Save the earth, shut down NYCity

The earth is in danger. So why do New York City liberals insist on destroying our planet by producing as much pollution as many other countries do?

(NEW YORK) —New York City produces nearly 1 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions — an amount that puts it on par with Ireland or Portugal — according to a city study.

...The study found that the buildings, subways, buses, cars and decomposition of waste in America's most populous city produced a net emission of 58.3 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2005. The report said the city's emissions "are currently as much as those of Ireland or Portugal." ~time.com


So when can we expect those who live in New York to put their money where their mouth is? I expect that by this time next year NY will look like Bejing, with bicycles everywhere. That New Yorkers will stop using their electrical appliances and do without their water heaters and air conditioners, etc. And most importantly, liberals will forego their limosuines and walk!

After all we have less than ten years left before the irreversible apocolypse.

Where's the guilt? I demand an apology.

Unless of course the perveyors of global warming propaganda were to admit that perhaps the variable input of the sun might have something to do with climate change. I find it absolutely bizarre that global warming advocates completely refute any such link whatsoever. It just shows that the issue is more politics than science.

Notice a key phrase in this article titled, "Sunspot activity impacts on crop success."

Periods of low sunspot activity corresponded to peaks in the price of wheat, indicating a lower crop yield. This backs the idea that the solar cycle affects climate and crop yields on Earth, possibly by changing levels of cloud cover.

Now the team has done a similar analysis for wheat prices in the US during the 20th century. They did not expect to see a sunspot connection due to modern technologies that make crops more robust in unfavourable weather, globalised markets and massive economic disruption during two world wars.

But surprisingly, they did find a link between numbers of sunspots and the price of wheat. ~newscientist.com


Sunspots influencing levels of cloud cover? Say it aint so. Surely capitalist and or industrial activity creates these sunspots, no?

What is the consensus?

Another trend scientists have picked up on appears to span several centuries. Late 17th century astronomers observed that no sunspots existed on the Sun’s surface during the time period from 1650 to 1715 AD. This lack of solar activity, which some scientists attribute to a low point in a multiple-century-long cycle, may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe. During this period, winters in Europe were much longer and colder than they are today. Modern scientists believe that since this minimum in solar energy output, there has been a slow increase in the overall sunspots and solar energy throughout each subsequent 11-year cycle.

Sunspot activity

~earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Posted by Eric Simonson at April 13, 2007 9:56 PM
Comments
Comment #216507

Eric,

Glad someone besides Jack is posting:),

Stephen Daughtery led me to this link previously, which is a good site for understanding the science behind global warming.

I noticed your NewScientist article stated that the connection between Wheat prices and sunspot activity may be related to the bias of a large source of the crops being produced in N Dakota and subject to the unique weather conditions there.

I was with you, on the Global Warming politics until I read through the Real Climate site. I still think there is some extrapolating about outcomes that is more politics than science, but the idea that Global Warming is real, is hard to dispute.

Posted by: gergle at April 13, 2007 10:51 PM
Comment #216510

I am not surprised that New York City produces as much C02 as Ireland. It has twice as many people! NYC has about 8 million people, compared to about 4 million in Ireland.

That said, should New Yorkers use less energy? Of course! We should all use less energy.


Posted by: Woody Mena at April 13, 2007 11:19 PM
Comment #216511

Hummm,
Interesting thought.
Shut down Wall Street, the UN, the Theaters, Broadway,Central Park, all the porn palaces, Crime infested areas,etc.

Not funny , huh? Oh well….

Posted by: Linda H. at April 13, 2007 11:35 PM
Comment #216514

Linda,

Yeah, but where would Republicans get funding after you shut down Wall Street? Oh, well….

Posted by: gergle at April 13, 2007 11:58 PM
Comment #216524

The problem much of the science on global warming is that it is not useful. I believe global warming is a problem. I need some advice re what to do, specifically, what to plant. You plant trees for the next generation. If the climate in the next generation will be significantly different, I would like to know something more about the local permutations.

Fortunately many tree species in North America have wide ranges. The same species of oak or maple grow in Augusta, Georgia and Augusta, Maine, but the mixes will be different. If we knew a little more about the contours of the new climate, we could anticipate and take advantage of the changes. The tree you plant today may not be mature for 40-100 years. Conditions will not be the same.

It seems to me that there is some reluctance to study or even talk about ways we might adapt or benefit from changes in climate.

I am optimistic about growing southern pine a globally warmed environment for example. Studies done in North Carolina indicate that loblolly pines grow faster, stronger and even suffer less damage when hit by storms in a higher CO2 environment. Also, as the world warms, it would probably be a good idea to plant loblolly pine in some places where you would have planted white pine a generation ago.

This general principle will apply to many types of crops and plants. Nature has adapted to a lot greater differences that our small power to create, but we can speed the adaptations we need. Some of this is simply moving species as I mentioned above. When making your own planting choices, think south. That crepe mertly you always wanted now will be a possibility. It will not always be easy. Some of the new places have inappropriate soils, for example, but these are no insurmountable problems. One of the promising techniques to address warming will be biotech. We can quickly engineer plants that perhaps are more tolerant of heat or drought.

We should start thinking about these things.

Posted by: Jack at April 14, 2007 12:51 AM
Comment #216526
I expect that by this time next year NY will look like Bejing, with bicycles everywhere.

I wish. You’ve obviously never been near Beijing during rush hour.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 14, 2007 12:56 AM
Comment #216539

Eric, Shhhh!!!

Don’t give the liberals the idea that they can shut down NY and pan out into the countryside.
At least when they are all piled up on top of each other in that Big Apple, we can keep an eye on them.
This is why Conservative Republicans have been so effective in reigning over the grand ol’ open country! God Bless the open “green” spaces!

JD

Posted by: JD at April 14, 2007 1:43 AM
Comment #216543

Eric,
Solar irradiation is taken into account in the IPCC report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Scroll down to page 4.

Under the most “optimistic” scenario, solar irradiation accounts for 18-36% of warming. However, the concensus is that solar irradiation contributed to warming between 1900-1950, and has been relatively constant since then, and so cannot account for the warming spike which has occurred since then. Warming since 1950 is almost certainly due to human activities.

If, in fact, the Global Warming skeptics are right, and up to 36% of warming is being caused by increased solar irradiation for an undetermined timespan, then simultaneously adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is an absolutely terrible idea.

It makes the case for controlling greenhouse gases emissions stronger, not weaker. Try again.

Posted by: phx8 at April 14, 2007 2:14 AM
Comment #216545

All New Yorkers are liberals. Global warming is not real. Bush is doing a great job. The surge is working.

Yep, that about sums up the posts on this side of the fence.

Posted by: Max at April 14, 2007 2:15 AM
Comment #216550

Eric, have you found any studies that claim the CO2 helps reduce sunspots? Or any reports that show CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial to cloud cover? Just checking, cuz it would seem the combination of sunspots and CO2 might be a problem down the road and perhaps something should be done to mitigate the damage, not for us but for our kids and grandkids. Certaingly the capitalist and the industralist can join forces with the liberals for the sake of the kids, especially when the security of the country would benefit by not purchasing so much oil from the enemy. Seems like a win win situation doesnt it.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 14, 2007 8:31 AM
Comment #216551

Let’s shut down NYC and have make them pursue the simple in life in Western states like Montana and Utah. They could easily outnumber the natives. More Senators for the Dems. Actually, that is already happening with people from California.

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 14, 2007 9:10 AM
Comment #216553
So when can we expect those who live in New York to put their money where their mouth is?
When it becomes too painful. Painful consequences are a good motivator and teacher. The danger is, as the world population increases by 249,000 per day, we may not change course in time to avoid the painful consequences. The U.S., with only 4% of the world population (301 million), emits 25% of the worlds CO2 emissions. There are some saying global warming is a myth. There are some saying global warming is a result of human activity. It’s kinda hard to think 6.8 billion people emitting 25 million metric tons of CO2 isn’t a contributing factor.

But, which is dumber?
Denying global warming as a myth?
Or taking precautions now, before it is potentially too late?

Which is riskier?

Global warming is only part of it.
We are polluting the planet too.
There’s over-fishing of the oceans.
Arable land is disappearing at a rate of 38 million square miles per year.
And, eventually, it will become all too painfully clear that over-population exacerbates all of it.
Just ask China and India about the advantages of over-population.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 14, 2007 9:53 AM
Comment #216554

CORRECTION: It’s kinda hard to think 6.8 billion people emitting 25 million BILLION CO2 isn’t a contributing factor.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 14, 2007 9:56 AM
Comment #216556

CORRECTION: Arable land is disappearing at a rate of 38 million thousand square miles per year.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 14, 2007 10:42 AM
Comment #216557

Woody

If they started to live the simple live (and actually had to live it, not just have a fancy cabin) they would become Republicans. Let them deal with the regulations involved in using their land and trying to make a profit.

Posted by: Jack at April 14, 2007 11:00 AM
Comment #216558

Stop worrying… there will soon be a plague that wipes out half the population of the world.
Energy usage will drop due to lower demand.(The plague will spread through large cities and wipe out the majority of the liberals.)

Cleaner Planet.

Most will die in the 3rd world countries and jobs will have to come back to the US.
We won’t have to spend as much in aid.
People will have to get along to survive.

Peace on Earth.

Posted by: bugcrazy at April 14, 2007 11:14 AM
Comment #216561

bugcrazy,
The plague barely put a dent in population growth, which is now increasing (i.e. increase = births - deaths) by 249,000 per day (91 million per year, almost a billion per decade)!

Even WWI and WWII didn’t put a dent in the world population growth, which still increased daily.

Humans are a prolific species.
We can multiply faster than we can kill each other.

The population could grow to 10-to-13 billion by 2039 (that’s only 32 years).
How can 25 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions not be having some effect?

However, consider that there is only 12 million square miles (7.68 billion acres) of arable land.
And, ignore for a moment that arable land is being lost at a rate of 38,610 square miles per year.
That is, lets assume no arable land is being lost for the next 33 years. Then …

In 2006, there was 1.15 acres of arable land per person (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).
By 2039, there may be only 0.59 acres of arable land per person (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 13 billion people).

However, arable land is being lost at the rate of over 38,610 square miles (24.7 million acres) per year.
Therefore, by 2039, there may be only 0.53 acres of arable land per person (i.e. 6.865 billion acres / 13 billion people).
At the current rate of loss of 38,610 square miles per year of arable land, and even if the population didn’t grow any larger, ALL arable land could be lost in only 310 years (12 million square miles / 38,610 square miles per year)!

The planet has limits.
If the population almost doubles by 2039, as it has more than doubles just since I was born in 1957, then it will all become too clear, but it will be too late. Strangely, our politicians act as though we are in some sort of population race, refuse to enforce immigration laws, and choose to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other as they flood across our borders by about a million per year. That’s because the politicians want cheap labor and votes. They don’t give a damn what effect or burdens it places on their fellow Americans they continue to sell out daily.

People will have to get along to survive.
That will only get more difficult (if not impossible) as the 6.7 billion world population continues to increase by 249,000 per day (91 million per year), the toll on the planet’s limited resources will increase (i.e. oil), the pollution will increase, and aggression will increase. Over population will exacerbate everything. And it doesn’t look like humans will be able to stop it voluntarily.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at April 14, 2007 11:36 AM
    Comment #216562

    Save the earth, shut down NYC, and SF, and Dallas, and Chicago, and Atlanta, and……….
    And just where the hell do ya expect all them folks to live? Maybe ya got a place for them in VA. I sure as hell don’t want them here. We have to many folks here already.
    Don’t expect the liberals to give up there electricity, heat, air conditioning, cars, or anything else. Everyone except them is supposed to do that.

    Posted by: Ron Brown at April 14, 2007 11:36 AM
    Comment #216565

    D.a.n,

    Something has got to give.. be it a plague like no other or starvation. Unless we learn to make more food with less, or learn to survive on dirt, something is going to happen.

    Posted by: bugcrazy at April 14, 2007 12:05 PM
    Comment #216570

    “And most importantly, liberals will forego their limosuines and walk!”

    Didn’t that report also say that the city of New York is the cause and that the people of New York City actually use less then the people of other states?
    Imagine how bad it would be if they did not have mass transit. That many more autos would probably make it worse.

    Posted by: kctim at April 14, 2007 12:31 PM
    Comment #216571

    bugcrazy,
    Yes, something will have to give.
    Sadly, you are probably right.
    It will probably be war.
    That changes of agression increase as resources become more limited.
    Over-population is not merely inconvenient.
    It is dangerous.
    Technology will improve, but it will also most likely just enable the population to grow even larger.
    Most people do not realize that the world population is growing so fast (increasing by 249,000 per day).
    That’s is an amazing fact.
    Also, equally alarming, is the loss of arable (farmable) land, and the acres per person.

  • In 2006, there was 1.15 acres of arable land per person (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).

  • By 2039, there may be only 0.59 acres of arable land per person (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 13 billion people).
  • The fact that many refuse to comprehend is that the planet has limits.
    China (poplulation 1.3 billion) and India (population 1.1 billion) are examples of what can happen world wide.
    Yet, our insane politicians want to emulate China and India, and want to let millions (legally and illegally) come here annually? ! ?
    And some think birth control (and that doesn’t mean abortion) is wrong ? ! ?
    That’s just plain stupid.

    And not taking steps to reduce CO2 and green house gases is stupid too.
    Those that argue global warming is a myth don’t know that for certain.
    Temperatures are rising, yet they say 25 billion metric tons of CO2 emission cause by humans isn’t part of that global warming?

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 14, 2007 12:35 PM
    Comment #216572

    The only viable solution to the problem of global warming as presented by proponents of it (Gore, et al) is to reduce the world population. Without population elimination there is no way to get a handle on the production of greenhouse gases (GG). If the population doubles in the next 20 years, each person would have to cut their personal emissions of GG by 50% just to stay even. That is impossible to achieve on a world-wide scale. Therefore, global birth control or other life-shortening compounds must be used to control GG.

    I expect that the next item of business for the Gores of this planet is to initiate a global tracking system for each person (call it the “mark of the beast” if you will). Each female will be allowed to produce no more than 2 offspring. Each person will be allotted a standard amount of GG credits. There will be a huge black market for GG credits. Illegal use of GG will be punishable by death.

    Then, 50 years from now science will discover that the planet is not warming from GG, but people will have been so brainwashed that they will continue to pay for GG credits.

    Posted by: Don at April 14, 2007 12:43 PM
    Comment #216573
    Imagine how bad it would be if they did not have mass transit. That many more autos would probably make it worse.
    That’s the problem with urban sprawl.

    People spend about three weeks per year commuting; sitting in their car. Think of all the fuel and time.

    Urban Sprawl might even kill?

    It certainly is a wasteful use of our resources.
    We all have to have one or more automobiles.
    We commute far distances.
    We spend several weeks per year just commuting.
    We sit in traffic, breathing auto exhaust.
    And there’s the stress and hassle of traffic.
    And with gasoline prices unlikely to go anywhere but up, it’s costly.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 14, 2007 12:46 PM
    Comment #216574

    Fighting over cleaning up the atmosphere and the earth itself has got to be the most stupid argument ever created.
    It is simply the right thing to do.
    I don’t care if it is for profit or because it is morally the thing to do …. it should be done.
    I’m surprised that this issue was not snatched up by the religious fanatics, part of being a good christian is taking care of the planet earth.

    Our country can not sustain the millions that you speak of d.a.n..
    Do we really need more people on welfare with mouths to feed?
    It would be wiser and cheaper to help them where they would come from.
    Provide them jobs but make the US company pay a tax on their income or on the product returned and sold in the US that goes to programs like SS, Medicare & Medicaid …

    Posted by: Dawn at April 14, 2007 12:56 PM
    Comment #216575

    Eric,

    According to this site the population of New York City [and the immediate surrounding areas of Newark and Patterson] have a population of nearly 22 million. Considering Ireland and Portugal COMBINED have a population of only 14 million wouldn’t your argument:

    So when can we expect those who live in New York to put their money where their mouth is? I expect that by this time next year NY will look like Bejing, with bicycles everywhere. That New Yorkers will stop using their electrical appliances and do without their water heaters and air conditioners, etc. And most importantly, liberals will forego their limosuines and walk!

    After all we have less than ten years left before the irreversible apocolypse.

    Where’s the guilt? I demand an apology.

    sort of fall apart?

    I demand you do your homework. Oh, and, visit New York before you write like you know what you’re talking about [And most importantly, liberals will forego their limosuines and walk!] trust me … you’ll see plenty of people walking.

    Posted by: jrb at April 14, 2007 1:06 PM
    Comment #216577

    Dawn -
    “I’m surprised that this issue was not snatched up by the religious fanatics, part of being a good christian is taking care of the planet earth.”

    First, Christians should take offense at your Imus-type belittling.

    Second, many good Christians do promote taking care of the planet (you should go to a church that cares about soul, society and planet).

    Third, many Christians were involved in earth issues long before it was popularized by the Christian-hating left.

    Posted by: Don at April 14, 2007 1:20 PM
    Comment #216578

    The Common thread among Climate Change deniers on this thread is that there is no way to stop global warming and increased emmissions without denying ourselves our way of life.

    Kind of convenient, ain’t it? You got both your bases covered. You don’t have to do anything because nothing needs to be done and you can’t do anything anyways.

    At least nothing that will affect the pocketbooks of all these Fossil-Fuel Dependent industries and their lobbyists. These are people who want to maintain the status quo, and conveniently, the Republicans put forward policy that does just that.

    We need better, and in fact we can do better. Hell, I read a Technology Review article four years ago that said you could vastly improve the gas mileage of an SUV simply by changing the voltage and the electrical system for the engine.

    The contrarians here are using pointless, paranoid straw man arguments to avoid accepting that the status quo on energy is no longer sustainable or desirable. My advice to the energy companies: adapt or die. Lead, follow or get out of the way. The companies that survive changes in technology are the ones that don’t consign themselves to buggy-whip land by clinging to yesterday’s profitable, sustainable solution.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 14, 2007 1:46 PM
    Comment #216580

    Where did I belittle? I was talking about it becoming a national issue headed by the christians, they lost their chance.

    ‘(you should go to a church that cares about soul, society and planet).’

    Would ^^that^^ be ‘Imus-type belittling’? How christian of you.

    You didn’t see me there last sunday??? Guess you missed the sermon on not presuming you know someone without actually getting to know them.

    If christians had made this the issue of the day it would have been done in a different manner - most likely without the fear that we are all going to burn up or drown.


    Posted by: Dawn at April 14, 2007 1:57 PM
    Comment #216583

    Eric,

    This is one of the dumbest posts I’ve ever read. New York City and Manhattan in particular is one of the most energy efficient places in the world and the most efficient in the USA with people walking, mass transit, apartments insulated by other apartments, stores next to offices next to residences. Much of the country (single-family homes in single-use districts, the need to drive your car just to get some milk, sprawl eating up agricultural land) would do well to emulate it.

    Where’s the intelligence? I demand an apology.

    Posted by: chris2x at April 14, 2007 2:15 PM
    Comment #216584

    Dawn -
    Calling Christians “fanatics” IS belittling! Most people (including Christians) are not fanatics and to refer to them as such is belittling. That you use such a term lightly is presumptuous (and Imus-like). I guess you didn’t listen well to the sermon yourself, if you went at all (I presume nothing except that you made an ignorant and offensive statement). That you were apparently unaware of Christian (and non-Christian) efforts in the past is also telling.

    Stephen -
    Changing the efficiency of SUV’s is practically meaningless in the face of the doubling of the world’s population in a few short years. IF global warming is happening and IF people are the cause, then the only logical solution is to reduce world population (AND create less GG per person). Merely reducing factory GG and automobile GG as a solution won’t solve anything. In 20 years we will be back at this same point. We cannot continually reduce GG by the same percentage as the population growth. Therefore world population must be mastered as part of the master-plan for greenhouse emission reductions. Surely you must agree.

    Posted by: Don at April 14, 2007 2:19 PM
    Comment #216586

    Don,
    Your liberal enemies started talking about zero population growth decades ago.

    This is a fine time to jump on the band wagon.

    Posted by: Rocky at April 14, 2007 2:27 PM
    Comment #216588

    Wow Eric, you are amazed that we don’t buy your story that the sun is the cause of the current warming. Then you link to a story that says, “Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.”

    And you put up a graph that shows the average numbers of sunspots today is less then 50 years ago. Yet the warming continues. Please explain. When it didn’t warm in the 60’s and 70’s even though CO2 was increasing we had a very good explanation.

    Finally you tell us the key phrase is … “possibly by changing levels of cloud cover.” Ignoring the key word in the key phrase possibly.

    Not very impressive Eric. So why are you amazed that those of us versed in the literature don’t by into your selective interpretation of it?

    Oh and you stated, “I find it absolutely bizarre that global warming advocates completely refute any such link whatsoever.”
    Just to clarify. First, most of us are advocating against global warming. Second most of us “advocates” don’t deny natural variability, especially where the Sun is concerned. We just understand that solar variability can in no way explain the full warming trend of the last 100- 150 years.

    Posted by: muirgeo at April 14, 2007 2:28 PM
    Comment #216589

    Dawn,
    Don,

    Your argument is moot…some individual christians, and some churches may very well support enviromental issues, however, ‘religion’ could care less, because the “end is near”, and the earth will have no meaning after the end times.

    Posted by: Marysdude at April 14, 2007 2:29 PM
    Comment #216590

    Don said,

    Changing the efficiency of SUV’s is practically meaningless in the face of the doubling of the world’s population in a few short years. IF global warming is happening and IF people are the cause, then the only logical solution is to reduce world population (AND create less GG per person).

    In general, you are right about a basic tenent of our impact on our world and population growth. If we keep doing things in harmful ways to the environment, the more of us there are the more harm we do. The U.S. needs to lead the way for the developing world. As India, China, and eventually Africa pull themselves out of poverty and start consuming closer to the Western model we are headed for sure catastrophe unless the Western model becomes the model for the world. However, improving efficiency and doing things in a beneficial way means addressing the impact our transportation patterns have on the environment.

    Posted by: chris2x at April 14, 2007 2:37 PM
    Comment #216593

    Marysdude

    That is plain silly. Few Christians thing the end is near. In fact, to hear some of the more radical environmentalist, warning that the end is near is one of their tunes.

    Christians are on both sides of this issue. Most of the hunters I know are Christians and I know few people who personally do more to protect and restore the environment than they do.

    It is also clear that the environmental movement and concern for the environment are not exactly the same thing. When I call for more nuclear power, higher gas prices, carbon taxes and helping firms make money by environmentally sound products many “environmentalists” complain. They have very specific government control goals not specifically related to a clean environment.

    Posted by: Jack at April 14, 2007 3:04 PM
    Comment #216594

    They have very specific government control goals not specifically related to a clean environment.

    Posted by: Jack

    Jack,

    The idea that the environmental movement represents some back door path to socialism is ludicrous. Certainly there are always exceptions. Like some Christians who believe the end is NEAR some environmentalist are socialist and communist but in no way can the “movement” be considered a socialist/communist movement. That’s just more right wing labeling and scare tactics.

    Posted by: muirgeo at April 14, 2007 3:15 PM
    Comment #216595

    Eric I think you might want to scratch the talking points of this post off your list.

    I just returned from New York yesterday after a first visit in a long time. I didn’t need a car and we used the subways and walked the whole week. Never was stuck in traffic and never was late for any of our events. I found the city a model of efficiency.

    So I decided I better actually read the Time article you linked to. Did YOU read it???

    From the article,

    The city has 2.7 percent of the country’s population — 8.2 million of 300 million — and the average New York City resident contributes less than a third of the emissions generated by a typical American. This is largely due to the popularity of the city’s mass transit system, which cuts down on car emissions, officials said.

    LESS THEN 1/3???? Wow if only we all could do so good.
    Looks to me New York IS the example to model. And now what are we to think of your quote, “So when can we expect those who live in New York to put their money where their mouth is?”

    Or how about this quote of yours, “Where’s the guilt? I demand an apology.”

    Posted by: muirgeo at April 14, 2007 3:31 PM
    Comment #216601

    Feelin’ the love now ! :)

    Posted by: Dawn at April 14, 2007 4:35 PM
    Comment #216620

    Don-
    If you decide it’s impossible from the outset, you won’t put in the money and the effort to get it done, and without that investment, your system will remain more inefficient. You don’t get efficiency for free, and waiting around for it doesn’t mean you will get it.

    We do not know what we will be capable of until we try. Moreover, to compete with us, other economic powers will buy into these technologies. India and China are already looking to reduce emissions, to bring pollution under control. If the wealthiest, most productive country in the world doesn’t start the ball rolling, many others won’t.

    I believe Americans can solve these challenges when they put their minds to it, and that it is simply silly to let others be the first to figure these things out and exploit them for economic gain. Efficiency sells. Innovation sells. We don’t need to wait until we have to buy the next big thing from our competitors. America should be in the lead.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 14, 2007 10:04 PM
    Comment #216660

    >>That is plain silly. Few Christians thing the end is near.

    Posted by: Jack at April 14, 2007 03:04 PM

    Jack,

    You think THIS is silly…in a blog titled “Save the Earth, Shut Down New York City”?

    BTW…it was INTENDED to be silly.

    Posted by: Marysdude at April 15, 2007 3:28 AM
    Comment #216678
    Dawn wrote: Fighting over cleaning up the atmosphere and the earth itself has got to be the most stupid argument ever created.
    Ain’t it though?

    The blinding, circular, divisive, distracting partisan bias and partisan warfare is part of the problem.
    Many just take the position of THEIR party.

    The fundamental flaw in the logic of those claiming global warming is a myth is this:

  • If those that believe global warming is a real, what is the harm if they are wrong?

  • If those that believe global warming is a myth, what is the harm if they are wrong?
  • So, which is worse?
    What makes more sense?
    What is wrong with erring on the side of caution?
    Even if global warming is a myth, why not err on the side of caution?
    What’s the harm?
    Why so much vehement disdain for those choosing to believe the potential harm of global warming?
    What is behind that?

    Dawn wrote: I don’t care if it is for profit or because it is morally the thing to do … it should be done.
    The most significant profit may be that we save our home; our shrinking planet.
    Dawn wrote: Our country can not sustain the millions that you speak of d.a.n.
    Yet, politicians act like we’re in a population race. Why?:
    • (1) Because Democrat and Republican politicians want cheap labor.
    • (2) Because Democrat and Republican have big-money-donors that want cheap labor; government is FOR-SALE; copocrisy, corporatism, and exising laws are ignored; just one more of the many manifestations of unchecked greed by Do-Nothing Congress as it ingores so many pressing problems threatening the future and security of the nation.
    • (3) Because Democrat politicians want votes.
    • (4) Because voters will continue to reward THEIR politicians in THEIR party, regardless, by repeatedly re-electing those same politicians; too many voters are so brainwashed to keep pulling the party lever, that they blindly allow the politicians to keep despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other, refusing to enforce existing laws, and continue ignore the nation’s most pressing problems for decade after decade.

    How is importing millions of more impoverished and less educated going to help our nation, our environment, or our fiscal problems ?

    How will increasing the U.S. population (already at 301 million, a doubling of the population U.S. since 1950) help anything?

    Perhaps we should ask China (population 1.3 billion) and India (1.1 billion) about the advantages of over-population and how it is beneficial to the environment?

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 15, 2007 1:08 PM
    Comment #216684

    C’mon Eric, where is your mea culpa? Admit your post was idiotic or indefensible… or defend it.

    Posted by: chris2x at April 15, 2007 1:32 PM
    Comment #216685

    Jack said,

    It seems to me that there is some reluctance to study or even talk about ways we might adapt or benefit from changes in climate.

    I agree we need some thinking along these lines but as much as you read Jack I believe you know the answer. The potential effects are so devastating along the coasts and areas already with water shortages, particularly in those poor countries who have the least resources to deal with these problems. We need to address the main issue head on, which is, how do we drastically reduce carbon emmissions?

    Posted by: chris2x at April 15, 2007 1:38 PM
    Comment #216688


    If those that believe global warming is a real, what is the harm if they are wrong?

    Posted by: d.a.n


    Excellent post Dan.

    I firmly believe the evidence for anthropogenic warming is so convincing that I’d bet $100,000 on the spot if we had an all knowing being who could divulge the truth right now. With the bet being that we will have greater then 2 C of warming do to man made increases in greenhouse gases and given the current projections of carbon use.

    It would be interesting to see how many skeptics would push a button to take my bet if the answer would be instantaneous and our bank accounts would be also instantly adjusted.

    But this is all fancy so see my next post in support of your assertions.

    Posted by: muirgeo at April 15, 2007 1:56 PM
    Comment #216691


    If those that believe global warming is a real, what is the harm if they are wrong?

    If those that believe global warming is a myth, what is the harm if they are wrong?
    So, which is worse?
    What makes more sense?
    What is wrong with erring on the side of caution?
    Even if global warming is a myth, why not err on the side of caution?
    What’s the harm?
    Posted by Dan


    Dan here is the real harm as I see it if you and I are wrong about our beliefs on the subject of man caused warming.

    If the report by the IPCC turns out to be wrong and the temperature levels off and moderates or cools over the next several years in the range of normal for the last 200 years what does that say for my belief and support of our scientific institutions?

    The closest thing an atheist like myself has to faith is trust in the scientific method. It’s an imperfect process but it has created the atom bomb, landed a man on the moon, a probe on Mars, revealed evolution, the Big Bang, the hole in the ozone, life saving drugs, life saving medical procedures, incredible agricultural production, the internet…ect.

    Why would any one bet against such a track record? If ‘m wrong, my God, (to borrow an expression) what of my faith/trust in science and our scientific institutions??? My world would be ROCKED as much as I wish the problem didn’t exist.

    Now if we’re right, as I suspect we are, what’s to be said of the doubting Thomas’s who want to believe this is a hoax?

    The question I like to ask is why do they NOT want man caused global warming to be real. The short answer is because when they are proved wrong…their world….will be ROCKED!!!!….crumbled to its foundations.

    I actually switched parties over years of debate on this issue. I realized the fundamental flaw in the base beliefs of conservatism as followed by many of its “believers”.

    Posted by: muirgeo at April 15, 2007 2:12 PM
    Comment #216695

    muirgeo,

    Well said. Instead of reason and belief in the power of science we are arguing with proponents of the status quo (including an administration of oil men) and those who fear their profits are threatened by government changing the rules on them.

    I would appreciate it if they would get out of the way and let uniform standards be applied to the whole country so every entrepeneur can compete on the same playing field (when it comes to climate change). Since fighting global warming will by its nature lead to greater efficiencies in our economy I think it is worth it to try and get ahead of the world on this rather than let our country race to the bottom (note Bush citing China as a reason to do virtually nothing).

    We are the richest country on the planet and it amazes me how much the status quo cries foul. A beautiful and sustainable world isn’t free nor is it the antithesis of generating wealth.

    Posted by: chris2x at April 15, 2007 2:57 PM
    Comment #216706

    IF mankind is causing global warming the only solution is to reduce mankind. Decreasing other causal factors (such as auto emissions) without reducing the CAUSE is next to worthless. Therefore mankind MUST be reduced!!!!

    A FAKE Example for the education of the ignorant: Let’s say that [FACT] tea drinkers are causing global warming, because brewing tea releases a special ion into the atmosphere that traps solar heat. [FACT] Every 10 years the number of tea drinkers doubles. [FACT] We have the technology to reduce tea ions by 50% in the next 10 years. [SUMMARY] In 10 years we will have reduced ion release per cup of tea by 50% but the number of tea drinkers will have increased by 100%. [CONCLUSION] Technology cannot solve this problem.

    Now that the ignorant see the true issue more clearly they will agree with me that technology cannot solve the ACTUAL problem either. All technology can do is DELAY global warming for a few short years (and maybe only months). Until the global warming doomsayers understand the underlying problem, they have only bought us a temporary reprieve at a tremendous cost. IF people are causing global warming THEN we must control population growth globally. There is no other effective long-term solution.

    Posted by: Don at April 15, 2007 4:38 PM
    Comment #216708

    muirgeo,
    Yes. Well said.

    muirgeo wrote:
    I firmly believe the evidence for anthropogenic warming is so convincing that I’d bet $100,000 on the spot if we had an all knowing being who could divulge the truth right now.

    Personally, I believe it too, because it’s hard to see how 25 billion metric tons of green house gases from human activity can’t be having some effect on the environment.

    muirgeo wrote: The question I like to ask is why do they NOT want man caused global warming to be real. The short answer is because when they are proved wrong…their world….will be ROCKED!!!!….crumbled to its foundations.
    Well, they had better get over it.

    Otherwise, their world will really get ROCKED.
    BTW, I’m agnostic, so I can’t rely on the belief that we’ll all be saved from ourselves, somehow.
    I beleive I’ll err on the side of caution there too.
    NOTE: I’m not knocking religion.
    I respect everyone’s religious beliefs (my wife is Christian) as long as they respect others’ right to their own beliefs too.

    At any rate, people would be wise to look at how over-population makes all of this worse.
    The world population has more than doubled since I was born 50 years ago.

    • The world population in 1957 was 3 billion.

    • Now, the world population is 6.7 billion.

    • The U.S. population in 1957 was 177 million.

    • Now the U.S. population is 301 million.

    • In 1959, there were 12.16 acres of land per person.

    • In 2006, there is only 5.46 arcres of land per person.

    • By 2039, there may only be 2.81 acres of land per person.

    • In 2006, there is only 1.15 acres of arable (farmable) land per person.

    • By 2039, there may only be 0.53 acres of arable (farmable) land per person.

    Don,
    You’re right that we should NOT rely on technology to solve all our environmental problems.
    It may help in some ways (i.e. if we could harness fusion), but over-population will greatly exacerbate everything.

    Over-population can lead to war as resources become more scarce.
    Already, one might say there are wars over oil.
    I’m increasingly suspicious of the plans to occupy Iraq for many years (or decade) to come.

    One other major problem stands in the way too.

    Government is irresponsible, FOR-SALE, corrupt, arrogant, and careless.

    Government won’t become responsible until voters do too, and that ain’t likely as long as voters keep pulling the party-lever and rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.

    The U.S. could lead in this problem, and if there is any technology that can help, the U.S. could share that technology. But it won’t happen by itself. And the dangerous part of all this is that we may not have the luxury to wait until the painful consequences give us the badly-needed motivation to finally do something. By the time it becomes painful enough, it may be too late.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 15, 2007 4:55 PM
    Comment #216722

    Jack,

    “They have very specific government control goals not specifically related to a clean environment.”

    Please consider that the whole thing about environmentalists/ scientists being communists might be just a sham. It’s not much different than when Fox news actually says that all Democratic politicians are allied with terrorists and want them to win. Now of course you seem to be a reasonable conservative, as opposed to an extremist warmonger who supports whatever Bush does no matter what, so I assume you can admit statements like that are ridiculous. Well, just like there’s no evidence of that I’ve never seen any to suggest that people who care about the environment are all communist whackos or whatever the latest smear is. Might there be some radicals? Of course, there are whackos and extremists in most movements (some pro-life activists support blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors, however no one thinks the vast majority of pro-lifers are like that).

    Even if most environmentalists are progressive-leaning I’ve never seen any good reason to believe most environmentalists are radical nutcases or communists, or commit fraud (global warming deniers are, with no evidence, suggesting the vast majority of climate scientists are involved in one of the biggest hoaxes of all time), and while obviously many environmentalists favor some government intervention it’s because they care about the environment and not using the green movement as a “cover” for a certain political ideology. Climate change deniers are right that there are vested interests using lies and fraud to get there way, just wrong about which side it is. The oil industry’s efforts to suppress it aren’t any different from big tobacco covering up evidence showing smoking causes cancer, only that while smoking only affects the person doing it and is a personal choice, global warming affects everyone on the planet now and into the future.

    Posted by: mark at April 15, 2007 7:30 PM
    Comment #216723

    No offense but your article makes little sense. If you attack someone based on hearsay and innuendo,you should at least make sure your facts are right. Does it mean anything to you that new york city has a larger population than the countries you mentioned? There’s of course lots of business activity there too. Not to mention because New York as a whole is generally Democratic leaning, suddenly every single person in the city is a global warming activist or liberal,and one who rides in a limousine? I think this is partly why America has turned against the far right. They’re sick of (and no longer fooled by) dirty political attacks, the GOP ignoring reality and facts on nearly everything, and the lies and propaganda put out because the Republicans place the interests of their party over America. Are you honestly incapable of constructing an argument with facts, or do you just get a thrill out of smearing and lying about people who disagree with you?

    Posted by: mark at April 15, 2007 7:40 PM
    Comment #216725

    ‘Fox news actually says that all Democratic politicians are allied with terrorists and want them to win’
    That is crap -
    ‘Fox News’ does not say that.

    Posted by: Dawn at April 15, 2007 7:51 PM
    Comment #216737

    Don-
    Did you know that the main constituents of our atmosphere are crappy at retaining heat? If it was up to nitrogen and oxygent alone, this planet would be forty or fifty degrees colder. The traces of CO2, Methane and Water Vapor absorb and kick around much of the heat.

    If you want an idea of the strength of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, here’s a fun fact: Venus should be colder than our planet, with the kind of cloud cover it has. These clouds reflect three quarters of what hits the planet. The surface of Venus is rather dim, as a result.

    All that said, Venus is the hottest world in the Solar system, hotter than even Mercury, that little ball of iron sitting next door to the sun.

    CO2 is also what prevents Mars from being even colder than it already is. It’s a powerful heat absorber. That is well known. The uncertainty is what happens to the energy it absorbs, not that it absorbs and retains more energy in the system.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 15, 2007 11:26 PM
    Comment #216761

    >>‘Fox News’ does not say that.


    Posted by: Dawn at April 15, 2007 07:51 PM

    Dawn,

    You are right…only FAUX News talking heads say that…

    Posted by: Marysdude at April 16, 2007 9:06 AM
    Comment #216773
    IF people are causing global warming THEN we must control population growth globally. There is no other effective long-term solution.

    We don’t even have to do it. The global warming will do it alone.
    See, you can continue to live as always. If you’re enough wealthy to pay the future high price for energy, water and food, that is.
    The other will have to fight for it, or die.
    And fighting, they will, no doubt.

    Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 16, 2007 10:22 AM
    Comment #216776

    Dan,

    What is wrong with erring on the side of caution? Even if global warming is a myth, why not err on the side of caution?

    Because this “caution” argument can be invoked only once per president, and Bush wasted it on Saddam’s “urgent” threat?

    Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 16, 2007 10:32 AM
    Comment #216833

    Philippe Houdin,

    While I was referring to “erring on the side of caution” with regard to global warming and the environment, it is a completely different thing when it comes to starting unnecessary wars. Bush started a war largely based on WMD, but the WMD was never found. To make things worse, he tried to do it on the cheap, and then turned it into a long-term occupation.

    I see your point, and it is an interesting example.
    However, starting a unnecessary war is not really erring on the side of caution.
    It is erring on the side of disaster; a massive blunder of many blunders.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 16, 2007 3:59 PM
    Comment #216867

    Stephen -
    “Did you know…”

    I know.

    I have serious doubts about the fact of global warming primarily because its champions have not championed dealing with the primary cause of it.

    Mere technology can’t solve the problem. Changing the type of car I drive, changing to different light bulbs, and reducing my other emissions through smarter systems will cost me lots of money, but won’t buy me much time. The problem can be made complex, but it is quite simple.

    Part I: World population is growing at incredible rate.
    Part II: World greenhouse gas emissions are growing faster than the population growth rate.
    Part III: Technological advances are slow and expensive.
    Conclusion: The best hope for “salvation” is to reduce the world population growth. We need to not only stop population growth, we have to reduce world population.

    All this emphasis on greener cars is a stupid emphasis, since the technology cannot keep up with the damage that will be caused by the increasing world population.

    I have not yet seen a major push to solve the cause of the problem. IF humans are causing global warming, then we need to deal with the number of humans (the cause) not just tinker with stuff that only buys us a little time.

    So, where’s the honesty? Why is there no push to create “big brother”? Why are we not rounding up people and sterilizing them? Where is the procreation lottery? Why aren’t we rationing greenhouse gas credits? OR, is that what is next?

    Posted by: Don at April 16, 2007 5:51 PM
    Comment #216906

    Don,

    25 billion metric tons of green house gases by 6.6 billion people is a lot. Now imagine if it doubles to 50 billion as the population doubles in only 32 years. Will other nations use greener methods if cheaper (but dirtier) methods exist?

    There are about 4.47 births per second (386,000 births per day)
    There are about 1.58 deaths per second (137,000 deaths per day)

    The 6.6 billion world population is growing by about 249,000 per day.
    That 249,000 per day is based on the previous 11 years in which the world population grew by 1 billion.
    1 billion / (11 years x 365.24 days per year) = 249,000 increase per day.

    The daily increase is 249,000 = (386 births - 137,000 deaths).

    The birth rate is 2.83 times larger than the death rate.

    The scary part about all this is that inability to stop it.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 16, 2007 8:08 PM
    Comment #216923

    Don-
    There are limits to what we can do about population growth. Technological solutions, in my opinion, are the better approach. if the largest nations and populations in the world can switch over to hydrogen or other green technologies, then part of the ecological problem is cut short, right then and there.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 16, 2007 10:16 PM
    Post a comment