Do you consider it a bad idea because you feel it won’t help? Or because you are anti-tax?

But the main point I want to make is that these are all good ideas that will help. None of them alone will solve the problem. I, too, like the work of the Nature Conservancy and support the use of free markets to develop cleaner technologies: that is the same principle behind contributing to carbon offsets. But I don’t believe we can wait 2 decades or longer for those to be economically viable. People need to start acting now.

Posted by: bobo at January 15, 2007 7:52 PM
Comment #203420

I just saw the film yesterday. Pretty good. Before that I did some looking into it.5-6 years ago there was enough division in the sientific community and enough unanswered questions to caste doubt on global warming and the human impact. There no longer is. No reputable scientist not on oils payroll has offered any but supporting evidence.It is time to act. God did give that capacity.
Even if one still has doubts there are other reasons to help work toward other fuel sources. One is that they are finite. We will run out sooner or later. Better to be prepared. Another big reason is that we are dependant on our enemies to provide us our oil supplies. We are financing terrorist networks. If we were not dependant we would no longer have to play footsie with despots either in the Middle East or South America. Our military could get back to defending America instead of spending so much time defending our supply lines.
We do not even need another Wright Brothers to come up with some new source. We have the tech already. Of course it will improve and there may be new methods invented but what is missing is the political will. I hope very much this becomes a political issue and the whoever either party put forth for president has a real commitment to making it happen.

Posted by: BillS at January 15, 2007 7:52 PM
Comment #203422


tomh
“Many scientists use a variety of dating methods and none of them are accurate. Carbon dating has been debunked long ago. All the other methods are not reliable.”

Carbon dating has been debunked? If so how? Because somebody told you it was? It is not used as much because there are better, more accurate measures. Particularly rubidium/strontium isotope ratios. More accurate that carbon 14 but the process is the similar It is based on radio-active decay. I notice you tend not to address any of the science. Why is that?

As far as not being accurate, define accurate? Will it give us the day or the year or the century? No, but where geologic time is concerned this is like saying my watch cannot tell time because it doesn’t tell me the nanosecond.

At any rate we know that the earth is more than 4 billion years old, and under 5 billion. Care to dispute that. Please provide the reasoning and evidence behind your answer.

Posted by: 037 at January 15, 2007 7:56 PM
Comment #203423

Here is the link.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 15, 2007 7:56 PM
Comment #203424

tomh,

You are wrong. There is virtual unanimity among the scientific community that global warming is both real and is being caused by human activity. Both those points were endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences on more than one occasion. The same conclusion has been reached by other scientific academies around the world, and none have concluded otherwise. You may not like that, but that is the truth.

Posted by: bobo at January 15, 2007 7:57 PM
Comment #203425

tomh,

Here is a link to NAS studies for you to read:

http://www.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html

And here is one in particular:

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf

Posted by: bobo at January 15, 2007 8:03 PM
Comment #203426

037

Why do so many scientists vary with their response to the question of how old the earth is.

The numbers are from thousands to millions to billions of years. That is a very large range.

I’m outta here to finish watching the Suns-Grizzlies.

Posted by: tomh at January 15, 2007 8:10 PM
Comment #203428
Why do so many scientists vary with their response to the question of how old the earth is. The numbers are from thousands to millions to billions of years. That is a very large range.

I’ll respond for 037, if he doesn’t mind.

The answer is “they don’t”. The premise of your question is invalid. The current understanding of the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and this is the only widely-held belief.

Today’s accepted age of the Earth of 4.55 billion years was determined by C.C. Patterson using Uranium-Lead dating on fragments of the Canyon Diablo meteorite and published in 1956.
The Canyon Diablo date has been backed up by hundreds of other dates, from both terrestrial samples and other meteorites. The meteorite samples, however, show a spread from 4.53 to 4.58 billion years ago.[Source]

Here is the US Geological Survey’s statement, and they agree completely.

The currently-accepted date is nearly universally accepted, and the range of the remaining uncertainty based on current evidence is on the order of 1%. No one says thousands or millions of years based on current scientific knowledge.

There is no controversy here except among those who have a specific agenda to promote non-scientific ideas.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 15, 2007 8:22 PM
Comment #203429

tomh, sorry you cant take the heat. And I notice you didn’t answer my questions. What credible modern scientist puts the earth at anything other 4.5ish billion years?

tomh you have to understand how science works. If someone says the earth is 6,000yrs or ten billion years, the next question should always be what is your proof? Over time the age of the earth was calculated to be many things. But science is not fixed it is a process for getting information. It is not the information itself. As new data becomes available you have to be willing to change your view.

Enjoy watching the Grizzlies, life as evolved so far from the prokaryotes don’t you think?

Posted by: 037 at January 15, 2007 8:24 PM
Comment #203430

thanks for the help Lawnboy. One of my favorite Phish disks by the way.

Posted by: 037 at January 15, 2007 8:31 PM
Comment #203431

037,

:)

(on both points)

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 15, 2007 8:33 PM
Comment #203433

Okay, I went to both sites given for LED. Are there any that replace ordinary light bulbs for lamps, etc? Did I miss that?

Posted by: womanmarine at January 15, 2007 9:06 PM
Comment #203434

Now that we know how old the earth is?, maybe some scientist can tell us the date that fire was invented and how long men have actually been burning things into the atmosphere, and just how long burning things into the atmosphere will take to destroy the world. I’d certainly like to see science come up with a definitive answer on that question, because that is the answer that will provide us with the actual threat of global warming. Will carbon dating help find it?

JD

Posted by: JD at January 15, 2007 9:12 PM
Comment #203435

JD:

Are you serious?

Posted by: womanmarine at January 15, 2007 9:15 PM
Comment #203436

No, JD. We don’t know those things. We have to rely on actual science and actual evidence instead of your sarcasm.

Thank God it’s enough.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 15, 2007 9:18 PM
Comment #203440
Okay, I went to both sites given for LED. Are there any that replace ordinary light bulbs for lamps, etc? Did I miss that?

http://www.ccrane.com/lights/led-light-bulbs/index.aspx


http://theledlight.com/

Posted by: d.a.n at January 15, 2007 9:35 PM
Comment #203441
Okay, I went to both sites given for LED. Are there any that replace ordinary light bulbs for lamps, etc? Did I miss that?

ccrane.com

theledlight.com

Posted by: d.a.n at January 15, 2007 9:37 PM
Comment #203444

JD those answers won’t help because nature has been burning things and putting CO2 into the atmosphere since before man. Amaizing isn’t it that the spike in CO@ corralates with the Industrial Revolution, you know, when we started to burn things on a grand scale, not just to start fires for survival. You are familiar with the steam engine, no? You do understand exponential growth of populations?

Posted by: 037 at January 15, 2007 9:44 PM
Comment #203446

oh and JD nobody said it would destroy the world. You do know that at one time there was very little gasseous oxygen right? That came along with cyanobacteria and was a toxin to most life forms?

Posted by: 037 at January 15, 2007 9:47 PM
Comment #203447

womanmarine,
Yes, those links above are for lights that can be used in normal AC electical sockets.
Some can also be used with 12 volt DC (direct current).
I’ve got some that run off of solar panels and 12 volte batteries.
They provide a lot of light with very little power (watts).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 15, 2007 9:50 PM
Comment #203451


gergle: If we dedicated the resources, technology research and manpower today for a spaced based solar energy system that we devoted to putting a man on the moon, I believe the time frame for success would be equivalent. If we allow the building of nuclear power plants to supposedly tide us over, you can forget about solar power and other alternative energy sources. The industry will say why bother, nuclear is cheaper and we have enough uranium to keep us going for quite a while.

Posted by: jlw at January 15, 2007 10:08 PM
Comment #203455

JD,
An asteroid followed by a volcano is quite likely what led to the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Our planet is essentially in the middle of a shooting gallery (NOTE: 5.6 MB).

And, maybe you’ve heard of asteriod 1950DA ? (NOTE: 10MB) on a direct collision course with Earth ?

Even if there were no definitive evidence that humans were affecting the environment, ignoring the possibility is not smart.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 15, 2007 10:17 PM
Comment #203459

037

Thanks for talking so condescending to me.

Taking the elitist high road that you know science and I don’t just killed this exchange. You have no idea what I know. So go trying the elitist approach on somebody else until they are more brusk with you than I. As Clooney George would say good night and good luck.

Posted by: tomh at January 15, 2007 10:32 PM
Comment #203461

037,

Thanks for the tip on cyanobacteria! I’ll try to stay away from it.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 15, 2007 10:39 PM
Comment #203462

037,

I’m not really sure how you would have been able to avoid seeming to know more about science than tomh.

If you want to know what he knows about science, check out one of our old debates (it goes on an evolution tangent before too long).

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 15, 2007 10:52 PM
Comment #203463

tomh,

I wouldn’t call it a ‘elitist high road’ as much as a ‘well founded observation’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2007 10:52 PM
Comment #203464

Anybody & Everybody,

I still haven’t seen any proof of global warming.

If some one has some I could see I would love to join in.

The only factual thing I know about global climate change is that we are in a stage of desertization (spelling?). At the end of our getting warmer we will go back to getting colder (i.e. iceage).

I do know that the whole o-zone thing is inaccurate. The warmer the enviroment is, the more o-zone is created naturally. Then when it is colder, it thins out.

So if there is an ozone problem it is because the enviroment is too cold. In retrospect, if global warming is true, then at least it will fix the o-zone.

Also,

I am Catholic and I also believe in evolution and any one interested enough to pick up an up-to-date college biology book will find out that there is no modern evolution theory that says we come from apes or monkeys or neanderthals (spelling?). We come from cromagnon. Somewhere billions of years ago the whole upright-thumbed-monkey-men did all come together in the family tree though. Apes are most likely our retarded children outcasted from society.

Misunderstandings of Evolution

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 15, 2007 10:54 PM
Comment #203465
The only factual thing I know about global climate change is that we are in a stage of desertization (spelling?). At the end of our getting warmer we will go back to getting colder (i.e. iceage).

That’s factual? How is that factual?

Anyway, looking to a political forum of non-experts for proof of a complex scientific theory is a bit misguided. However, links from here can be useful. Look at the links bobo gave.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 15, 2007 11:06 PM
Comment #203466

JD-
The current figure is something over a million years ago.

As for destroying the world? That’s not the worry. Maybe even not destroying our species. No, what we really want to prevent, are big radical changes in the weather and coastal geography, because people have gotten use to how things are. There are many tragic examples of civilizations or nations brought down by climactic shifts. The question here is whether we want to be Greenland, Iceland, or Japan. Greenland was wiped out by a climactic shift. The inhabitants of Iceland let the best soil, an irreplaceable resource, blow away through carelessness. To compensate, they’ve had to employ some rather stringent standards to their agriculture, in comparison to those their ancestors used.

And Japan? Japan saw a deforestation problem coming, and did something about that, with the result that the island nation now has many lush forests.

Now we can be the people who suffer some collapse, get stuck on the verge of that, or the folks who actually do themselves a favor and get ahead of that.

The trick with predicting what is too much is that we don’t have a clear idea of it. We can tell you that the less we toss up there, the better. That much is clear. The trouble is that the feedbacks and the process of the system have a certain built in uncertainty. There’s a reason you can’t get a good forecast more than few days in advance: small errors and unobserved disturbances in the atmosphere can cause even the best model of the weather to become wildly inaccurate, given enough time.

There’s even a name for it that I’m sure you’re familiar with: The Butterfly Effect.

The saving grace of climatology is that while these systems have a certain inherent unpredictability, they also have a certain order underlying or emerging from the details on the smaller levels.

These patterns are the best we can hope for. As it is, our most advanced models tell us that Global Warming is indeed a problem we must contend with.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 15, 2007 11:10 PM
Comment #203467

“When I was in second grade we had 11 snow days in one school year due to heavy snow falls and numerous cold days of negative degree weather. Maybe global warming isn’t as farfetched as my conservative counterparts believe.”

This ome comment neatly sums up the problem: Most people seem to think that history began the day they were born. Let me suggest that you take a look at Senator Inhofe’s “Skeptics Guide to Global Warming” at http://epw.senate.gov/w_papers.cfm?party=rep and get a few facts.

Posted by: Cliff Raymond at January 15, 2007 11:11 PM
Comment #203468

Lawnboy,

“That’s factual? How is that factual?”

You mean to tell me that you don’t believe that our planet naturally goes in and out of iceages?

In order for us to no longer be in an iceage, the planet has to become warmer. Water levels rise and deserts get bigger.


As far as sientific knowledge on a political forum… so far it has worked really well. This site has consistently had a percentage of people who are very much interested in ‘factual things’, who also enjoy sharing such knowledge.

… and thanks for links, I missed them in my ‘quick scrolling’ and ‘speed reading’.

=)

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 15, 2007 11:13 PM
Comment #203469
You mean to tell me that you don’t believe that our planet naturally goes in and out of iceages?

I believe that we have done so. However, the theory that we are on our way to another ice age hasn’t been the leading scientific theory in 20 or 30 years; we’ve learned a lot since then.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 15, 2007 11:17 PM
Comment #203471

0.9 degree F in less than half a century.

Well, I am convinced. Global warming is a definetly a problem then.

In response to the cold winter we are having in Washington…

I know in the meteorology class I took that quick changes in the enviroment can create unexpected effects.

Could the colder then recent winters be due to sudden shifts in the enviroment or is it likely that the situation is improving a little (i.e. we are finally beggining to slowly clean up Hanford + WA’s recent recycling policies)?

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 15, 2007 11:23 PM
Comment #203472

Cliff,

Sen. Inhofe is far from a reliable source on the issue. His “statements of fact” are anything but, and have been easily refuted by those who actually know what they are talking about. Inhofe abuses science.

If you want to know the current state of science, don’t look to a Senator who regularly disregards science. Look instead at what the scientists say. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body which involves thousands of scientists from over 120 countries who develop detailed reports on climate change, produced a report in 2001 which was reviewed by more than 1,000 top experts, including so-called “climate skeptics” and representatives from industry. The report stated, “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”

Let me suggest that you take a look at Senator Inhofe’s “Skeptics Guide to Global Warming” … and get a few facts.

I really hope you realize that those are two separate requests.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 15, 2007 11:24 PM
Comment #203474

Lawnboy,

I wasn’t suggesting that we are going to another ice age, but rather that we are still leaving the last one, hence the warming.

I do think the 0.9F increase is extreme. The desertization idea is based on a .4-.8 per century increase, if I remember correctly.

Thank you and Bobo for that link. They will make a great addition to my pdf library.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 15, 2007 11:29 PM
Comment #203475

From a political point, since this is a political blog, shouldn’t we start by changing how we go about ‘protecting’ the enviroment.

I recall when a certain blogger of ours, who owns a pizza shop, had a truck that came out to drill on his land in concern of the enviroment, while doing this they left a large truck running for hours putting toxins into the air via emmissions.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 15, 2007 11:37 PM
Comment #203476

The problem is that new evidence on both sides is coming in all of the time. Learning the sun increases and decreases in output on a fairly long cycle, the questioning of the hockey stick and the mild hurricane season last year that was suppose to be very damaging calls into question some of the evidence posited by the human caused global warming crowd. But these are themselves being challenged and debunked as well, it’s going to be a long cycle before we know anything for sure I’m afraid. And some are saying it’s too late already.

Personally I have always been a ‘conservationist’ and understand the realities of the 2nd law of thermodynamics well enough to know that oil is not going to last forever, nothing is really. It makes sense to always be on the look out for alternate, cleaner energies and advance our technology past the state it is currently in, but I have serious doubts about the government being involved in those ‘advances’ because we just introduce politics into the mix, like with global warming and the desire to fix the problem through governmental interaction, and would rather see private industry tackle the problem, which they are currently doing. Heck, you can even win a trip into space now… ;)

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2007 11:39 PM
Comment #203478

Cliff Raymond,

I believe you hit the nail on the head.

As I previously posted, this environmental movement began around the sixties. For the most part, around the same time as the animal rights movement with the release of “Born Free”, the show “Flipper”, “Wild Kingdom”, and the like. Global Warming was never even heard of before that to my knowledge. Why shouldn’t this make one skeptical when so much of this touchy feely Mother Earth stuff cropped up around the same time that these organizations began getting their grants to study wild life, climate, and environmental changes. As I said, environmentalism is big money. And with big money comes skepticism, especially when so-called global scientific break throughs can lead to more grant funded studies.
To make a point, I believe I read somewhere about the suggestion that polar bears be added to the endangered species list because of the loss of their natural habitat caused by global warming. However, researchers that study polar bears say that their populations are going up, not down. A lot of this so-called science is closely related and sometimes plays into each other for political purposes. This is what causes me to be skeptical.

As far as there being twelve snow days home from school when I was a kid, as mentioned by one of the posters, maybe that is because when you were a kid they didn’t have the kind of ice and snow prevention we take for granted these days, including the massive city plows that can clear entire roads with only a few passes. Even two feet of snow fall can be cleared by the following afternoon with the equipment we have now. In fact, I believe the last avalanche in Colorado was cleared in less than two days, and that was on a mountain road. Boy, that snow sure melted fast in this global warming didn’t it?

JD

Posted by: JD at January 15, 2007 11:44 PM
Comment #203480

“We have to deal with greenhouse gases,” John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., said in a recent speech at the National Press Club. “From Shell”s point of view, the debate is over. When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, “Let’s debate the science”?”

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401361.html -

Posted by: phx8 at January 15, 2007 11:53 PM
Comment #203483

JD,
According to the Business Environmental Leadership Council, “We accept the views of most scientists that enough is known about the science and environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions to address its consequences.”

Here is a list of members:
ABB
Air Products
Alcan
Alcoa Inc.
American Electric Power
Bank of America
Baxter International Inc.
The Boeing Company
BP
California Portland Cement
CH2M HILL
Cummins Inc.
Deutsche Telekom
DTE Energy
Duke Energy
DuPont
Entergy
Exelon
GE
Georgia-Pacific
Hewlett-Packard Company
Holcim (US) Inc.
IBM
Intel
Interface Inc.
John Hancock Financial Services
Lockheed Martin
Marsh, Inc.
Novartis
Ontario Power Generation
PG&E Corporation
Rio Tinto
Rohm and Haas
Royal Dutch/Shell
SC Johnson
Sunoco
Toyota
TransAlta
United Technologies
Weyerhaeuser
Whirlpool Corporation
Wisconsin Energy Corporation

www.pewclimate.org/companies_leading_the_way_belc/


Posted by: phx8 at January 16, 2007 12:09 AM
Comment #203484

Thanks guys for a great discussion about climate change. I am firmly convinced that this is THE issue of the next few years and that it will require all politicians to work together to make a liveable world. This alone will improve the environment. Drive this agenda and make it the #1 issue. I’ve not seen Gore’s movie, nor read his book .. in fact, I’m not going to. I just know that where I live at 44.23 degrees latitude and no snow until Jan 15 this year, something’s wrong .. and I think it’s us. We need to get on with a better plan. As I understand it, it normally would have taken thousands of years to change the climate that we are actually going to change in the next 60 years, following the CO2 emission trend we are on, if we don’t act now. (This is from the ice core readings.) The doubters on this thread must have children that they would like to leave some stability to. The new businesses that are going to crop up along with the technology are going to be amazing, not to mention the health benefits. It can be done, if this agenda is pushed now. If humans can put a man on the moon, they can solve this; it’s a no brainer. Thanks for the OTEC and LED info.

Posted by: D.J. Allen at January 16, 2007 12:15 AM
Comment #203489
I’ve not seen Gore’s movie, nor read his book .. in fact, I’m not going to.

You can see it free online:
http://movies.peekvid.com/s4055/e53701/

Or, these people will actually buy it for you:
http://sharethetruth.us/free

It doesn’t get much better than that. See the movie. Honestly, I am not partisan about this, I would really like everyone to see the movie. What do you have to lose?

There’s also Ebert’s review:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/REVIEWS/60517002

Quote:

Forget he ever ran for office. Consider him a concerned man speaking out on the approaching crisis. “There is no controversy about these facts,” he says in the film. “Out of 925 recent articles in peer-review scientific journals about global warming, there was no disagreement. Zero.”

Am I acting as an advocate in this review? Yes, I am. I believe that to be “impartial” and “balanced” on global warming means one must take a position like Gore’s. There is no other view that can be defended.

Posted by: Max at January 16, 2007 2:08 AM
Comment #203492

Hooo-boy,no wonder we need to import scientists.

Posted by: gergle at January 16, 2007 4:15 AM
Comment #203495

The Hubris of governments and scientists alike, is not recognizing the root cause of the famines, crime, poverty, human contributed global climate change, and buildups of toxins in nearly every waterway in the world. Population!

Nature has many ways to feeback on overpopulations, including that of humans. Successful species and the unwillingness to deny itself anything, are all that is needed to force nature to reduce their numbers.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 16, 2007 6:30 AM
Comment #203499
To make a point, I believe I read somewhere about the suggestion that polar bears be added to the endangered species list because of the loss of their natural habitat caused by global warming. However, researchers that study polar bears say that their populations are going up, not down. A lot of this so-called science is closely related and sometimes plays into each other for political purposes. This is what causes me to be skeptical.

It seems that your skepticism is caused by inaccurate numbers. The populations are not going up.

The best longitudinal information on the effect of global warming on polar bears comes from the western coast of Hudson Bay, in the Canadian province of Manitoba. It shows a 17 percent decline in the polar bear population in the past 10 years, from 1,200 to fewer than 1,000.
Having lost this critical hunting opportunity, polar bears in western Hudson Bay weigh about 15 percent less (about 150 pounds less for an adult male) than they did 30 years ago, Stirling said.[Source]
the western Hudson Bay’s polar bear population has dropped by 22 per cent and the southern Beaufort Sea’s by 17 per cent.[Source]
Posted by: LawnBoy at January 16, 2007 8:48 AM
Comment #203500

jlw,

Dedicating resources is a good idea, since we seem to be headed towards resource wars, but the outcome depends on our time in history. If we were at the begining of the 19th century when we started the moon mission, it would’ve taken a while to develope the technology. Kennedy already knew flight to the moon was feasible. V2 rockets and transistors helped steer the path.

A Fusion reactor would provide us with all the energy we need, with benign by-products, if we could only contain it.

Solar energy and wind energy can’t produce enough power to sustain our current economy, Even if we build a lot of them. If everyone went to individual power sources many places would be uninhabitable and Air conditioning would probably have to be sacrificed as well as some refrigeration. Heating would be dificult without fossil fuels or wood in some areas. Then there are the battery waste issues. By the way, water is the next resource problem for a burgeoning U.S. population.

My point is, that there may be some new technology come along to help us out, but that makes the assumption that science can do anything we set our minds to. Mother Nature isn’t always so cooperative.

Posted by: gergle at January 16, 2007 8:55 AM
Comment #203502
You have no idea what I know. So go trying the elitist approach on somebody else until they are more brusk with you than I.

Please, tomh, tell us what you know, then.
Because, so far, you told us what you think.

Which is different. As in factual vs opinion.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 16, 2007 9:16 AM
Comment #203505

What I don’t understand, beyond the obvious selfish amoral issues of business profits and political influence, is why anyone is still arguing against (and buying into) the clearly supported fact that global climate change is being significantly influenced by human activities. Can someone explain what is so devistating about recognizing such a straight forward fact that drives people to become intentionally ignorant?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 16, 2007 9:41 AM
Comment #203507

Dave1, try the 15.8 million dollars spent by Exxon alone on research and advertising designed specifically to contradict the entire notion of fossil fuels contributing to global climate change. That buys a lot of audience attention. Then add in the other oil companies joining in the effort.

A lot of this money funded research programs with an agenda favorable to Exxon. A massive disinformation campaign designed to confuse and obfuscate not only the public, but most especially, Congress itself by giving the GOP so called “research” to fend off regulations injurious to Exxon and its customer’s profits.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 16, 2007 10:41 AM
Comment #203513

“An Inconvenient Truth”
can only lead to
“The Coming Global Superstorm”

Posted by: kctim at January 16, 2007 11:18 AM
Comment #203516

David,

Yes, I agree that “the obvious selfish amoral issues of business profits and political influence” are producing the non-science. What I’m more curious about is why/what do those convinced by that crap feel threatened by the real science. Is this the ogre of christian fundamentalism and the ‘world is for our use’ rationalization; is it an ‘I’m a conservative and those freakin lib-holes can’t be right about anything’; a combination; or is there something more complex? I’m looking for opininon or peer reviewd studies, both are fine. My opinion: A combination of religious self-righteousness and a bad education.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 16, 2007 11:43 AM
Comment #203518

Solar energy and wind energy can’t produce enough power to sustain our current economy, Even if we build a lot of them.

And you base this on what information? There are vast tracks on vacant land throughout the United States, particularly in the sunny Western US that can support HUGE numbers of solar panels. Wind farms do not even have to be placed on land at all, which opens up even a lot more places suitable for generating wind energy.

Do solar and wind have to replace all the coal, oil and natural gas we use? Of course not. But they can produce huge amounts of usable energy if we only choose to make the investments.

What is true is that the economics of wind and solar are not competitive because the infrastructure for gas, oil and coal are already there. But that is changing as more wind and solar are made, and as technology improves.

Posted by: bobo at January 16, 2007 11:49 AM
Comment #203519

Global warming isn’t the only major environmental concern. Polution is serious. Tests show we all have higher levels of all sorts of chemicals. Eating too much fish may be hazardous (due to Mercury). Clean water is hard to find. Our oceans are being severely over-fished, the entire region around Chernobyl is uninhabitable, and at the rate arable land is disappearing, it will be gone in 301 years (which does not even include any increases in the current world population of 6.63 billion people).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 16, 2007 12:03 PM
Comment #203521

What is the connection between creationism and global warming? Does this imply that you are anti-God if you are concerned about global warming?

Posted by: Tom at January 16, 2007 12:41 PM
Comment #203522

Tom,

The only argument I’ve heard (don’t remember the source - I think it was a politician) is that God wouldn’t want us to destroy the earth, so he wouldn’t let it happen. Therefore, any claims about humans destroying the earth are contrary to what we “know” about God. Also, in Genesis we are told that God gave us the earth to do with as we see fit - it’s not ok for liberals and atheistic scientists to take that gift away.

It doesn’t make sense to me, but then again I don’t believe it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 16, 2007 12:49 PM
Comment #203528

Tom
The connection was made because some people do not believe you can be a creationist AND still be openminded.

And, as with most issues, people like to use the extremes to try and make their point.
Even though the author herself said it was a “big important issue” and that she was going to be unbiased when coming to her own opinion, people could not get past her saying she believed in creationism.

People having their own opinion is scary to some people, especially when it differs from theirs.

Posted by: kctim at January 16, 2007 1:37 PM
Comment #203536

The New York Times has an article today about how the warmer globe is changing the geography of Greenland; mountains that were thought to be connected to the mainland are now known to be free-standing islands because miles of ice has melted around them.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 16, 2007 2:15 PM
Comment #203539

Scary stuff LawnBoy. But that’s OK, there is no Global Warming, so why worry?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 16, 2007 2:31 PM
Comment #203541

Lawnboy,

“The only argument I’ve heard (don’t remember the source - I think it was a politician) is that God wouldn’t want us to destroy the earth, so he wouldn’t let it happen.”

Seriously? Some one had the nerve to say that?

I am going to stand up for my church and say that who ever said that or anyone else who would suggest a ‘test of God’s existance’ are blasphemous.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 16, 2007 2:34 PM
Comment #203543

Bryan,

The second part of my explanation is seen in comment #21 of this blog post. Of course, it could be sarcastic or a troll.

For the first part, the closest I can find now is from the famous Senator Inhofe, although he doesn’t come out and say quite what I said. Perhaps I’m thinking of another quote, or perhaps I filled in the rest in my own head; I don’t know.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 16, 2007 2:44 PM
Comment #203556

The fact is, nobody can prove it either way, but ignoring the possibility that humans are adversely affecting their environment is the more foolish of the two.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 16, 2007 3:31 PM
Comment #203557

Darwinism and creationism are simple words designed to look flashy in the news and polarize a complicated issue. I have been to the Galapagos Islands and sure enough there are some similarities and differences between the inhabitants of the different islands. I have also read the Old Testament front to back. There are some curious things in there too. Until one has familiarized oneself with the religious aspect of this debate, which only exists because we are told to choose between two sides, and the scientific aspect, one has no business critisizing other’s opinions when one has hardly settled on one’s own.

Posted by: Alastor's Heaven at January 16, 2007 3:32 PM
Comment #203559

Alastor,

“one has no business critisizing other’s opinions when one has hardly settled on one’s own.”

I strongly agree, you can dispute a belief that you do not understand.

“Darwinism and creationism are simple words designed to look flashy in the news and polarize a complicated issue.”

The words themselves are manufactured. The ideas behind them are honest beliefs that are supported strongly by those who believe in them.

I think I am going to manufacture a word for my belief that science is the direct word of God manifested into reality. Infinite knowledge would know what it created and would create in retrospect to the curiousity of its creation.

Besides the whole arguement that God created everything except science is hypocritical.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 16, 2007 3:45 PM
Comment #203560
Darwinism and creationism are simple words designed to look flashy in the news and polarize a complicated issue… . one has no business critisizing other’s opinions when one has hardly settled on one’s own.
HHhhhmmmmm m m m … that soulds polarizing. Posted by: d.a.n at January 16, 2007 3:54 PM
Comment #203561

Bryan AJ Kennedy-
Common ancestors. Evolution is a never ending marathon that all species run, not a relay race where one species succeeds another. We share a common ancestor with every creature on earth. Some, though, are closer cousins than others. Chimps are just about the closest.

In terms of ozone, it doesn’t quite work that way. The ozone depletion is real. While what you say may affect generation of it in the atmosphere, other effects go into the chemical reactions and the atmospheric circulation that causes the depletion.

As for the whole cycle of desertification and ice, the question neglected is why. According to what I’ve seen, if it weren’t for our influnence, we’d be heading into a cooling trend, not warming.

The real problem is that people confuse the tentative theory accepting brand of uncertainty that science has with the faith-based uncertainty of religion. people did not come to hold Global warming as true because it was the dogma of the science, they did so because the theory stood up to all kinds of tests, and was modified where necessary to agree with observed results.

Another layer of the uncertainty lies in the impossibility to know enough to predict the precise chain of events. Climate and weather are sensitively dependent on initial conditions. Theoretically, if you knew enough, you could predict everything. Weather systems are determinant. Unfortunately, though, as these models are iterated (run through the equation) again and again, the shortfalls on observation and even the errors introduced by the measuring equipment create divergences in the prediction that get worse as time in the equation is moved forward- the Butterfly effect, so named for the fact that a difference in the conditions no greater than the flap of a butterflies wings could throw the forecast for a month ahead off.

We don’t always know enough to effectively model future events. We do know, however that the models we do have, are correct in the general sense. With emissions like ours, they say, the earth is going to change temperature by at least 5 Degrees Celsius.

Or rather, the average temperatures for the planet will change by that much; you have to factor in that local temperatures will vary greatly from that Local areas may even end up cooler. On the whole, though, a rise in temperature of that magnitude is important.

Think of it in terms of margins. As average temperatures rise, the parts of the ocean that can feed Hurricanes expand, while the areas where glaciers and permafrost remain permanent shrinks. Every degree rise means there’s some area on the globe that no longer maintains a year long temperature below freezing.

Rising temperatures will not be a simple affair, because the heat in the air both powers storms and creates their absence, as dry continental air and wet maritime masses alternatively affect things. More to the point, as the temperatures rise, the conflict between cold and heat in the earth’s atmosphere becomes more profound, especially during winter. Result? Paradoxically, one could see worse winter storm, due to the stronger difference in temperatures and the greater moisture in the air.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 16, 2007 4:00 PM
Comment #203562

JD said:
“Thanks for the tip on cyanobacteria! I’ll try to stay away from it.”

I wouldn’t try too hard since they produce most of the oxygen you breath, live in your intestines, and produce things you need like Vitamin K.

tomh
Name calling (elitist)? That is your answer to the questions I posed?
You are right I don’t know what you know, but you’re not willing to share the info either. What should I think other than you don’t know? If in your eyes that make me an elitist so be it.

Posted by: 037 at January 16, 2007 4:22 PM
Comment #203565

Stephen,

First, I could never and have never argued that the o-zone is not depleting, I argue that at is it depletes the temperature will go up creating which will cause the enviroment to produce more. Granted at that point the weather will be so extreme that it will unloose mass damage around the world, afore mentioned hurricanes, floods, abnormal quantities of lightning, etc.

If we, as a human race, could survive the changes, I can not say. I am only pointing out that the planet is stronger then we are. It will heal itself over time, with or with out humans present to witness it.

The fact that you bring up the extreme summers bringing about extreme winters is very interesting. This moerning I came to work to see that some one had left me a copy of a thesis done by a UoW student researching just that.

She came up with the same conclusion. That does make a lot of sense. In WA historically the weather hasn’t been warmer or colder. It has been consistent annually. Low in the 40s highs in the 80s. This year we made record highs in the high 90s and are on our way to record lows

Overall after having read all the comments and all of the links supporting them, I agree that global warming is an issue. I still believe in desertization, but the amount of warming at the earth’s surface is twice what any nutural change could explain.

I think we are causing the enviroment to change too quickly and such results could very well be catastrophic.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 16, 2007 4:35 PM
Comment #203567

kctim
“People having their own opinion is scary to some people, especially when it differs from theirs.”

That is not what is scary. People are free to believe what ever they want regardless of the evidence. What does scare me is people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Because the old testement has some things that if taken literally could be justification for some awful things. Slavery for one.
Also, creationists tend to want to insert their religious views into the public School science classroom. Dover PA and Kansas are good examples.

Why can’t people be content to call science science and religion religion and recognize that each has limitations when it comes to explaining reality?

Before I go let me stir the pot a bit.
Fundamentalist Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam have something in common. Can you guess what it is?

Posted by: 037 at January 16, 2007 4:49 PM
Comment #203569

“Fundamentalist Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam have something in common. Can you guess what it is?”

Nope.
But I do know what they do not have in common.

Posted by: kctim at January 16, 2007 4:53 PM
Comment #203570

Bryan AJ Kennedy
I don’t know of anybody who is blaming global warming on ozone depletion. If you google “evidence for global warming” and check the site you can get an idea of why people think the earth is getting warmer.

Posted by: 037 at January 16, 2007 4:53 PM
Comment #203572

I though OBama got it right when he said that if we see a man killing his son on a mountain, we probably want that man arrested, even if he says God told him to do it. You can’t use the Bible literally as a playbook for constructing societal rules.

Some links:

One, you can watch Al Gore’s movie for free online.
http://movies.peekvid.com/s4055/e53701/

Or, these folks will buy you the DVD, free.
http://sharethetruth.us/free

Roger Eberts amazing review of the movie:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/REVIEWS/60517002

Posted by: Max at January 16, 2007 5:21 PM
Comment #203575

“Fundamentalist Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam have something in common. Can you guess what it is?” 037

That’s easy! They are both hated by someone or another.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2007 5:41 PM
Comment #203576

“Its better to be hated than ignored”
~Hunter S. Thomson

Posted by: 037 at January 16, 2007 6:01 PM
Comment #203588

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
For nation shall rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be FAMINES, and PESTILENCEs, and EARTHQUAKES, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.
Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and hate one another.
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. Matthew 24:6-13

Perhaps this explains the patterns we are seeing just as easily as the theory of global warming.

Perhaps, it is not man that controls the weather, the earth, and all those within it, but rather someone greater.

Men will turn to theories of science, but refuse the prophecies of old. Yet, so-called learned men will marvel at the philosophers like Socrates who claimed also to foresee the future. But, they will attempt to discredit and ridicule those who have any desire to believe in religion.

Those who believe in science say they believe in fact and truth. Yet, there is also great truth in much of religion.

Believe what you wish. But, perhaps religion and science are not that far apart.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2007 6:50 PM
Comment #203592

“Perhaps this explains the patterns we are seeing just as easily as the theory of global warming.”

could be…could be gremlins too

Posted by: 037 at January 16, 2007 7:03 PM
Comment #203593

“God gave us the ability to reason and to think logically. I bet he intended us to use them.
~ 037 1/16/07

Posted by: 037 at January 16, 2007 7:06 PM
Comment #203595

A marriage shall be considered valid if and only if the bride was a virgin at the time of the marriage ceremony. If the wife was not a virgin, she must be put to death. (Deuteronomy 22:13)

Posted by: 037 at January 16, 2007 7:08 PM
Comment #203600

Nice scripture, 037!

Just think if every young virgin knew this was the consequence, we would have a lot fewer unwed mothers and illegitimate kids. However, you kind of perverted the scripture there. It actually reads that if any man find his wife to not be a virgin and takes issue about it, then a public investigation would be held. If the wife was a virgin, the man would be beaten for lying and would have to pay the father dearly for shaming the woman. However, if the woman were not a virgin she would indeed be stoned. This law was obviously intended to keep yuoung women chaste.

At one time marriage was considered to be a sacred thing not just in ancient Israel, but in America as well. Virginity used to be something that was a badge of honor to a woman’s husband. Today, you are right, it is difficult for a man to find any that have not slept around.

One might wonder which is worse? However, my thought is, what man who loves a woman enough to marry her is going to publicly humiliate her and her family the day after the wedding, and have her stoned? I say it is highly unlikely.

Kind of off subject though, isn’t it, 037?

JD

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2007 8:05 PM
Comment #203602

And where is the similar rule that applies to men? Kind of makes me think the scriptures were written by men to keep women in line not a loving and just God. But yes it is off subject. I will drop it.

Posted by: 037 at January 16, 2007 8:10 PM
Comment #203603

Bryan AJ Kennedy-
It’s a balancing act with the ozone: is the depletion occuring faster than the replacement. Now, yes, warmer weather could produce more ozone, but it could also speed up reactions degrading it. As with other atmospheric phenomena, there is always the issue of feedback loops. One of the reason we see a hole over the Antarctic is the way the air currents trap the offending chemicals over it.

JD-
I don’t think he was describing the end times. I think he was saying that people are apt to constantly see the end times in the disasters and conflicts of their day, and that the important thing was to have faith in God, because regardless of what happened, he would be a source of goodness and salvation. We have no control over or knowledge of when the end times will occur, or even their precise nature.

We are told it will come like a thief in the night, that we will not know the hour or the day. I doubt we will even know that the end times are beginning when they are.

It’s presumptuous to me to keep on setting dates or working out vast schemes as to how things will go. If you want to believe God wants us to do that, go ahead, but in my mind it’s very much beside the point of what he actually asks us to do. If the endtimes truly come, we will be powerless to stop them. The will be no saving the world. However, what could really get us, in the meantime, is acting like we know the hour and the day, doing some rather rash things with that in mind, or being passive in the face of disasters or environmental problems, because we believe it doesn’t matter, and then the end not coming.

Worse yet, many parables talk about taking responsibility, of acting responsible in the absence of God’s direct supervision and guidance. Will he not look at our greed, our carelessness, and our other excesses, and judge them like the employers in the gospels judge the servants who mistreat others and treat the possessions of the Lord poorly?

We should care for the Earth as we would care for any of God’s gifts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 16, 2007 8:13 PM
Comment #203605

Stephen Daugherty,

Well said, indeed. For once we agree! I was beginning to wonder if that were possible. (Just kidding) Perhaps, we have found a common ground.

However, let’s not go overboard as sometimes it appears that some worship the Earth and creation, rather than the Creator. I am sure that even in the midst of Katrina, some reached out to Him and found peace. I am all for being responsible, but let’s not blame man for some things which may very well be beyond his control. Man is not the high authority who causes and prevents everything. I prefer humility, knowing that our lives are just a vapor. Therefore, let’s be as responsible as we can in “all” our ways!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2007 8:28 PM
Comment #203611

JD-
I agree that the Earth does not deserve worship, but here’s what I do think: Science has given us power to affect things beyond what we were once capable of. I think Jared Diamond, in Collapse did a very good job of debunking the myth that cultures of ancient times were in balance with their environments. Very often, they were not. They were just less able to overwhelm their environment.

We have some power now, that only nature or God could wield, but we don’t have nature’s utter lack of purpose, or God’s perfect wisdom. Unlike nature, therefore, we can get things wrong. Nature needs no right or wrong, it just exists. Unlike God, we do not have an unlimited understanding of the consequences of what we do.

Arguments like yours have in the past been used to excuse an approach that ignores the consequences of actions, because only God can get things perfectly right. However, the curse of intelligence, of having knowledge like (though not identical) to God’s is that we need knowledge and wisdom to get by, that we need to seek out information and understanding in a way that God never has.

We’re like sharks in a way, only instead of having to continuously swim in order to keep breathing, we are forced to continuously learn and figure things out to keep on going.

Science is a part of that. Now some have misinterpreted the power that science has given us to signal man’s rise to divinity, but as we have all seen, man remains fallible, despite all that. That insight is a major part of why I am religious. The curse of science is just like that of its greater curse: we must move forward continuously, we must keep learning, if not about the principles of things, which can be learned conclusively enough in part, then about the nature of what’s going on.

In fact, at our advance state of technology, and our not-so-advanced state of learning how to live with that technology, that may be the primary lesson that we as a culture need to learn.

Our Carbon Emissions are something we can learn to help. But more importantly, we can also help the attitude of scientific misunderstanding, that has us casting ourselves as either victims of the unknown needing to acquire greater power, or near-divine creatures who can do no wrong with science and technology. The new wisdom must accept and honor the principles of science in order to counter these excesses, for in science we find some of the keys to moderation, to humility in the face of the universe’s complexity and diversity.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 16, 2007 9:05 PM
Comment #203621

Stephen Daugherty: Well said

JD: Thanks for the conversation. While I don’t agree with the perspective, I appreciate your sincerity.

Posted by: 037 at January 16, 2007 9:50 PM
Comment #203622

Well said once again! But, science without morality is just the learning of how to commit the immoral. To adhere only to science for the sake of scientific truth leads one down the path of immorality in many cases. This is the point that I was trying to make, and one in which I believe you “somewhat” implied.
I have no problem with reducing pollution and contaminants, but let’s not blow them out of proportion. I believe it is better to work on the moral character of man within than to worry incessantly about his environment without.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2007 9:50 PM
Comment #203635

“Fundamentalist Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam have something in common. Can you guess what it is?”
They both are to be feared by all rational thinking people. And both will kill in the name of their god.

tomh — you copped out on answering the question I noticed.
The Savage

The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me here are mine alone.
As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.

Posted by: TheSavage at January 16, 2007 10:58 PM
Comment #203643

JD-
What I’m saying is something more like this: science is a map of the landscape, showing you the peaks and the valleys, the character of the reality. Religious and moral studies are a different kind of guidance, something akin to a woodsman’s knowledge of where to find the food, the game, the other things.

The implications of all that we have learned is that we need to explore and update our wisdom to suit the changed terrain that science and technology have given us. We have to relearn the old morality, because our older expressions of it were tied to a landscape of much different character. I think many of religious struggles in the last century and this one as well stem from that change in the character of things. New wine must be put in new wineskins.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 16, 2007 11:51 PM
Comment #203675

JD,

“I have no problem with reducing pollution and contaminants, but let’s not blow them out of proportion. I believe it is better to work on the moral character of man within than to worry incessantly about his environment without.”

Whether or not humankind’s time here is limited by events foretold in the Bible isn’t the point.

The moral character of man is the cause of the state of his environment.
We, mankind, are the only recognizably sentient beings on this planet, and thus, the only beings capable of effecting the changes necessary to remain in existence here until the “whatever” happens.

Virtually every pestilence can be traced to man and his effect on his own environment, whether it be because of his greed, or his ignorance.
We, here at the top of the food chain, through our own negligence, effect every other species on this planet. Our lifestyles are the cause of the chemicals in the water supply, and in the air every species breathes.

Frankly, I’m not interested in living in a cave, or a lean-to in the forest. I enjoy running water and flushing toilets.
Call me decadent.

The question isn’t whether we can destroy this planet.

The questions are how far do we let this go before we make the planet uninhabitable for humans (and therefore everything else), and what small changes to our lifestyle can we make to assure that doesn’t happen?

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2007 8:36 AM
Comment #203676

Oh, great, a quiz game!

037:

Fundamentalist Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam have something in common. Can you guess what it is?

Believers?

kctim:

Nope.
But I do know what they do not have in common.

Bacon?

Okay guys, who keep scores?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 17, 2007 8:53 AM
Comment #203697

Rocky,

You are right, as to how far do we let this go. However, you are also right about the small changes we can make. Perhaps some day humans will be capable of controlling the weather patterns within our atmosphere, but I doubt it.
Certainly, the United States has more problems than most third world nations regarding pollution, especially in the past before such environmental legislation was passed. I am not saying environmental legislation is a bad thing. But reality is that the U.S. is the leading producer in the world. Just because it is the leading producer in the world, does not make it the evil empire that over-the-top environmentalists seem to want to portray it as. Not only are the people of the United States dependent upon that level of production that we enjoy, but so are most of the rest of the world. When we portray U.S. corporations as simply the filthy polluters, we do a disservice to them. I would venture to guess that the U.S. and its corporations have done more to solve soil loss and the dust bowl effect problems than any other nation in history. I would also venture to guess that the water in the United States is probably just as clean if not cleaner than any in the rest of the industrial world. These same industries that we criticize as someone posted above, are joining to promote and enhance clean air and clean water, less dependency on oil and coal, etc.! However, we should never join or align ourselves with legislation that would put us at a disadvantage politically or industrially to other nations just because they view us as the evil polluters of the world. This is simply appeasement, and does not reflect the best interests of the United States or its people. I still don’t see any other nation helping backward countries develop sound agricultural policies to the extent that the United States does. I also am not aware of any other countries being ahead of the United States in their research and development in environmental areas. Otherwise, as the top producer we would be paying good money for the the technology to clean our air and water further. I just think the U.S. in general is getting the shaft on the way they are being portrayed by other countries that are only doing half as much in these areas. Perhaps, others know more in this area of expertise than I, correct me if I am wrong. But I for one am not going to view the United States as the source of all the world’s problems, when we are doing the most to correct them, in my opinion.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 17, 2007 11:30 AM
Comment #203705

JD-
It’s in our interest to be the innovators on the reduction of pollution. If we simply guard the status quo, we could end up losing our economic advantages trying to save them.

It’s important to think of economies as dynamic. Go look at what happened with Japan’s hybrid technology. When gas prices rose, Hybrids gained demand, and our car companies weren’t in a position to benefit from that. A change in technology could gut anyone of our industries, or at least deprive us of revenue to the extent that we’re not part of it.

It’s not unsurprising that among the many critics of Global Warming science are the Middle East countries with big interest in oil. However, given what’s happening with oil, we could end up seeing their fortunes take a nose dive if they do not find some industry to replace it. They can fight change now, but sooner or later, the world will pass them by, and their citizens will suffer for that.

We need to approach the future with more foresight, and less selfish shortsightedness. I have no interest as a participant in the American economy, of seeing its fortunes decrease. However, what we will to be so, what we desire, cannot prevent events from exacting some cost. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. We may very well have to sacrifice something now to get something later. If we go on trying to maintain perfect growth, trying to avoid all potential economic sacrifices, avoiding the resolution of problems that require such investment, we may just end up causing problems that consume our wealth and economic pre-eminence the way that the thin cows in Pharaoh’s dream consumed the fat. It may cost us something to invest in a new direction for our country, but avoiding disaster is worth the cost.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 17, 2007 12:26 PM
Comment #203708

JD,

However, we should never join or align ourselves with legislation that would put us at a disadvantage politically or industrially to other nations just because they view us as the evil polluters of the world.

Not “Evil”. “Largest” is far enough to get most of the focus on you.
And, so far, even the US acknowledge being the largest world polluter. It’s not *others* nations’s view. It’s world view.

This is simply appeasement, and does not reflect the best interests of the United States or its people.

But does reflect the best interests of the world or its people… United States included.

I just think the U.S. in general is getting the shaft on the way they are being portrayed by other countries that are only doing half as much in these areas.

Many nations actually achieve a better GDP per CO2 emission ratio than the US.

Sure, you’re the top producer. But if your country was producing equally than, let’s say, Switzerland, the US will emit 5 times more CO2 than Switzerland to produce exactly the same.

Oh, BTW, the top ten are all industrial nations, all from Europe but one (Hong Kong).

Meanwhile, US ranks 39. Check it if you don’t believe me.

At least you’re in the green side: better than the world figure (ranked between 46 and 47).

But I for one am not going to view the United States as the source of all the world’s problems, when we are doing the most to correct them, in my opinion.

Again, not “all”. Just “25%”, for CO2, of the world’s problems. China will eventually topple the US soon enough, sadly.

But, as shown above, your country does NOT do the most to correct this issue. By luck, the US is the best nation on earth to face it and solve it quicker than anyone, being both the most innovating and wealthiest of all. It will also gave a big economic and technologic advantage for years if not decades over the rest of nations facing their own polution issues.

It just need americans will…

Does they have it?
I doubt it. Sadly.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 17, 2007 12:43 PM
Comment #203738

JD,

“I would also venture to guess that the water in the United States is probably just as clean if not cleaner than any in the rest of the industrial world.”

I have been to a few countries in the industrialized world, and this is hardly a glowing recommendation.
I have been drinking and cooking with bottled water for quite some time, as the water table in my area of Phoenix has been polluted by Motorola and Honeywell etc.
Yeah, they paid the fine, and promised to never do it again, but once you hear about it and see the evidence for yourself, it’s hard to imagine going back to the way things once were.
I find it hard to trust the water supply out of the tap, in just about any major city in America anymore.
There are those that will laugh at the expense of bottled water, but knowing where the water came from and the peace of mind that comes with it alone is worth it.

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2007 3:39 PM
Comment #203760

Bobo and jlw,

While I’m not an expert on this subject, I have done some reading on it. It seems to me a great dream, but much more difficult reality.

From a simple physics side, the energy production from solar and wind is much lower than oil. A spaced based solar system sounds great if you can explain how you transfer energy back to the ground. There is no technology for this idea, it may make great science fiction, but is not realistic.

The problems of maintaining/replacing solar cells, their intermittent nature and reduced productivity in poor weather and winter months and night time, along with the enormous problem of waste from battery storage of energy or rebuilding a grid to shift power production world wide are enormous.

I can hear the debate now about relinquishing huge tracts of land for solar and wind farms to supply energy needs. If I covered my property with solar cells and wind generators, I probably couldn’t meet all my energy needs without greatly reducing my energy use. (I live on an urban lot of less than a 1/4 acre.) What about cities and industrial needs? Not to mention the enviromental impact.

It has taken over 2 centuries to develope the infrastructure we now have. We would have to redevelop everything. I think this could be accomplished, but over a long time and combining these resources.

I am not opposed to expanding the use of these energy sources for private and rural use. I just don’t think they are practical, as they exist, for urban or industrial use, or replacing all the uses of oil. It isn’t just a cost issue, but survival of our economy.

Posted by: gergle at January 17, 2007 7:38 PM
Comment #203771

gergle,

You might find this link interesting.

http://www.palmsprings.com/services/wind.html

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2007 8:33 PM
Comment #203809

Rocky,

Thanks for the link. Wind energy is much more competitive with the cost of current electricity production than solar energy. The drawbacks are still the same though, land use, intermittant production and storage of energy.

I think the answer lies in mixing sources, including nuclear.

Posted by: gergle at January 18, 2007 6:46 AM
Comment #203814

gergle,

I wish I had a link to it, but an article I read recently stated that scale needed to “go solar” was this: solar panels (using current technology) would only need to cover 11% of the state of Nevada to provide electric power to every home in the US. Expensive? Yes. “huge tracts of land?” Yes, but not as huge as we might imagine. We have larger tracts of land dedicated to pumping oil.

Posted by: bobo at January 18, 2007 8:29 AM
Comment #203818

bobo
Nevada is 109825 square miles, 11% is 12080 square miles. With 27878400 square feet per square mile that works out to 336,797,980,800 square feet of solar panel. I think 3.4 billion square feet is too “huge” to even remotely consider, but a few millions would go a long way.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 18, 2007 10:19 AM
Comment #203826

I personally think that solar might work as a supplement, but not as a primary source of power.
I think that wind has greater potential, as a primary source, because wind generators can be placed in any area where the wind speed is consistently 13 mph or more.
The wind blows even on cloudy days, and, though I could be wrong on this, I believe wind is capable of generating more kw per square foot.

Posted by: Rocky at January 18, 2007 11:12 AM
Comment #203835

Dave,

We dedicate more land to grow the plants to feed cattle, or raise the cattle, or, as I said earlier, drill for oil (which helps gets the cattle to the supermarket).

I don’t know by what logic you assert that 3.4 billion square feet is not too huge for putting beef on a supermarket shelf, but is too huge to operate the cooling that keeps the beef from spoiling when it is on the shelf.

Posted by: bobo at January 18, 2007 12:17 PM
Comment #203836

Rocky,

We don’t have a “primary” source of power today. It’s not an either/or decision. Electricity today is generated primarily by oil, coal, gas and nuclear. Let’s just start adding more and more solar and wind to the mix.

Posted by: bobo at January 18, 2007 12:20 PM
Comment #203840

bobo,

I don’t know if you noticed, but I said “a” primary source, not “the” primary source.

Posted by: Rocky at January 18, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #203843

Rocky,

Fair point. But the USA needs to work towards making solar and wind “a” primary source, and oil, coal and gas no longer “a” primary source.

Posted by: bobo at January 18, 2007 1:21 PM
Comment #203849

bobo,

“But the USA needs to work towards making solar and wind “a” primary source, and oil, coal and gas no longer “a” primary source.

I sincerely hope you’re not holding your breath. There is far too much money invested in those “other” technologies for America to change anytime soon.

We all need to work toward conservation, as that will save money for each and every one of us in the short term. We should also be pushing for alternative fuels for cars and trucks. Hybrids are only a good first step.
America will only be truly secure when we are energy independent.

Posted by: Rocky at January 18, 2007 1:53 PM
Comment #203850

bobo,

There is no correlation between 12080 square miles of grass and walking dinners to 12080 square miles of high tech chemicals, wiring, switching transformers, distribution networks, etc… and the complete destruction of an ecology.
Do you have an idea as to how much material and manfuacturing and maintenance it would take to produce that many solar panels and keep them value added?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 18, 2007 1:55 PM
Comment #203854

Rocky,

Holding my breath? No. Trying to get it on the radar screen? Yes. Nuclear went from zero to a big chuck of the power pie in a couple of decades. So can wind and solar.

Posted by: bobo at January 18, 2007 2:14 PM
Comment #203855

Dave,

You’re telling me that you are worried about the “complete destruction of an ecology” caused by a solar or wind farm?

Try to remember that we are supporting solar and wind as alternatives to fossil fuels because the C02 from the fossil fuels is destroying our entire environment.

Posted by: bobo at January 18, 2007 2:21 PM
Comment #203867

bobo,

That’s the only thing you read? I’ll delete that line item, now if you would respond to the rest…

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 18, 2007 4:12 PM
Comment #203875

bobo,

Just to give you an idea of how large an area you are talking about.

Riverside County is one of the largest counties in the United States. It has a total area of 7,303 square miles. It’s 180 miles east to west.

That’s only about 60% of the 12080 square miles that was suggested.

“Try to remember that we are supporting solar and wind as alternatives to fossil fuels because the C02 from the fossil fuels is destroying our entire environment.”

What exactly is the difference whether fossil fuels destroy the environment, or we do trying to change our supply of power?

You don’t seem to have any concern for the flora or fauna, or that most Nevada is above 3,000 feet. The temperatures vary wildly, I got caught in a serious snow storm on US 95 in central Nevada the second week in October 3 years ago.

We need serious people to put serious thought into our energy needs.
We need to balance the costs, including service costs (which will be massive), against the damage we will do to the environment we are trying to save.

Posted by: Rocky at January 18, 2007 5:41 PM
Comment #203882

excuse me fro repeating myself but I think this is worth a repost


Jack I have no fear of nuclear power. In fact I have worked in 3 nuclear plants. But I don’t agree with this statement. Hydrogen through Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) is a viable alternative. Infact it was being researched by several companies when the government in California was going to make use of alternative fuel mandatory. (I don’t quite remember at what level). But the point is the government can provide economic incentives through regulation not just by getting rid of regulations.


check out the technology and related industries here:
http://www.ocees.com/main2.html

we already have a huge natural solar collector

Posted by: 037 at January 18, 2007 6:22 PM
Comment #203930

Thanks to all for the information provided here. I know I’ve learned some things.

Posted by: gergle at January 19, 2007 4:20 AM
Comment #203946

Dave,

The problem with trying to communicate this way is it is difficult to keep the discussion focused. I only addressed your first point because I see it as the heart of your argument. Sure, I could have addressed everything, but we know what happens then: people just cherry pick what they see as the weakest link in the argument. And the main point is lost.

Global Climate change is upsetting our entire environment: land, air, and water. Those consequences will have a far worse impact to us than building solar and wind farms. Do you agree? I hope so. If not, let’s stop right there and address that point.

Because there’s no point in discussion the concerns with how much land is needed to develop solar and wind farms to generate electricity on a large scale if you don’t even think we need to start moving away from fossil fuels.

Posted by: bobo at January 19, 2007 9:13 AM
Comment #203951


What exactly is the difference whether fossil fuels destroy the environment, or we do trying to change our supply of power? You don’t seem to have any concern for the flora or fauna … .We need serious people to put serious thought into our energy needs. We need to balance the costs, including service costs (which will be massive), against the damage we will do to the environment we are trying to save.

Rocky,

I’m glad to read you are concerned about environmental damage. Here’s a fact: all “civilized” human activity affects the environment: building roads and homes, pumping oil, mining, using fertilizers, etc. etc. So no matter what we do — there will be negative consequences.

I am not advocating putting a solar farm across 11% of Nevada. But I am pointing out that the entire country will not have to be covered by solar panels to meet our needs. I don’t have the numbers, but I bet if you add up all the power plants, mines, oil fields, refineries, pipelines etc. that it takes to get fossil fuels from the ground and turn it into electricity that we use in our homes, it takes up a lot of real estate as well and does considerable damage to the environment as well.

Unlike solar, the current system system affect air and water as well (remember Exxon Valdez?). Nobody wants these in their backyard, but they have to go somewhere if we expect to use electricity.

The point about a solar farm is that we have all the land and technology and money we need to do it. What we do not have is the political will.

Posted by: bobo at January 19, 2007 9:28 AM
Comment #203964

The amount of energy locked up in a gallon of oil is tremendous. As long as the world can stick a pipe in the ground and the stuff comes gushing out by the thousands of barrels full, we are going to use that energy.

A major part of the problem is that the real environmental cause has been hijacked by the left and they are preventing fixes in order to push their social and political agenda.

For instance, we could presently get the bulk of our energy from nuclear power and the bulk of our cars could be powered by electricity provided by nuclear power. The waste could be reused and what can’t ultimately be reused could be buried at an EXTREMELY safe nuclear storage site we have already built.

Environmentalists denied the US that fix for decades and allowed the pollution of our atmosphere to thus continue because they have made ZERO NUKES a cornerstone of their POLITICAL belief system. They sacrificed the environment to promote their belief system.

As for pollution, I know of no one that is for it personally, not a single person. Everyone is “against” pollution…even the environmentalists that have made it happen by refusing America the ability to tap nuclear power to clean our air.

As far as man being to blame for the cooling and warming of the globe…bull crap. And most of us know that. Gore thought he would ride environmentalism into the whitehouse but Obama has sucked all the oxygen out of the air and Gore isn’t going anywhere.

Glaciers come and go children….lets quit inventing fake crises and get serious about what really needs to be done. But a part of what needs to be done it to get the radical left wing hands off the controls of the environmental movement.

Posted by: Stephen at January 19, 2007 10:46 AM
Comment #203965

As far as man being to blame for the cooling and warming of the globe…bull crap. And most of us know that.

Stephen,

Before I respond further, can I get a simple yes or no answer to a question? Do you believe the earth is warming and one of the main factors causing it is human activity?

Posted by: bobo at January 19, 2007 10:59 AM
Comment #203970

I believe the earth could very well be warming, but it doesn’t have a whole lot to do with man’s actions.

I read an article in a local newspaper from an environmentalist about the size of an American’s footprint in relation to the amount of earth space he uses. He calculated it to 24 square feet. He claimed that was a seriously large footprint.

He then compared the footprints of those in other countries who tend to live together in huts with groups of ten or more family members. Their footprints came to just a couple of square feet. When environmentalists keep spouting this kind of nonsense that we should go back to living in huts and teepees like the natives used to do to conserve our resources, sorry, it just doesn’t win me over. There is a much broader agenda on the environmentalist left. It is obvious to some.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 19, 2007 11:27 AM
Comment #203971

I believe the earth could very well be warming, but it doesn’t have a whole lot to do with man’s actions.

JD,

I will post these links again:

http://www.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf

As opposed to one newspaper article about one environmentalist, this represents the work of thousands of scientists

When environmentalists keep spouting this kind of nonsense that we should go back to living in huts and teepees like the natives used to do …

Got a citation for that?

Posted by: bobo at January 19, 2007 11:35 AM
Comment #203974

bobo,

“The point about a solar farm is that we have all the land and technology and money we need to do it. What we do not have is the political will.”

You are either missing the point entirely, or willfully ignoring it.
We cannot force companies to develop alternative sources of energy. If it isn’t profitable things aren’t going to change. If the money was there companies would be jumping all over it.
Solar, while cleaner, is not a totally reliable source. While it may be a viable option, on a small scale, right now it is investment intensive, and much more expensive than our current sources of energy, no matter how dirty those sources are.
As far as political will, there are regulations in place (however lame some of them are), that are meant to effect change. Here in Phoenix, for instance, we will never meet the EPA guidelines for particulates, as the dust here is a factor apparently not added into the original equation.

That said, I am all for a change to more environmentally friendly sources of energy.

The problem is that we just cannot pass the hat to make it happen.

Posted by: Rocky at January 19, 2007 11:46 AM
Comment #203976

JD,

“When environmentalists keep spouting this kind of nonsense that we should go back to living in huts and teepees like the natives used to do to conserve our resources, sorry, it just doesn’t win me over.”

Sorry, comments like that are no less absurd than the comments from those you accuse of nonsense.

“There is a much broader agenda on the environmentalist left. It is obvious to some.”

If there is no environmentalist right, there can be no environmentalist right agenda.

Posted by: Rocky at January 19, 2007 12:05 PM
Comment #203984

Rocky,

I’m not missing or ignoring your point. I understand it fully.

Solar and wind can move forward through both private enterprise or government, or a combination of both. YOu seem to be opposed to that, which is your right. But I am not.

You call solar expensive, and that is correct, but it can made more affordable through any number of tax plans, subsidies, or government programs.

Most of the energy produced in the US requires some combination of both. Nuclear would not exist were it not for the Manhattan project — a government endeavor. Much of the oil, gas, and coal we use today has required at least an some level of government investment and subsidies, either directly or indirectly through such things as land grants and the transportation systems. And much of the money we’ve spent in the Middle East on the military wouldn’t have been spent were the countries there not major suppliers of oil to the US.

To argue now, as you seem to do, that solar has to compete entirely in the free market, ignores both the historic role of government in our current energy systems and the damage to the environment that those systems have caused.

Posted by: bobo at January 19, 2007 12:48 PM
Comment #204000

bobo,

Perhaps you will think me obtuse, but I believe that virtually all government support in any type of energy development has had more to do with our war machine than any magnanimous governmental goal toward furthering American commerce.

The Manhattan project had only one goal, that was to develop an atomic weapon before anyone else did.
It wasn’t until after the war (1946) that a thought was given to nuclear power. The development was government owned for security reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Atomic_Energy_Commission

The bottom line is that if the Defence Dept felt it could use solar power for anything other than satellite’s, it would have already been a fully developed technology with the bugs totally worked out, and it probably would be cheaper than oil.

Posted by: Rocky at January 19, 2007 2:38 PM
Comment #204009

Rocky,

Two thoughts:

1. We’ve gone to war over oil two times now in the past 15 years. (I know, you probably disagree with me.)

2. The development of gas, coal, and especially oil in the USA also depended on government to get off the ground. Those were not war related. (Unless you really believe that the interstate highway system was a purely defense project.) Other government support of those industries go way back to land grants for railroads to reach natural resources, drilling rights at far below what the land was worth, etc. We can nitpick about how much of all these were energy-related, but you cannot deny that businesses did not lobby the government to get them done.

Signing off for the rest of the day…

Posted by: bobo at January 19, 2007 3:27 PM
Comment #204266

you are all liberal morons. Global warming is a myth just as evolution is a myth.

Those of you who try to mix christianity/catholicism with evolution are not thinking clearly and not checking the facts and the data.

Al Gore is an overgrown spoiled baby and another liberal elitist with no grasp on reality at all.

As for the atheist “geniuses” here check some facts for a change and stop listening to every moron with a phd.

Posted by: geek at January 21, 2007 3:44 AM
Comment #204268

geek,

What a convincing argument, I’m glad there is no elitism or arrogance in any of your statements.

Posted by: gergle at January 21, 2007 3:57 AM
Comment #204388

“stop listening to every moron with a phd.” Great advice…maybe I’ll follow it after I stop laughing

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 22, 2007 11:18 AM
Comment #205620

geek,

stop listening to every moron with a phd.

Could you tell us which moron we should listen to instead, then.
Thanks.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 29, 2007 12:13 PM
Comment #205621

Whoever moron *without* a PhD, that is…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 29, 2007 12:14 PM
Comment #282011

Global warming is not a myth, the myth is that we are getting warmer than normal. Ice cores from the last 3000 years indicate a global mean average temperature LOWER than today’s average. What this means is that the Earth is warming BACK UP TO NORMAL average temperatures. We have been in a lower than normal mean for most of modern history. Things are in solar cycle variations. And there is more evidence to indicate that CLEANER air over the oceans, less cloud cover over the oceans is allowing more sunlight to warm the oceans. This is a problem because warmer oceans fuel the storm engines, and a warm is thought to have preceded the ice age. So warming up to a normal average is good news. Also recent evidence indicates that ice shelf melting is not happening as fast as thought, or is actually reverse of what was thought with respect to the antarctic. Just google for the evidence.

Posted by: Ramon at May 25, 2009 2:54 PM
Post a comment