A Waste of Time and Tears

Global warming is unstoppable. Enough CO2 is in the air already to cause warming. Even the most draconian measures do not anticipate dropping below 1990 levels and that was enough. I advocate that we mitigate as much as we can, but with many people unwilling even to pay a dollar more for a gallon of gas … we must adapt & embrace global warming, figure out how to benefit. What cannot be avoided must be welcomed.

Let me first stipulate that I believe (and have written on many occasions) that we should do all we can to limit and mitigate climate change. Changing the climate is not an experiment we would have embarked upon if we were acting rationally and with complete knowledge. But to paraphrase Harry Reid on a different subject - this war is lost. Our only option is to adapt. Do not pretend that climate change can be stopped and do not let yourself believe that it will ever be reversed.

The biggest problem with climate change is the change itself. If we reach a reasonable equilibrium with a warmer world, why would anyone want to go back the climate we remember? The earth has many levels of acceptable climate. The one we grew up with is just one of many possibilities.

Global warming is not the end of the world. Our ancestors lived through worse and for most of the earth’s history it was ice free. It is very unlikely that the climate we grew up with is THE optimal one. In fact, it was a bit on the cold side. Archeology indicates that the warmer climate in Iron Age Britain and then again in the Middle Ages was overall a more favorable one than we are used to. The little ice age, which began around 1300, was a bad time from which we only recently recovered.

People who study ice ages, BTW, warn that we are due for another one. If man made gases stave off that catastrophe, thank God for greenhouse and let's give three ringing cheers to old king coal. But climate science is very imprecise. Let’s work with what we have got.

It was cooler in the 1960s and 1970s. That is when we talked about global cooling, but temperatures have been rising since around 1980. The scientific consensus indicates that the globe will warm by a couple degrees by the end of the century. This is not the problem. The problem is that we have made adaptations to the current climate and things will need to move. Beyond that, rising sea levels will make some of our current coastal areas uninhabitable. So what do we do?

Land use can mitigate climate change

In the dry hills on the edge of the Sahara cedars grow. They do not reseed. They rooted when the climate was more favorable. Once established, however, they to survive. In general, trees can mitigate the effects of climate change. We see this with whole ecosystems that are "too far south". As the climate warmed after the last ice age, most plant species moved north, but we have remands of ice age biomes in the southern Appalachians or in the southwest highlands. They do not reestablish themselves if they are displaced, but until then they hang on.

These are natural. Man can help this process. The range of plants is determined not by average adaptation but by extremes. Often a plant can grow well outside its range after it is established, but cannot naturally establish itself. Human intervention can protect the plants during the vulnerable time and yield centuries of results. You can establish a forest on the Great Plains, for example, but it would never establish itself. There is a good example in North Dakota. Unaided nature provided almost no trees to North Dakota. Settlers had to build their house out of sod and burn buffalo chips for fuel. The Forest Service established the Denbigh Experimental Forest, among overgrazed North Dakota sand dunes in 1931. It is now self sustaining. The trees needed a little help from their friends.

Humans have been generally moving southern species north for a long time and natural ranges cover large areas of latitude. You find many of the same tree species from Florida to Nova Scotia. Most of our fruits and vegetables developed in warmer places than many currently grow. The farmer in Iowa will probably be able to grow many of the same sorts of things. The precise mix will change. We are becoming expert at breeding crops adapted to various climates. This will not really be much of a problem. The genetics change every year. Adapting agriculture & forestry to climate change is like hitting a speed bump, not a stone wall.

Where we live now & moving to better places

Infrastructure may be a bigger problem. Our ports are designed for today’s sea levels and our cities are located to conform to today’s climate. But this also is not an insurmountable problem even if the warming takes place rapidly over the course of fifty years. We replace plants and equipment regularly. Very few productive factories are working with physical plants that are more than fifty years old. Most are newer than that.
The same goes for homes. Some people live in old houses, but most of our housing stock is less than fifty years old. When talking about old houses, we are deceived by “survivor bias”. The best houses survived so we think that houses were better back in the old days. We appreciate the well built old houses, but the truth is that most of them were not very well built and are not acceptable to modern home buyers. They have a name for an ordinary house built more than fifty years ago - a teardown.

The natural rates of renewal and investment will mitigate the dislocations caused by climate change. When the ground gets soggy, we should relocate new construction to higher ground. The first test (which we are failing) is New Orleans. We should never rebuild the below sea level parts of that city. This may become a more common occurrence but it really is nothing new. The original sites of many great cities are now low value real estate. There are many places where the original reason for building is now gone. I recently visited the site of Jamestown. You might ask yourself why they built the town in such an unhealthy and unsuitable spot. Of course the answer was to be able to defend themselves against hostile Indians and allow ships to easily relieve the colony. Neither of those things applies anymore. Jamestown is gone. Williamsburg was a better location and Richmond is better still. No reason to hang onto the mistake.

Natural communities

Animals can move and while individual trees or plants cannot move by themselves, their ecological communities move over time. We may need to take a more active hand in managing natural communities. I have planted some bald cypress on my land. My land is just past the natural northern range of that species, but I figure that might change. One of my neighbors is planting longleaf pine with a similar fifty year time horizon. I expect that we may have to do this on a much greater scale.

One of the interesting developments will be "new" climates and natural communities. Some climates will be like those the earth has not experienced for 10 thousand years or more; others may be entirely new. In the distant past, temperate forests flourished north of the Artic circle. Given the low angle of the sun, paleobotanists believe trees developed more lateral branches. We no longer have any trees with that precise adaptation, but it will be interesting to see if birch and poplar will flourish on Baffin or Elsmere Island and what natural communities grow around them. Good or bad, we will certainly live in interesting times.

A very useful thing science could do now is to estimate some of the new climates and provide options. Will Hudson Bay become the thriving center of a trans Arctic maritime network? Will drown river estuaries of the Ganges, Mekong or Mississippi provide the kinds of rich habitat that the drown Susquehanna gave the Chesapeake?

The moving finger writes and having write moves on. Not all your piety nor all your wit can coax it back to cancel a half a line nor all your tears wash out one word of it. The die is cast. The fat lady has sung. That is all she wrote. The horse is out of the barn. Avoidance is impossible; mitigation is problematic; adaption is our best bet.

Global warming is coming. We can cry about it or we can figure out what to do. Crying about the mistakes you and others made is a waste of time and tears. We cannot command the tides, but we can move out of the way.

Posted by Jack at May 3, 2007 8:23 PM
Comments
Comment #219268

The problem is, although we can anticipate the general shape of climate change, anticipating the more contingent, more unpredictable parts of it is much more of a gamble.

Some Global Warming, at this point, is inevitable. What we have to get off our asses and deal with is the warming that comes after that. Things will probably not get better the more the temperature rises.

We should try and figure out how we can adapt and engineer the situation. However, we should not make the mistake of thinking that we are in control. We have to keep our eyes open, and in the meantime control what we know best how to control: our own behavior.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 3, 2007 9:06 PM
Comment #219269

My word, The Rubaiyyat of Omar Khaiyyam! From memory, Jack? Your version is close to Fitzgerald’s.

Nice post. Mitigate as much as we can and prepare for what we can’t avoid.

Posted by: Gerrold at May 3, 2007 9:06 PM
Comment #219270

Gerrold

It is easy to remember that line and I figure my slight mistakes give it character. The Fitzgerald translation is the only one I have ever read. That is why it is close. I will have to look it up and see what I missed.

I know it is horrible to say, but I think these new ecosystems will be very interesting and I hope I live long enough to study some of them.

Stephen

We were never in charge of the climate. The little ice age caused as much disruption as we expect from global warming. Cooling helped destroy several ancient empires. Our wonderful human brains developed in response to repeated climate change during the stone age. We have adapted to worse. Maybe after its all done, the world will be better than we found it.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2007 9:31 PM
Comment #219271

I’m thinking of beginning a business in carbon offsets. Anyone here have some advice on what a unit of spare carbon footprint is worth?

Posted by: Don at May 3, 2007 9:37 PM
Comment #219273

Jack, I agree with Gerrold, you are suggesting that we prepare for something that “we can’t avoid”. The earth (and the Solar system for that matter) is much more complex and responsible for what happens to the earth than what humans can cause. I mean, to think that we can ever affect the earth more than the Sun, plate-techtonics, ocean currents, and so on; it’s absurd. Come on, Jack, those are much more powerful forces than humans and SUV’s.


“The scientific consensus indicates that the globe will warm by a couple degrees by the end of the century. “


Jack, “consensus”; in the words of Julius Caesar: “Et tu, Bruti?”. A scientific consensus is nothing more than a theory and a theory is just that “theoretical”. Scientists must prove theories and it’s not going to be proved by a consensus; it’s going to be proved by indisputable proof. The earth is flat?! That was a consensus; until it was proven indisputable that it is not flat. Can anyone argue that the earth is flat now?!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 3, 2007 9:59 PM
Comment #219274

This black and white, either or, thinking is what is wrong with so many political thinkers and the parties themselves.

Does it NEVER occur to Republicans that no one in our government has YET asked the American people to conserve? Does it not occur to Republicans that the Congress has not enacted higher gas mileage standards?

Jack, the kind of logic expressed in your opening paragraph exemplifies approaches to problems like the following: We can never eliminate murder in the hearts of people therefore we should embrace murder as a social norm.

C’mon. We haven’t even taken the smallest of steps yet to try to reduce emissions, and you facetiously recommend embracing the end of the world because some want, for example, for government to show some compassion by cutting gasoline taxes as supply of oil drives the prices up inexorably.

The prices are going up regardless of whether the government taxes gasoline or not. It is simply supply and demand - demand is increasing and supplies are being constrained and will continuously be more expensive to produce. It is possible to address climate change with a sense of compassion for those whose lives are going to be adversely effected by the rising prices.

Arguments like yours make it very difficult to find compassion in anything Republican policies advocate without finding horrendous duplicity and hypocrisy. (E.g, anti-abortion on the basis of the sanctity of life while being pro-war, pro-preemptive war, anti-ever-ending a war until we own the place and all yield to our will.)

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 3, 2007 9:59 PM
Comment #219280

David

There is enough CO2 in the air now to warm the planet. Nothing anybody can do will stop that. If indeed man-made gases are causing warming, warming is CAUSED.

I am just being practical. Even if the U.S. stopped producing any CO2 tomorrow, the Chinese and Indians will pick up the slack. BUT even if they did not, we already have enough in the air NOW to cause the warming.

If the scientific consensus is correct, the earth WILL be warmer. If it is not correct, we are wasting our time both with adaption and carbon reduction. So the question is whether or not you believe global warming is a problem.

We do not want to be like King Canute and the tides. Adaption is smart, no matter what.

Rahdigly

The earth has gotten warmer. No matter the cause, there are adaptions we need to make.

The proposals I make are good sense no matter which option. It makes sense to reduce carbon because fossil fuels tend to be dirty in other ways and come from bad parts of the world. Planting trees is a good thing to do. Making sure the crops we plant are the best genetic material is good sense.

You know that only an unimaginative person does anything w/o an ulterior motive. There are many good reasons to do the thinks I propose.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2007 10:43 PM
Comment #219282

David

BTW - global warming is not the end of the world. There is no reason to assume that a warmer world is not a better one. It is just that the transition will be hard.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2007 10:45 PM
Comment #219283

Jack, we are not necessarily facing global warming. We are facing global climate change. And given the distribution of the human species across this planet, that can spell catastrophe for hundreds of millions if not billions, the form of displacement, inadequate food supplies and distribution, intense crowding of more hospitable climates and all the social upheavals that can bring.

It is a HUGE mistake to underestimate the potential and not act as preventively as possible in response, if one holds any value to the human species or an individual life, or the future of one’s own children or nation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 3, 2007 10:56 PM
Comment #219285

Mitigating and rejecting actions that will exacerbate warming is the point, Jack. Sacrifice by the people of today to insure least harm for future generations is the point, Jack. Are we up to it? Practicality usually says never change. Vision says we may not succeed but, it will be inhuman not to try with all our energy and effort.

One thing for sure, without visionaries as leaders, responsibility in addressing global climate change will be absent.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 3, 2007 11:01 PM
Comment #219286

Jack said:

Global warming is not the end of the world.

No offense, but a majority of scientists disagree with you. What else does anyone need to know?

Posted by: Max at May 3, 2007 11:12 PM
Comment #219287

But what does rising CO2 levels have to do with the climate change that will result from global warming? After all, rising CO2 levels is a result of global warming - not a cause. Doesn’t matter that the environmentalists have managed to infect the minds of the politicians with the belief that it’s the other way around because it isn’t.

Posted by: EdB at May 3, 2007 11:29 PM
Comment #219290

Jack,

“The earth has gotten warmer. No matter the cause, there are adaptions we need to make…You know that only an unimaginative person does anything w/o an ulterior motive.”


The “cause” does matter, Jack. If we don’t know what’s causing it, then how are we going to know how to stop it?! Worse yet, how do we know that the “adaptations” will (actually) stop it? Our lives are much more important than basing it off the “what if global warming is real” scenarios. Don’t you think?!!


By the way, I made points about how the solar system and earth have much more impact on the earth than humans; then, I dispute the “consensus” theory. And, your reply was that we have to “adapt” and lack of “imagination”?!!!!


p.s. I meant “Brute”, instead of “Bruti”. :o)

Posted by: rahdigly at May 3, 2007 11:48 PM
Comment #219295

EdB,
You write: “…rising CO2 levels is a result of global warming - not a cause.”

That is wrong. That is inaccurate. It is a grossly ignorant statement.

The amount of C02 introduced into the atmosphere by humanity is measureable, about 5 million gigatonnes per year. Much of this C02 comes from burning fossil fuels. The introduced amount is enough to increase atmospheric C02 by 2 parts per million per year. (Actually, it should be more, but oceans absorbs a substantial amount, resulting in a measureable change in ph, which has resulted in measureable acidification of the seas). C02 is a greenhouse gas which persists in the atmosphere for up to a century.

The historic range of atmospheric C02 varies between 180 ppm to 280 ppm.

It is currently at 383 ppm, and climbing.

This is data. It comes from scientists, not “environmentalists.”

I can back up what I am saying with a wealth of sources, including the NOAA, the Goddard Space Institute, Lawrence Livermore Labs, the Max Planck Institute in Germany, the Hadley Institute in Britain, and the Mauna Kea measurements of atmospheric C02, as well as numerous ice and sediment core samples taken by a variety of scientific institutions. But wait! There”s more!

But before I waste my time, EdB, do you have even the vaguest idea of what you are talking about? If so, can you back it up? I would really like to see how you arrived at your opinion.

Rahdigly,
Astronomical cycles involving tilt, precession, and changes in the shape of the orbit of the earth show correlations with periods of warming and cooling. None of those explain the current warming, because in those terms, we are in a relatively neutral phase. Same holds true for solar irradiation (which, granted, is not nearly as well understood, but does not show a significant enough difference to accout for more than a small fraction of the current warming between 1900-1950, and no contribution since 1950).

Posted by: phx8 at May 4, 2007 1:46 AM
Comment #219297

EdB-
Honestly? It can do both, especially up in the arctic. CO2 is a decay product, and with the permafrost melting, you have at least one example there of added CO2.

CO2 was known to trap heat long ago. As in Early 1800s, late 1700s. It was confirmed about a century ago scientifically. You can even see this capability in the spectral absorption pattern of CO2, its molecular fingerprint.

Somebody’s told you just what you needed to hear. CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, and everybody in the scientific community knows this. Without it, we’re about thirty or forty degrees colder. Without it, Venus would be about our temperature or colder with its clouds reflecting back most of its light, not the solar systems vision of hell.

Rahdigly-
Quantum Physics is just a theory, but your computer still works. Climate researchers, using their models, have correctly anticipated the trends for our climate to this point. The strength of a theory is in its predictive ability.

You have less than that, to back up your claim. Can humans move tectonic plates? Of course not. But we can dam the world’s greatest rivers, and reduce some to a trickle before they reach the ocean. We can exhaust and have exhausted aquifers. We have deforested large regions of the planet, much of that before we were even that far along technologically. I think pumping gigatons of previously locked away carbon into the atmosphere by running millions of cars burning thousands of gallons of gas, and thousands of coal and gas fired plants for our energy needs is not that big a challenge to smart creatures like ourselves.

As for consensus? You can take that out of context and say that consensus can be wrong, but that does entail that it must be wrong. Nothing really is undisputeable. There’s plenty that’s difficult to dispute well, though.

You can easily say that the world is flat, that those who claim otherwise are the victims of a magic spell that saves them from going over the edge by teleporting them to the other side. Not going to convince a lot of people, but those are the breaks.

The global warming theory of climate change has strong scientific support. Not everybody believes it, but a lot of people, people who could benefit greatly from discovering flaws in each others work, can’t find much wrong with the theory. They’re disputing the details much more than the main thesis.

Here’s the real question: do you personally know for sure that all the suggested alternative sources for warming haven’t already been considered, and found wanting? There are people who do this for a living, and you’re questioning their judgment based on stuff the must surely have considered by now.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2007 7:42 AM
Comment #219298

All

I am advocating a pragmatic approach to global warming. We need to cut through the recriminations and speculation. The important question is, what do we do? Fortunately, many of the ACTIONS we need to take are the same no matter what the underlying causes. It does not matter why the earth is warming. Our adaptations to it are the same no matter. Do not build near the rising oceans. Plant the proper trees. Develop genetically appropriate crops. Build industries, homes and cities in appropriate places. All this is just common sense. Carbon is slightly more complicated, but whether or not carbon is causing climate change, we should use less oil for geopolitical reasons. We should diversity our energy mix for practical reasons. Nuclear, wind, solar are better than coal or oil for many reasons, not just warming.

I know that many people enjoy the thrill of self righteousness. It is fun for some people to point fingers. That self indulgence is counter productive.


David

What are you trying to say? Global warming will be a really big problem? I agree. We should do all we can to mitigate it? I agree.

I think where we disagree is realism. I various posts, I have proposed realistic solutions. ALL of them require changing behavior. No option that does not change behaviors can succeed. You complain that the changes in behavior will cause inconvenience or hardship. It might. Unfortunately, carbon has no compassion. We cannot negotiate with physics.

The second part of realism is that global warming is happening. We can cry about what may be lost, but that will change nothing. We will have to adapt to the changes.

Compassion doesn’t require that we pretend things are different than they are or that we can have pleasant solutions to all problems.

Visionary leaders will work to mitigate the global warming, with renewables, nuclear power and conservation, but they will understand that this will entail costs and require lifestyle changes. Energy will be more expensive than it is today if we choose to exclude some of the cheapest energy alternatives. There is no way around that.

Visionary leaders will also look to the future of the changed world and find ways to make the best of it. Remember that the world IS already warmer and nothing we can do today will stop this because it is already done.

Making changes w/o making changes is not an option.

Max

The majority of scientist DO NOT think global warming is the end of the world. There are dire consequences for humans. That does not mean the end of the world. For most of the earth’s history, our planet was completely ice free. Until late in the Cenozoic, temperate forests thrived above the Artic circle. Life did very well for those millions of years when most of the earth was tropical. I suggest you read that natural history book they gave you in fifth grade and ask yourself about the climate in the Mesozoic. Our current climate has been with us for much less than 10,000 years. That is a lot to me and you, but not much to the earth. The world will not end.

EdB

Why is less important than what in this case. We need to adapt to the change.

Rahdigly

If warming is caused by the sun or plate tectonics, there is nothing we CAN do to change it. If there is no capacity to change behavior or outcomes, there is no practical reason to address it. We still have to address the result, however.

Reducing carbon is a good idea for many reasons. Climate change is only one of them. I get a little annoyed with the self righteousness of some people on this subject, but that doesn’t change what we should do.

The climate has changed a lot w/o the help of humans. It was much warmer sometimes and much colder others. All the life on earth had to adapt. It did not matter why.

Posted by: Jack at May 4, 2007 8:07 AM
Comment #219300

EdB, and your authoritative sources for your position are what? I would like to review their empirical and statistical research. Having reviewed some of the research from the other camp, the case is pretty convincing in laboratory experiments that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. A very beneficial one for the past thousand years or so, because it kept our living climates moderate. In excess, it can at the very least double or triple or quadruple folks air conditioning bills for those that have it. Rising temperatures in Arid areas will kill the many very young and old.

Wasn’t that long ago that a city up north, Chicago if I recall correctly, saw dozens of many deaths in just days as a result of a heat wave, and that was in the USA.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2007 8:35 AM
Comment #219302

Jack said: “Visionary leaders will work to mitigate the global warming, with renewables, nuclear power and conservation, but they will understand that this will entail costs and require lifestyle changes.”

Wrong Jack. Visionary leaders will NOT replace one set of enormously costly problems with an entirely other set, which is what shifting to Nuclear Energy will do at this time. We have not yet discovered a cost effective means of dealing with nuclear waste, and the cost of storing it is skyrocketing which means it is and will be dumped surreptitiously into the ocean or buried in deserts in the dead of night to insure profitability. You know how free enterprise works, Jack.

Diversify energy? Absolutely. But, don’t save the next three generation’s energy crisis by creating an entirely different crisis for the generations to follow them. I want nuclear energy, WHEN it is truly a more cost effective alternative with ALL costs included, including waste management and its consequences upon future generations. We need far more R&D put into the nuclear waste problem, so that we can solve it, and move on toward fossil fuel replacement with nuclear where appropriate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2007 8:46 AM
Comment #219304

Jack, so, where is the mandate to auto makers to raise mileage per gallon? Republicans wouldn’t touch it. The Democratic Congress already has bills in the works. Republicans are the ones who have not acted or changed behavior for fear some wealthy interest group might have to trim profit margins to adjust to the changes.

Democrats are screwing a lot of issues up like illegal immigration, but not this one. They are on the right track toward complying with your wish to change fuel consumption behavior in ways that cost folks their jobs or small business, first. There is a priority that should be followed in these things.

Do whatever can be done that costs little to nothing FIRST!

Then ask for sacrifice for a greater cause.

If those remain insufficient to ward off catastrophic consequences, then, mandate changes that will truly hurt, but less so than allowing the catastrophe to take place.

I won’t vote Democrat, but, I will praise them when I think they are doing the nation and her future a service, as I praise Republicans on (excluding Bush) on the illegal immigration issue.

They are at least starting off with the right priorities in addressing global climate change. And it really is more appropriate to call it climate change, because warming may just be the trigger to global climate cooling. It is the changes from the accustomed environment that will prove to be so enormously costly and deadly, whether it be warming or cooling, or both in sequence beyond tolerable limits.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2007 8:58 AM
Comment #219310

If you libed in the midwest this past winter and spring you wouldn’t believe the global warming bunk. I can’t wait to plant palm trees in Indiana!

The sky is falling and the global warming is happening. Ya, right!

Posted by: Danny L. McDaniel at May 4, 2007 9:32 AM
Comment #219314

All those statistics supporting global climate change certainly rise over most folk’s heads and education. But, a poll shows:

The poll question is:

“Do you think the federal government should do more than it’s doing now to try to deal with global warming, should do less than it’s doing now, or is it doing about the right amount?”

70% said more.
30% said we are doing enough or should do less.

Interesting, that percentage is nearly the same as those who approve of Bush’ job performance as President.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2007 9:51 AM
Comment #219320

rahdigly: Your post, supra, is wrong in its description of scientific theory. You might want to talk to a scientist to learn more about it. A scientist does not work to prove anything; a scientist works to disprove something. That, is called the scientific method. Now, re-read Stephen’s factually correct post. Finally, ideology never trumps reality.

Now as to CO2 & global warming. Atmospheric CO2 causes global warming. Period. Once global warming reaches the 1.25 - 1.5 degree increase threshold, the warming acts in a symbiotic relationship with CO2 to further warm the global climate. Once the warming increase reaches the 3 degree threshold, the catostrophic results result in the “thickening” of the atmosphere and heralds the slide into another ice age. It is useful to recall the elementary Law of Conservation of Energy when thinking abou the climate: In a chemical reaction, energy is neither created nor destroyed, aka the first Law of Thermodynamics. Then, consider the second Law of Thermodynamics: in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state. Here we must addres entropy: As energy is transferred from one form to another, some is lost as heat; as the energy decreases, the disorder in the system — and thus the entropy — increases.

Thus, Mr. McDaniel, your midwestern experience this past winter confirms the first and second Laws and Thermodynamics and hence, the reality of global warming…. it’s called ENTROPY.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at May 4, 2007 10:29 AM
Comment #219323

Mr McDaniel: You might want to check with your fellow Indiana citizens as to their willingness to live in an arrid desert before you do too much wishing. Global warming will not create a “tropical” oasis in Indiana, it will create a drought-stricken desert.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at May 4, 2007 10:33 AM
Comment #219327

Dr. Poshek, it COULD create a drought-stricken desert, not WILL create a drought-stricken desert. The global climate change models are based on statistical probability and by the rules of statistics CANNOT predict when or where, with any accuracy, warming would result in deserts. It can predict that deserts will be created in currently arable lands. But not specifically when or where accurately.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2007 10:47 AM
Comment #219331

Jack,

Between 2050 and 2080, tens of millions of people would be more at risk of malaria, coastal flooding and starvation and hundreds of millions of people would be at risk from water shortages.

See more.

If this is true, shouldn’t we at least TRY to prevent global warming?

Posted by: Max at May 4, 2007 11:26 AM
Comment #219333

Jack, my point is about “man-made” global warming; I don’t believe (and many scientist don’t either) that humans are the cause of it. The Earth has been cooling and warming; the oceans and plate-techtonics have been shifting and cycling (etc.) for millions and millions of years. That’s not the fault of humans or of burning fossil fuels. I’m definitely for fighting pollution; I think we can help keep the earth as clean as possible. However, I’m not for “adapting” and “changing” (Drastically) when scientists have not confirmed that carbon emmissions actually are “harming” the enviornment and that human activity (esp. since the industrial revolution) “is” what’s causing global warming. I’m just not buying into that crap. And, it is crap! It’s a religion for some, Jack; you should know that by now. There’s no need to do that to our economy and way of life until we know for sure what the problem is and how to adapt and change for it.


Posted by: rahdigly at May 4, 2007 12:13 PM
Comment #219337

my point is about “man-made” global warming; I don’t believe (and many scientist don’t either) that humans are the cause of it.

Sorry rahdigly, but you are wrong about your “many scientists” claim here. You can find perhaps a couple dozen who agree with you. You can find almost none who have done any research in the field (i.e., aren’t just expressing an opinion, as opposed to really researched the topic).

On the other hand, here are the summary statements of respected scientific organizations which respresent tens of thousands of scientists, many of whom have actually researched global climate change:

U.S. National Research Council: Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century

American Meteorological Society: Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases

American Geophysical Union: Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth’s climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth’s history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

American Association for the Advancement of Science: The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.

Geological Society of America: The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.

American Quaternary Association: Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

US National Academy of Science: In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earthââ‚�â„�s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Posted by: bobo at May 4, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #219338

rahdigly: the only person spouting religion (belief) here is you… the bought-and-paid-for “scientists” you reference have yet to present any empirical evidence to disprove global warming or man’s cause of it. Yes, I agree, one should not buy into crap, the crap that ideologues like yourself are espousing. Nothing you have posted thus far demonstrates that you have even a junior high school student’s understanding of science… rather, you have demonstrated, thus far, an absolute ignorance of science.

David: As much as I enjoy your postings, you need to to get a grip on reality. Indiana has no chance of being a tropical paradise as there is no source of water to render it tropical. Your understanding of statistical climatic models vs climatic systems is flawed. One cannot have what one does not have. With the exception of the case of a polar inversion, Indiana has two possible climates: fertile and desert.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at May 4, 2007 12:42 PM
Comment #219344

Bobo: You should not waste neither your time nor energy on the likes of rahdigly. He has no knowledge of science as clearly demonstrated by his posts here. He has not and cannot present a single scientific authority in support of his ideology.

The key question to ask rahdigly is to provide his so-called objectice evidence. His type cannot, and will not, as such evidence does not exist. Further, keep in mind, it’s a waste of time to talk science with non-scientists such as rahdigly. He still BELIEVES in the fairy tale that the sun rotates around the earth because the bible tells them so.

Note, that thus far, rahdigly has yet to address any scientific question here. He has yet to demonstrate a elementary school level of understanding of the scientific method. He has yet to offer any facts to support his ideology. He has yet to demonstrate his knowlege of what a scientific theory is.

Keep in mind, a cardinal principle of conservatism is the denial of objective reality. By its very definition, conservatism is but fantasy. The past is the past… it is not the present… conservatism is nothing more than the delusional thinking that the future can be the past…. of course, any intelligent person knows that is not true.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at May 4, 2007 1:17 PM
Comment #219351

Jack,

No hostorical information will prepare us for what lies ahead. The minor trends of the past do not come close to the level of ‘out of whack’ things are getting to now.

Besides, the issue isn’t the warming…
The issue is the subsequent Ice Age that it will bring on when the Ocean current conveyor system shuts down. The result will world wide collapse of economies and entire 1st world nations shutting down. There will be loss of life on scale never seen before in history. All kitchy movies aside, plunging back in to another ice age would devastate humanity and civilization as we know it.

We don’t have a choice. If we are going to survive, we must find a way to reverse course effectively. That’s all there is to it.

Posted by: RGF at May 4, 2007 1:37 PM
Comment #219353

Dr. Posh,

“the bought-and-paid-for “scientists” you reference have yet to present any empirical evidence to disprove global warming or man’s cause of it. Yes, I agree, one should not buy into crap, the crap that ideologues like yourself are espousing. Nothing you have posted thus far demonstrates that you have even a junior high school student’s understanding of science…rather, you have demonstrated, thus far, an absolute ignorance of science.”

I didn’t reference any scientist (yet) on this particular thread; so, how do you know one, who they are and two, that they are “bought and paid for”?!!! Religions are based on faith and beliefs; you don’t have to prove there’s a god, you just have to believe and have faith. With science, it’s supposed to be about data, facts, theories and presenting a hypothesis and proving it to be true or not. Some out there are mixing the two and it just doesn’t work that way.

A “consensus” believed the earth was flat; and that “consensus” was “proven” wrong. Einstein’s E=mc2, that was “proven” and it wasn’t based on a “consensus”. On the other hand, Einstein’s theories of Black holes were not proven and are being disputed today. Now, according to your tone and “reasoning”, Einstein would have been correct on one and absolutely incorrect on the other; all b/c a “consensus” believes so. Would he have a “junior high school student’s understanding of science” all b/c his theories and calculations don’t sit well with you and Bobo?! Don’t think so!

Try weighing both sides of the argument with this “man-made” global warming theory; instead of jumping on one side and dismissing the other side; particarlarly, when the other side has renown scientists that not only debate the issues, they also question the methods and instruements used in (the other side’s) ascertainment of data and theories. Here’s a source: “Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You’re Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change” that a blogger cited awhile back, try that out and listen to their objections to the IPCC and others.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 4, 2007 1:39 PM
Comment #219355

Dr. Poshek, you may under WB rules for participation, refer to other’s comments as Neanderthal, but, under our Rules, you MAY NOT refer to other people’s thinking, brains, or personalities as Neanderthal.

Observe our rules, or lose the privilege to participate here.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at May 4, 2007 1:47 PM
Comment #219356

Dr. Poshek, sorry, your comment about Indiana is invalid. Invalid because you cannot rule out prevailing wind direction changes that could turn Indiana into a wetland from either the Great Lakes or even the Atlantic Ocean as a water source.

Probability is all you can discuss rationally based on the models and data. You cannot definitively state, due to the null hypothesis, that it is impossible for Indiana to become either a desert or the new Everglades due to global climate change.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2007 1:52 PM
Comment #219357

Rahdigly, it would appear you slept through “An Inconvenient Truth”. Do you question the resources Al Gore used to make his case? If so, which and on what contradictory evidence?

A host of effort and millions upon millions of dollars by the likes of Exxon/Mobil have gone into trying debunk Al Gore’s quoted research. Guess what, Exxon/Mobil now agrees and is advertising itself as a global climate change fighter. I hardly think after investing millions to debunk “An Inconvenient Truth”, that Exxon/Mobil just flip flopped and buried their evidence that Al Gore was wrong.

Or maybe they buried their evidence to contradict Gore in order to invest in the Green lie profits? That should have some appeal as a retort, eh?

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2007 2:03 PM
Comment #219360

David, an “Inconvenient Truth” is a “fear-based” movie that has been debunked many times over. In fact, Gore wouldn’t even debate some of these scientists. Why not?! If he’s right, then why doesn’t he prove them wrong. Here’s some scientists who disagree
with Gore and his findings in the movie.


Posted by: rahdigly at May 4, 2007 2:17 PM
Comment #219365

Edb,

You hit the nail on the head. CO2 is a symptom of global warming not the cause. What the data shows is that CO2 levels rise as a result of temperature rise, often lagging behind 800 years.

rahdigly,

Another video that supports the conclusions in Climate Catastrophe Canceled is The Great Global Warming Swindle


Jack,

I think that you are correct that we should adapt to the changes as they come.

William Gray, the hurricane forecaster predicts another cooling period to begin within the next ten years or so due to changes in ocean salinity.
Warming not behind hurricane activity

Posted by: acrosby at May 4, 2007 2:45 PM
Comment #219367

Here’s some scientists who disagree
with Gore and his findings in the movie.

rahdigly,

And I showed you tens of thousands who agree with Gore, yet you ignore what they write.


Posted by: bobo at May 4, 2007 2:57 PM
Comment #219368

phx8,

“EdB,
You write: “…rising CO2 levels is a result of global warming - not a cause.”

That is wrong. That is inaccurate. It is a grossly ignorant statement”

EdB isn’t the one making the grossly ignorant statement here. You may want to reconsider.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm


David R. Remer,

“Rahdigly, it would appear you slept through “An Inconvenient Truth”. Do you question the resources Al Gore used to make his case? If so, which and on what contradictory evidence?”

Here’s some.

http://sitewave.net/news/s49p1835.htm


Man made global warming is a hoax. Climate change is real. (climate is always changing)
The climate change we’re witnessing is a good thing. Historically, the warm periods are times of plenty for man. It’s the cold periods that we have a tough time surviving.


Dr. Poshek,

“rahdigly: the only person spouting religion (belief) here is you… the bought-and-paid-for “scientists” you reference have yet to present any empirical evidence to disprove global warming or man’s cause of it.”

That’s pretty amusing in light of the dogmatic nonsense of your next post. If you want consensus, take note of the number of signatures on the petition in my link above.

Posted by: traveller at May 4, 2007 3:08 PM
Comment #219370

traveller,

You need to read these statements too:

http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/005076.html#219337

If you are so sure “Man made global warming is a hoax,” then why have all these respected scientific organizations issues statements to the contrary?

Posted by: bobo at May 4, 2007 3:18 PM
Comment #219372

Max

CO2 persists in the atmosphere long after we emit it. There is already enough CO2 in the air to cause the warming (presuming that the warming is man made). We cannot prevent the warming. That part is over.

We can mitigate the effects of additional warming. I have strongly advocated that and continue to do so. But we do need to adapt to what will happen by what has already been done. Those people at risk for malaria will be at risk. The only way you might mitigate this is with DDT.

BTW - you know that malaria was common on the lower slopes of Kilimanjaro until the Brits wiped out the bugs with DDT. When we stopped using it, the mosquitoes and the disease started to return. Al Gore thinks it was global warming.

David

Your faith is touching. You want to put your trust in technologies not yet available and expect people all over the world to change their behaviors w/o any immediate incentive. Even if all these happy things come to pass, we STILL will have global warming because the deed is done. We are merely waiting for the lag time. It is like a flood. The rain has fallen in the hills. We are downstream.

Re mandating mileage increase - the fastest way to get people into more efficient cars is to make the price of fuel higher. You also want to encourage people to drive less. Fuel price again. My car keeps track of mileage. When I drive, I get around 44 miles to the gallon (interestingly, my son can manage only 36). You can buy a car like that tomorrow. And the next day you can buy one that gets better mileage. Are you waiting for the government to degree this for you?

BTW - the country could save millions of gallons of gas if people just would keep their cars tuned and tires properly inflated. This is a solution that costs nothing. Why don’t they? Fuel is too cheap.

BTW - Those 70% who say we should do more are mostly liars who won’t even bother to keep their tires inflated and will run their air conditioning when they feel a little uncomfortable. When it is all said and done, a lot more is said than done.

Rahdigly

Reasonable responses are what we should do. The cause of the global warming matters less than what we will do about it.

RGF

That ice age theory is not well supported. It is speculation and nothing approaching science. It is based on what happened when an ice dam broke and sent us into an ice age hiccup during the Younger Dryas stadial. This ice was much farther south and it happened very abruptly. The CO2 warms the air. This was not present in those days. A breakdown of the conveyer might make European temperatures more like Canada’s, but since CO2 may already be making Canada’s temperatures more like Europe, it will probably wash.

Watchblog editor

The Neanderthals adapted very well to the last ice age. Some people think they were actually smarter than modern humans. I am sure that is how Dr Posh meant it.

David and Rahdigly

You know that I believe global warming is happening and that humans have contributed. That said, An Inconvenient Truth is not a good piece of evidence. Gore is not a scientist. He takes the science and makes it into advocacy. He also takes the most extreme predictions as mainstream.

Posted by: Jack at May 4, 2007 3:22 PM
Comment #219374

There is already enough CO2 in the air to cause the warming (presuming that the warming is man made).

You, too, Jack? Why are you suspicious of the conclusions of all the scientific academies out there?

Posted by: bobo at May 4, 2007 3:31 PM
Comment #219380

Traveller,
Your link cites information which is ten years out of date. Try again. There is a wealth of current information on the topic. Climatology is one of the fastest developing fields of science out there. No recent findings support your position, nor the outdated material you present.

“The climate change we’re witnessing is a good thing.”

No. It is not.
First, the change is happening relatively quickly. While some plants & animals can change ranges, or adapt, many more cannot change fast enough. At the current rate of warming, 20-30% of all species will be extinct by 2050.

Second, humanity can adapt to change, as Jack suggests, but adapting will be come at a horrendous cost. It would be far more effective to make proactive changes now, rather than react to future disasters as they arise.

Some suggest more C02 will spur plant growth. The effect of more C02 and warming will have just the opposite effect in the Amazonian rain forest. It is a self-perpetuating climate, with plants releasing moisture through stoma, their pores. According to the TRIFFID model developed by the Hadley Institute, increased warmth & CO2 in the Amazon will cause plants to have fewer pores; as a result, less moisture will be released into the atmosphere, meaning less rain. It is a potential feedback loop. If this happens, and the best guess is that it will occur @ 2050, a drought of three years will be enough to turn the Amazonian rain forest, “the lungs of the world,” into a desert landscape.

Of course, it is only a projection. Things could be much worse. But I take the projections of the premier British climate science institute more seriously than the handful of professional climate sceptics funded by Exxon.

Btw, Rahdigly cites those sceptics in his links. For example, “Friends of Science” pretends it is funded by the University of Calgary. In fact, the University denies this. It turns out FOS is funded through a “charity” which does not reveal the names of donors. FOS refuses to reveal the true source of its funding. However, given the membership of various FOS people in the Canadian fossil fuel & electrical generation industry, and the past history of some FOS members as lobbyists, it is not hard to figure out.

Posted by: phx8 at May 4, 2007 3:56 PM
Comment #219387

Dr. Posh,

Exactly what are you a doctor of? It certainly isn’t logic…or psychology for that matter.

The majority of the posts I’ve read here that you are argueing against aren’t claiming that there is NO global climate change, but that it is not CAUSED by human activity. Jack and others are even willing to concede that it may be CONTRIBUTED to by human activity, which is a long way from being CAUSED by it.

Can you name for me ONE instance in which one of the climatic models being used to predict the death of Gaia (sorry, the Earth) that has succcessfully predicted a known past climate change using known past data? If you have one, it will be the first I’ve heard of, but then I don’t pretend to keep up with the research in that field. But I would reasonably expect such a result to be shouted from the rooftops.

By the way, before you attack my credentials, be it known that I am an alumni of MIT, have a Masters of Science, and have been a practising engineer for 30+ years. I have heard of the scientific method and am at least vaguely aware of how scientists evaluate data and reach conclusions.

Rahdigly,

Good posts…keep up the good work! I’ve been mostly lurking because you’ve been pretty much saying what I would have.

Posted by: Martian at May 4, 2007 4:40 PM
Comment #219391

Jack,

“You know that I believe global warming is happening and that humans have contributed. That said, An Inconvenient Truth is not a good piece of evidence. Gore is not a scientist. He takes the science and makes it into advocacy. He also takes the most extreme predictions as mainstream.”


You’re preaching to the choir, my friend; I’m not the one advocating “man-made” global warming and Gore’s movie. The other bloggers have been doing that.


Traveller,
http://sitewave.net/news/s49p1835.htm.”

Nice. You have a good sense of this issue; keep the religious (global warming) zealots on their toes like you’ve been doing, brotha!


Acrosby,
Another video that supports the conclusions in Climate Catastrophe Canceled is The Great Global Warming Swindle .”

Good site, very interesting. Shows how the MSM and the global warming fanatics have intimitated and played off of fears.


Dr. Poshek,
“There is no creditable scientist who supports your “there’s no global warming” belief much less a creditable scientist who thinks humankind’s contribution to CO2 cycle’s role in the climate is accidental. Until such time as you can demonstrate a 7th grader’s undersatnding of the scientific method (for example, the laws of thermdynamics, 5th grade material), it is best that you keep to your counsel while serious, educated citizens consider the serious scientific questions confronting us.”


So, you’re saying that these particular scientist are not credible?! What’s your basis that they are not credible? Back it up! By the way, relax on the printing of your name; people respond as rah or digly as opposed to rahdigly. If you truly have arguments, you won’t waste them by freaking out over the abridged version of you name. There are more poignant issues to deal with.


“FThe days of religous fools is over…that happened with the 2006 election… For 6 years, we’ve had a religious fool control dialogue in this country. That came to an end on 11/7/06. Now, intelligent persons of faith are in the majority. That means, Mr. rahdigly, your ideological diatribe is of no consequence.”


Now, that’s a ideological and political statement. This was supposed to be about Climate change.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 4, 2007 5:16 PM
Comment #219393

Hey poshy, I’m with rah on this one.

Posted by: andy at May 4, 2007 5:23 PM
Comment #219403

Dr P

What arrogance! You are practicing elitism. I have 3 degrees and that makes me better than you! From what you said above, I am beginning to believe you answered those internet ads that guarantees one a degree. Three degrees means nothing to me. I know of a person that has seven degrees and has no wisdom and very little knowledge. Also, from what you have posted, you show that you have not done the research. So, I will leave it there, because you have said nothing of that is worth responding to. That is my nickle’s worth and you can keep the change.

Posted by: tomh at May 4, 2007 7:06 PM
Comment #219409

“The days of religous fools is over”.


Doesn’t look as though one of those degrees is in English, either.
:-}

Posted by: rahdigly at May 4, 2007 7:18 PM
Comment #219411

phx8,
I linked to that article for the proofs that warming precedes CO2 rise.
It is always the case that some species of life are unable to adapt to climate change. Some will die and some will rise. Thus it has always been and will ever be.
The adaptations we have to make until the next cooling cycle may well be very difficult and expensive. Some parts of the earth that are lush now may even be uninhabitable. It’s happened before. Since many of the factors that drive climate are cyclical, it will likely happen again
but the historical record leads me to believe it is unlikely in this cycle.
The claim that 20-30% of species will be extinct by 2050 is nothing more than a guess and an example of fearmongering.
Having studied botany in college, I find the statements about stomata and rain absurd. Even if the number of stomata are reduced a plant of a given size will still have the same volume of gas and vapor exchange with the atmosphere. It’s a function of the respiratory process (transpiration) the plant must carry on to live, not a function of the number of stomata.
It has long been shown that elevated CO2 levels do in fact make plants grow faster. CO2 generators have been used in some commercial greenhouses for years to increase growth rates. (my mother was an avid horticulturist)

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N3/B2.jsp

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/5/2473

http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=environment&main=206078&type=post

http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm

Yo, Poshy baby,

I found your post #219369 to be the most disgustingly self righteous and elitist thing I’ve seen here.
You’re personal attack on rahdigly is completely unwarranted. If you must attack him, attack his arguments. Disagreement with a debater’s position
isn’t grounds for such an attack as yours. If everyone agreed there would be no point in having a debate forum.
If you really did hold 3 doctorates ad hominem would be far beneath you.
This attack on rahdigly, combined with your consistently peurile posts and atrocious grammar and spelling make me doubt the veracity of your claim of intellectual superiority.
I’ve known many people who have earned doctorates. My in-laws are both PHD’s. None would lower themselves to the point of demanding that a debate opponent “shall address me by that proper name”. The unmitigated gall!
“Intellectual superiors”? hah! Most PHD’s are brilliant in their fields but are otherwise educated idiots. If you really do have 3 doctorates (a bit over the top I’d say) you should return to your field(s). Informal debate and logic aren’t your strong suits. The posters here are too smart to be impressed by bombast.

Posted by: traveller at May 4, 2007 8:02 PM
Comment #219415

I suspect the “real” Dr. Poshek didn’t write that.

Posted by: Gerrold at May 4, 2007 8:28 PM
Comment #219418

And at halftime we have:

Global Warmingists = 13
Masters Of The Obviousists = 12

It is too close to call, but that penality called in the 2nd quarter really hurt.

Posted by: Honest at May 4, 2007 9:10 PM
Comment #219422

Jack said: “we must adapt & embrace global warming, figure out how to benefit”

Yeah Jack ways to benefit, like maybe we could grow oranges in Alaska.

Yeah right.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at May 4, 2007 9:30 PM
Comment #219430

Richard, I think Jack has a valid point. Not an exclusive one, but, when life deals out lemons, it is foolish to throw them away instead of making lemonade.

Looking forward to lemonade however, should be no excuse for asking that life deliver bitter consequences for lack of responsible action.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2007 9:52 PM
Comment #219431

Honest, that was Honest-ly funny! Thanks for the chuckle.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2007 9:54 PM
Comment #219432

Richard

You better get used to it.

Would you prefer to sit around and suffer? What cannot be avoided must be embraced.

Posted by: Jack at May 4, 2007 9:54 PM
Comment #219433

Jack
You been smoking Virginia Gold? More is not better. When stuck in a hole,stop digging. Yes we will have affects. They will and have perhaps had little affect on you personally,until one day they do. It does make sense to plan for raising ocean levels. What do you do when your nation is located on an Island or when your country is near sea level. It might be courteous of these mostly brown people to just drown. Guess what ,they won’t. Your post will just give ammo to those who cannot admit that maybe.just maybe, it is a good idea to change the way we comsume energy and where it comes from. You seem to be going backwards. We can move toward a future that utilizes better energy use. We can sequester more catbon. That is what inferiates me most about conservatives. They will deny change until its hits them in the head and then blame others.

Posted by: BillS at May 4, 2007 10:00 PM
Comment #219434

Jack said: “That said, An Inconvenient Truth is not a good piece of evidence. Gore is not a scientist. He takes the science and makes it into advocacy. He also takes the most extreme predictions as mainstream.”

Sorry, but your bias is showing. An Inconvenient Truth presented an enormous amount of factual and supported evidence and data. One does not need to be a scientist to report what scientists have reported.

Yes, he did indeed take the science predicting global climate change (not just warming but also cooling if you paid attention) to advocacy. As well someone should have. Scientists don’t command large audiences. Former V.P.’s who lost a bid for president do command far larger audiences. Do you resent the fact that Gore forced this important scientific information into the consciousness of our culture and political awareness? If so, your bias is REALLY showing.

He highlighted the most extreme potential outcomes and noted many times, if you listened to what was being said, instead of what you wanted to hear, that the scientists can’t predict specifics accurately based on such models, but, the trends they can, and the set of possible consequences, they can predict with a reasonable degree of certainty.

Go back and listen, for example, to his treatment of the potential for the oceanic conveyor belt shutting down. He doesn’t say it will. He said it has in the past, and he outlined what scientists reported were potential triggers in the future for a reoccurence and what the consequences are likely to be.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2007 10:11 PM
Comment #219435

Traveller,
Two minor corrections on my part: 1) It is called the Hadley Centre, and 2) the correct term is stomata.

Here is a good explanation of the problem with warming, plant stomata, and the Amazon:

“As the CO2 content of the atmosphere increases because of human emissions, plants do not need to keep their CO2-intake pores (stomata) open as long. This also reduces the amount of water vapor they release. The result is less evaporation and, for a place that generates its own weather system like the Amazon, less rainfall. As drought conditions destroy vegetation (and wildlife), the soil heats faster and bacterial decomposition increases. When this happens, soil ceases to be a carbon sink and becomes a net carbon emitter – spurring even greater temperature increases and quickening the pace of rainforest collapse. Climate models suggest we could begin seeing signs of this collapse around 2040…”
http://blogs.cgdev.org/globaldevelopment/2007/03/on_global_warming_and_ethanol.php

So your first, second, and fourth links look good, (although the “uplink” article is filled with inaccuracies)and in one sense, you are correct. C02 does, in fact, encourage plant growth. But it is not a question of C02 spurring more plant growth. The critical factor is the net result of how much water vapor is released through transpiration.

“The claim that 20-30% of species will be extinct by 2050 is nothing more than a guess and an example of fearmongering.”

It is a projection, and probably a conservative one.

Finally, here is a chart correlating historical temperatures & atmospheric C02.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Posted by: phx8 at May 4, 2007 10:13 PM
Comment #219436

BillS

I advocate doing all we can to mitigate warming. I have written many posts on that sugject.

The point is that there is already enough CO2 to do the deed. It is no longer a choice we get to make. We now have to adapt.

Consider the facts. CO2 will remain in the air at higher levels for nearly a century. According to the scientific consensus, there is already enough CO2 to warm the planet. If this is true, global warming is already baked in. It is like the rain has fallen in the hills and we are downstream.

Get used to it. That is our option for now.

Posted by: Jack at May 4, 2007 10:16 PM
Comment #219439

Rahdigly, some against thousands? Your point is not well made. Can I safely assume that since you have never seen a virus that you that don’t believe in immunizations? Sounds rather reassuring actually, like a self correcting mechanism.

The preponderence of the evidence is what our nation was built upon: in the vote, in our science, and yes, even in our religions. I can completely explain the internal workings of a combustion engine in terms of little green gremlins and their foul habits too, but, I would be completely wrong regardless of the logical conclusion based on the premises ASSumed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2007 10:22 PM
Comment #219441

Dr. Poshek, go for it. You are banned from here.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at May 4, 2007 10:24 PM
Comment #219443

David

The science doesn’t sell so well because it is nuanced. The nuance is what the science is all about.

Re the sea conveyor, the evidence for that even in the past is weak. In the case of the Young-Dyras, the southern hemishere cooled first and before the breakdown. The science just doesn’t know what happened in the PAST. The models do not predict it. There is not much of a story there at all.

Presentation is key. Gore graphically shows sea level rises. He can add the disclaimer that this is the most extreme prediction and/or that it is only one projection, but the picture is worth much more than the words. Gore knows that.

Posted by: Jack at May 4, 2007 10:27 PM
Comment #219444

Who wants to bet Gores hoping to ride a busy hurricane season right into the White House?

Posted by: andy at May 4, 2007 10:32 PM
Comment #219446

Jack
Sorry. A more kneejerk response from me that usual. Urgency is called for here . Your scenarios, though likely, seemed to gloss over some other outcomes. For example,the drought cycle for the west and mid west lenghtens. The bread basket of the world desertifies and America is no longer able to feed itself. This is not unlikely and may already be starting.From your previous post I do not believe you fit in with the flat earthers. I question your usual optimism. Market forces? Certainly. BP just awarded a grant to Berkley of a billion to develope alternates. The plutocrats finally decided they can still keep control. Now policy will shift and good.


To flat earters.
Thank God.Co2 is heavier than air so it will just drip off the edges.You know the edges ,where the moon landing was faked to collect more tax dollars.

Posted by: BillS at May 4, 2007 10:39 PM
Comment #219447

Jack, you watched that? Anything presented in that movie can be found on-line, why would you hand money to that snake oil salesman?

Posted by: andy at May 4, 2007 10:39 PM
Comment #219449

Well, Jack, it was a movie. Designed to get people’s attention. I don’t think that motive was hidden at all given the cut aways to Gore’s moments in solitude while traveling.

But, you know, it was damned effective in getting the entire WORLD to pay attention. It was the most masterful and sophisticated use of political power for the good of earth and human beings I have ever witnessed in my lifetime.

Millions of people are now poring over the science that wouldn’t have had Gore not made the Movie. That is an incredible feat, if you ask me. The MoreSo in light of a recent poll which shows only 10% of our population has even seen the movie. And of that 10%, even less watched the whole thing.

Pretty darned amazing and a blessing to all mankind if leaders take responsible action to mitigate the rate and effects of trend data and outcomes.

Theater was for centuries a primary method of making masses of people aware of issues, ideas, and perspectives they otherwise would never have been exposed to. This was one of the greatest pieces of theater I have seen in my lifetime, and in terms of coining terms and generating reams of discussion, debate, awareness, and entire industries, An Inconvenient Truth parallels William Shakespeare in some ways.

Great theater has the hallmark of speaking truth. Not necessarily the whole truth or nothing but the truth, (as Shakespeare took great liberties with historical fact to make the truth more poignant) but, enough of the truth to shape a more positive course for human behavior and outcomes. It is what makes great theater great in retrospect.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2007 10:43 PM
Comment #219450

David

He got attention. But he did it by bowdlerizing the science. He believes it was necessary. The truth was not compelling enough and since the peril was imminent, some theatrics were needed. You are okay with that. Events might prove him right, or not. What else does this sound like. I guess we could consider global warming the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.

BillS

I would prefer not to have global warming. The transition will be hard maybe disasterous. But that is what we are getting. We need to adapt.

Posted by: Jack at May 4, 2007 10:53 PM
Comment #219451

Jack, the displacement of water, sea rise, resulting from the introduction of enormous volumes of new water formerly above the oceans in the form of ice, is pretty darned accurate and reliable science.

To FAIL to point out the extremes of both inaction and total melt, as well as the other extreme of action and mitigation, in which enormously less damage and loss occurs, would have been irresponsible, in my book.

When weighing any important decisions, I want to know what the extreme possibilities are before I act, and yes, those extremes are important to my motivation to act responsibly in making such decisions. I find no flaw with that. I don’t quite understand why you do?

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2007 10:54 PM
Comment #219452

HaHa! A funny thought just occurred to me. Now that Pres. Bush has acknowledged Global Climate Change as a real potential threat demanding political action, taxes, and research, where does that leave Republicans who have spewed such rejection of Al Gore’s movie?

Are Bush and the Republican Congresspersons who now accept the science, also snake oil salesmen and women, who have turned traitor and joined the enemy Gore camp? Or were Republicans who rejected Gore’s presentation out of hand, wrong in doing so, in the first place.

What a cognitive dissonance. To loyally support a leader who crosses over to the enemy. Or reject one’s leaders for sleeping with the enemy. What a dilemma. What is a good Republican to do! Oh My!

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2007 11:03 PM
Comment #219456

David,

The key wording is climate change not man made climate change. It doesn’t matter though because all we are trying to do is steal your silly issue, own it and make it a positive. We are always one step ahead.

Posted by: andy at May 4, 2007 11:11 PM
Comment #219457

David

I believe global warming is a problem. I gave a lecture on the subject back in 1983. I may have been aboard this train before Al Gore.

I think just that Gore may have overstated the case. Just as President Bush may have done with WMD, his enthusiasm gets in the way of the more prosaic truth.

We do not disagree re global warming being a problem. We disagree about how to address it. Actually, I think I would be willing to make much more radical changes to address it. You are unwilling even to raise the price of fuel. I would not object to $5 a gallon gas because it would cut consumption, for example.

Posted by: Jack at May 4, 2007 11:13 PM
Comment #219458

phx8,
Interesting, but far fetched. There is an inherent flaw in the reasoning.
The author seems to assume that in a CO2 enriched atmosphere plants will simply make the gas exchange in a shorter time period without any additional growth. However, both experimental research and real world experience show that this is not the case.
Plants do grow faster and increase the amount of living tissue that must be fed in a CO2 enriched atmosphere. The stomata are not open for a shorter amount of time, but continue to function normally. Indeed, logic would indicate that the number of stomata would increase since there is more tissue that needs nutrients. The stomata are in the leaves. Bigger plants means more leaves.

““The claim that 20-30% of species will be extinct by 2050 is nothing more than a guess and an example of fearmongering.”

It is a projection, and probably a conservative one.”

What is the basis for the projection and your statement that it is probably conservative?

“Finally, here is a chart correlating historical temperatures & atmospheric C02.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg”

Did you notice that temperature change precedes CO2 change?

Posted by: traveller at May 4, 2007 11:18 PM
Comment #219459

I do not know everything re CO2, but I do know that loblolly pines grow faster and stronger when there is more CO2. There will be some benefits as well as costs.

Posted by: Jack at May 4, 2007 11:20 PM
Comment #219465

Traveller,
“Although the glacial cycles are most directly caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit (i.e. Milankovitch cycles), these changes also influence the carbon cycle, which in turn feeds back into the glacial system.”

It is a feedback loop. Temperature changes due to predictable alterations in earth tilt, precession, and shape of orbit changes the C02 level, which changes termperature, which changes C02, and so on. So in terms of the historical record, you might be correct. I think. I know there are exceptions farther back in the historical record, with periods of heating/cooling unrelated to Milankovitch cycles. In those cases, natural catastrophes- meteor strikes or vulcanism- might explain it.

The problem with the current situation is that C02 levels are way, way up due to anthropogenic emissions. Milankovitch cycles definitely do not explain it, and the increase does not seem to be due to solar irradiation. But the introduction of enormous amounts of greenhouse gases risks initiating that same feedback loop.

http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/index.html
See page 7 for the projection of extinctions. Note this is a cautious assessment, which assumes an increase of “just” 1.5 to 2.5 degrees centigrade.

Traveller, what follows is just my opinion, no links, no sources, just opinion.

We are completely screwed.

I think there is zero chance international cooperation will solve it.

I think unanticipated feedback loops will take off, and because the forces behind them involve such huge amounts of energy and momentum… It will not be the end of humanity, of course, except for an unlucky couple billion, give or take.

Posted by: phx8 at May 5, 2007 12:10 AM
Comment #219484

Jack et al,

To me, Al Gore presented the case reasonably. It’s been awhile since I’ve seen his movie, but I didn’t walk out thinking the extreme scenarios were presented as scientific consensus. I walked out knowing that the extreme scenarios were worst case. Gore made that clear, I thought.

What really surprised me about the movie was how hopeful it was about our ability to avert the coming hardships. That said, the movie was advocacy, and doing nothing is the worst thing we can do.

Posted by: Gerrold at May 5, 2007 9:48 AM
Comment #219487

Jack, what I object to is raising taxes on gasoline without forethought and consideration and action to prevent such action from destroying citizen’s lives and businesses. Management requires holistic approaches to very best extent of our abilities. What I object to is approaches which are singular minded and create more problems than they solve.

Now, if you want to propose hiking gas taxes by another $1 AND providing investments in public transportation, vouchers for those whose jobs or small businesses would fail as a result, and embark on civil engineering guides that encourage and even require work and homes be designed in close proximity with bike paths and public transportation, then, I would be pro-gasoline tax. Because only this kind of approach solves more problems than it creates.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 5, 2007 10:08 AM
Comment #219513
… [W}e must adapt & embrace global warming, figure out how to benefit. What cannot be avoided must be welcomed.

Jack, I finally remembered why these sentences of yours sounded so familiar.

In 1990 in Texas, Clayton Williams, the Republican gubernatorial candidate, was running against Ann Richards, the Dem. He was far ahead, but self destructed. One of his implosions was caused by saying the weather was like rape — there’s nothing you can do about it so you might as well enjoy it.

Funny to hear another Republican expressing that sentiment ;)

Posted by: Gerrold at May 5, 2007 3:04 PM
Comment #219514

Jack,

I couldn’t agree with you more. The war on Global Warming, (Al Gore’s War), is lost! I say we cut the huge expenses this war has cost us in trying to regulate and destroy this global warming threat. It is not worth it. Imagine the amount of dollars we could have spent to shore up Medicare and Social Security if we had just ignored the Global Warming problem. Certainly, if we hadn’t attacked it with regulations and heavy-handed tactics, it wouldn’t have spread to other unregulated countries where it could fester and take root with the other countries corporations. We wouldn’t have increased its spread throughout the other regions of the world. But, alas, it was our fault. Now, there is nothing we can do but deregulate. Pull out of the war on Global Warming completely, and maybe it will not come back. Please, Jack, I urge you to contact your Congressman today, and encourage him to deregulate, pull out, whatever it takes. Our businesses should not be involved in this costly war on Global Warming!!!

JD

Posted by: JD at May 5, 2007 3:07 PM
Comment #219517

Martin,
Re climate models. You are right about their inaccuracy. While all 18 major climate models correctly predicted that the most warming would be the most extreme in northern latitudes- demonstrated by the record setting spring temperatures in Britain this year, and the warmest January on record- all 18 were wrong about the rate at which the artic ice cap is disappearing.

Recent evidence shows it is happening much faster than predicted.

Posted by: phx8 at May 5, 2007 3:43 PM
Comment #219537

phx8,
I have no doubt that there are many factors that influence climate that we are presently completely ignorant of. The interactions of many of the factors we do know about are also still a mystery. Much of what is known is being exaggerated and misrepresented. The Goracle’s propaganda film is a prime example.
It is a fact that temperature and CO2 have risen in the past century, and have risen and fallen together for thousands of years. There is no proof of causation in either direction.
Two phenomena occuring at roughly the same time is not proof that one causes the other. One phenomenon occuring after the other is proof that it did not cause the other. That inconvenient truth drives a stake through the heart of the global warming cult’s basic premise.
Our understanding of climate is rudimentary at best. That combined with the complexity and chaotic nature of climate and the politicization of the subject makes predictions and projections not only suspect, but laughable, especially from an agenda driven gaggle of political bureaucrats like the IPCC. There is no scientific basis for the panicked projections of catastrophe. It is all political. Don’t depend too much on the IPCC-or computer models.

http://www.john-daly.com/tar-2000/summary.htm


If the current warming cycle is manmade, why is Mars apparently experiencing a warming trend? Is it coincidence as some politicized scientists claim, or is there more to it?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07
0228-mars-warming.html

I think you’re being unnecessarily pessimistic. It’s certainly possible that the current warming cycle could be catastrophic. It’s happened before.
If you let the hysteria fade and just look at the science and history objectively it quickly becomes apparent that alarmism is unwarranted.
If the current warming trend does continue for more than another decade or so (I’m skeptical) there will almost certainly be some positive developments, like an increase in arable land.
There is nothing we can do to regulate the climate. We don’t have the knowledge to develop the technology for climate engineering. Remember the law of unintended consequences. Our only option is to adapt.
If our precious liberty can survive this attempt to snuff it out and create a world authoritarian regime we can start learning to adapt to the next cooling trend as we fend off the attempt to establish an authoritarian regime to save us from global cooling.

Posted by: traveller at May 5, 2007 9:22 PM
Comment #219540

Traveller,
The John Daly link is outdated. During the past six years, a wealth of information has been gathered. For example, Daly objects to flaws in temperature measurements due to their proximities to urban areas; this has been corrected. Daly writes his article before data from ice and sentiment cores became available. Since then, the past six years have seen temperatures and C02 levels continue to increase.

Comparing the climate of Earth with Mar?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

I would like to learn more about the measurements of sea levels. It must be tremendously complicated, because sea level is not level. It is much higher at the edges of major currents and above underwater ridges & mountains, and lower in the center of gyres & above trenches (depending on the density of the rock within the trench- gravity matters).

If there is a fix for Global Warming, I think it will be technological. Personally, I seriously doubt international cooperation will work.

Posted by: phx8 at May 5, 2007 10:48 PM
Comment #219566

traveller said: “If the current warming cycle is manmade, why is Mars apparently experiencing a warming trend? Is it coincidence as some politicized scientists claim, or is there more to it?”

I rise in the morning and the sun follows me up. Or, is it the sun rises in the morning and I follow it. Or, is there no causal relationship at all, just a correlational one, or coincidental one?

Precisely why empirical science is needed to address such answers in anything close to a definitive manner. Most of the human species rises with the sun. But, sizeable minorities do not. Evidence, not proof, that there is a correlation, but, pretty much rules out causal effect, and coincidence. There is a relationship between the sun rising and when the majority of the species rise, they co-related or correlated, but, cause and effect are not established.

A correlation may exist because the Sun rising causes other things to happen which cause other things to happen, and one or many of these cause humans to rise with the sun.

Studies indicate our senses are less adept at night, making nighttime more perilous. Also, exposure to the sun induces the production of an essential vitamin for the human species, D. Finally, the species is more productive in daytime than at night time, historically.

Does the sun force people to rise with it? No. But, the sun is a stimulus which causes intermediary events to occur which benefit the species, hence the species follows its advantage, and it finds itself generally better advantaged in the daylight.

Do tipping point CO2 levels cause global warming or global cooling, or does it cause other intermediary events to occur which correlate with cooling or warming, or warming then cooling in sequence of feedback loops. This is the kind of evidence and data scientists have discovered in the CO2 record of earth and its climate changes. And since global warming and cooling are coincident with a host of variables beside CO2 levels, it is not possible to accurately predict what forms the effects of our rising CO2 levels and particulate matter in our atmosphere will take. What we do know from the ice record, is that climatic changes take place when CO2 levels change significantly.

The geological record also demonstrates that climatic changes take place when vast amounts of particulate matter are suspended in our atmosphere, and we have witnessed this first hand with the climatic regional changes that occurred downwind of Mt. St. Helens after she blew.

So, the evidence is now abundant to support the prediction that there will be climatic changes associated with the increasing levels of CO2 and particulate matter in our atmosphere. And those climatic changes invariably affect temperature. And sustained temperatures above 100 degrees F. or below 32 degrees F. create stress and adaptive behavior of a more costly kind by speicies, especially humans.

And that is the major factor to consider! The costs associated with adapting to the consequential temperature changes. Temperatures above a certain point can and will melt the land ice on the planet. That is a fact, not conjecture. Temperatures below a certain point, can lock up readily available water and arable land and seriously limit food production.

The costs. The costs. The debate is over whether $1 spent today has the realistic potential of saving $2 or 3$ of cost later if, 1$ worth of action is not taken now.

This debate would be very much like whether carrying a gun could save your life, or cost your life if you feel compelled to pull it out. One cannot know. But, one can reason that under most circumstances that would compel one to pull out their gun, buying one would be worth the purchase price as a preventive measure against death, even though, there is a risk that pulling out a gun could result in your own death.

Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? In the debate over global climate change is absolutely clear those who treasure their treasures will oppose an ounce of prevention. Whereas, those who have no treasure or regard themselves as stewards of the future, will side with an ounce of prevention.

There is a third group, those who look at the data, are trained to read it, see in the data reason for confidence in expending the costs of prevention, or not. As regards global climate change, it is clear that most who are trained to read the data and evidence, have proclaimed that humans activities are a factor in the environmental changes.

A small minority trained to read it and who have in fact, read it, reject the majority’s conclusions and of that minority there is a split, a smaller minority who deny the data indicates any change is coming, and another minority group that claims it is coming, but, there is nothing humans can do to prevent it since humans are not causing it.

Well, any person who makes their living betting would be foolish to bet on the minority, unless they have so much money to play with that taking a long shot on the odds would be a fun and interesting use of their money.

And that is why, despite the loud and vocal minority, the human race IS going to side with the majority view, and attempt to design measures and costs that hold out the promise for being an ounce of prevention with the fervent hope that it does indeed prevent having to incur a pound of cure.

It is after all the rational thing to do. Rational as in the root of the word, ratio. The odds stand with the majority of scientists. Those who say it is coming, and we can mitigate our future costs by constraining certain activities which they are confident are exacerbating and escalating the natural climatic changes. We can lessen the future costs in lives lost, lost food production, lost suffering, and missed opportunities.

Nothing could be more wrong than to not act preventively, only to discover after it is too late, that acting so on the knowledge of the majority of scientists, would have been the prudent course.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 6, 2007 3:42 AM
Comment #219570

David,

Traveler’s question was pretty simplw..“If the current warming cycle is manmade, why is Mars apparently experiencing a warming trend? Is it coincidence as some politicized scientists claim, or is there more to it?”

You spent over 1000 words in your response. I read it twice and you STILL didn’t answer his question. Sounds like a lot of spin.

Posted by: tomd at May 6, 2007 7:42 AM
Comment #219572

“This debate would be very much like whether carrying a gun could save your life, or cost your life if you feel compelled to pull it out. One cannot know. But, one can reason that under most circumstances that would compel one to pull out their gun, buying one would be worth the purchase price as a preventive measure against death, even though, there is a risk that pulling out a gun could result in your own death.”

This debate is nothing like the above example. With it case above, no one is FORCED to buy a gun if they don’t feel threatened. In the case of the global warming hoax, EVERYONE is FORCED to pay whether they believe in the “science” or not. BIG DIFFERENCE.

All of you people who believe in global warming are free to search for and develop an alternative source of energy. When you find one that works better than oil, the world will buy it and you will be the new Bill Gates. Just don’t try to make me pay for your ideas without PROOF. I don’t buy time shares, no matter how good the salesman.

Posted by: tomd at May 6, 2007 8:02 AM
Comment #219590

phx8,
Has the IPCC’s agenda changed? Has their methodology changed? The IPCC lists about 2500 scientists as authors, some of whom no longer want their names connected with the IPCC. Each author writes 1-1 1/2 pages on his particular subject and submits it to the panel. The panel then edits the scientists reports, often demanding changes, into its Summary. When the actual report is written it is “harmonized” with the Summary. The panel isn’t composed of scientists; it’s composed of bureaucrats, most of whom are socialists of various stripes with a statist agenda.

Ice core data collection began in the 1960’s, sediment data collection began in the 1920’s.

David,
That whole thing about you and the sun getting up at about the same time has nothing to do with my question about warming on Mars.
If anyone wants to assert a causal relationship between warming on Earth and Mars we’d all get a good laugh, I’m sure. Any claim that the warming trend on Earth is causing warming on Mars would be silly.
However, could there be a common factor contributing to both? (warming on Mars hasn’t been definitely established) If so, what is it? I think the answer inspires me to wear a hat and sunglasses when I’m outside.

The climate is definitely changing in a warming trend that may turn out to be catastrophic for our civilization. We must adapt to the change. Species that don’t adapt, die.

The fearmongering over climate change is an attempt to kill liberty and establish world socialism. As a steward of the future I’m doing my small part to prevent it.


Posted by: traveller at May 6, 2007 11:02 AM
Comment #219628

Ahh, but tomd, we WILL make you pay for our majority opinion to save the planet for your and our benefit. Don’t like living in a democracy? Well, it has an infinite number of doors.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 6, 2007 3:31 PM
Comment #219630

traveller, adapting to mass death, suffering, loss of homes and livlihood by 500 million or more people, WHEN it could have only been 300 million people suffering, has a moral imperative attached to it. That moral imperative to is to act to mitigate the global climate changes if there is any hope or chance of doing that. And the preponderance of the scientific evidence and opinion says we can mitigate the effects of global warming and save lives, homes, and suffering.

C’mon, become a member of the human race and be a part of the family, or not. Your choice. One of the benefits of living in a democracy. Cutting air pollution is a good thing regardless of global warming. Making prudent use of our finite natural resources is a good thing regardless of global warming. Investing in research and technology that may mirror the sun’s rays back into space or allow them through to the earth, as needed to moderate temperature extremes is a good thing, and wise investment.

I feel so fortunate to live in a country where this debate can be had, and where the majority of sensible and rational people can discuss, educate themselves and each other, and come to a consensus on how and when to act to help ourselves and each other, instead of leaving it up to one person’s dictate. It is such a better way. Such a better way. Sloppier, but, immensely better.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 6, 2007 3:41 PM
Comment #219645

“Ahh, but tomd, we WILL make you pay for our majority opinion to save the planet for your and our benefit. Don’t like living in a democracy? Well, it has an infinite number of doors.”

Sounds like the old “Love it or leave it” argument. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. You WON’T make me pay for it if my opposition to this hoax is strong enough. That’s the American Way.

Posted by: tomd at May 6, 2007 5:25 PM
Comment #219683

To the conspiracy theorist,why do you believe the whole climate change issue is a socialist plot? Do you really believe the vast majority of scientist all have joined together to foster a socialist program to take your money and liberty? Do you have any evidence to support this conspiracy theory?

Posted by: j2t2 at May 7, 2007 12:30 AM
Comment #219714

tomd, the Dem’s are back in town. All those tax dodgers who got a free ride under the Republican Congress paying 10 cents on the dollar back owed taxes, are going to pay in full soon or do time, again. That too is the American way. Enjoy! The time to dodge the will of the people is over, I hope!

One cannot love democracy and hate the will of the people. Not without a good bit of neurosis at play.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 7, 2007 12:21 PM
Comment #219717

David,

“traveller said: “If the current warming cycle is manmade, why is Mars apparently experiencing a warming trend? Is it coincidence as some politicized scientists claim, or is there more to it?”
David’s response:

“I rise in the morning and the sun follows me up. Or, is it the sun rises in the morning and I follow it. Or, is there no causal relationship at all, just a correlational one, or coincidental one? Precisely why empirical science is needed to address such answers in anything close to a definitive manner. Most of the human species rises with the sun. But, sizeable minorities do not. Evidence, not proof, that there is a correlation, but, pretty much rules out causal effect, and coincidence. There is a relationship between the sun rising and when the majority of the species rise, they co-related or correlated, but, cause and effect are not established. A correlation may exist because the Sun rising causes other things to happen which cause other things to happen, and one or many of these cause humans to rise with the sun…”


So, what was your (exact) answer to why Mars is experiencing a Global Warming Trend?!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 7, 2007 12:43 PM
Comment #219719

“One cannot love democracy and hate the will of the people. Not without a good bit of neurosis at play.”

I love our REPUBLIC. I don’t “hate” the will of the people. Sometimes the will of the people is wrong. Nothing neurotic about it.

Posted by: tomd at May 7, 2007 12:51 PM
Comment #219736

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. You might be right that global warming is on the way. But CO2 isn’t the agent it’s a cycle of solar activity which causes the Sun to output a bit more energy than we’ve been enjoying for the past 10,000 years or so. The fact is that climate and climate change involves things we just aren’t able to have an effect on. Climate is driven by the Ocean currents which carry warm water from the Equator to the polar regions of this planet. When more solar energy is present the water gets warmer at the Equator and that drives up the temps. When the temps get high enough a glacier breaks up and dumps cold fresh water under the warm water which stops the flow of the currents and poof instant ice age. Don’t forget as little as 400 years ago they were ice skating on the Thames in London. The fact is that it’s been colder and warmer and it’s only foolish arrogance that believes man can stop the tide from turning or speed up the turning.

Posted by: Maldain` at May 7, 2007 4:50 PM
Comment #219749

Maldain’, and your scientific source demonstrating the warming is exclusively a result of the Sun and no other factors? It is laughable on its face. For in nature, there is not such thing as a direct one to one cause and effect relationship. All effects are a result of multiple causes and variables. Pick up a intro book on environmental science, it would be worth the time.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 7, 2007 7:41 PM
Comment #219750

tomd, you surely meant democratic republic, right? For that is accurately what we have. And, you confessing that you like majority rule when it is wrong? Who decides that the majority is wrong? The minority? How often does the minority rule over the majority and for how long? Republicans reign in Congress was pretty short lived, given the length of time they were the minority party previously. A prime example of minority rule that believes the majority is wrong, and the inevitable outcome - failure, disaster, and short-lived power.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 7, 2007 7:45 PM
Comment #219751

rahdigly, guess you missed it, there is insufficient evidence to determine the relationship. All that can safely be said is there is a coincidence occurring between the planets, which may or may not be anything more than just that. There are huge differences between the two planets, and therefore many variables that could account for the coincidence besides the Sun alone.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 7, 2007 7:48 PM
Comment #219782

David,

“traveller, adapting to mass death, suffering, loss of homes and livlihood by 500 million or more people, WHEN it could have only been 300 million people suffering”

Is there a basis for these figures? The climate is changing. It always changes. Sometimes suffering and death happen no matter what we do. It’s part of life. How do you know that attempts at climate engineering won’t make things worse?

“And the preponderance of the
scientific evidence and opinion says we can mitigate the effects of global warming and save lives, homes, and suffering.”

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever.

“C’mon, become a member of the human race and be a part of the family, or not.”

Are you saying that since I don’t believe in your cult that I must be from another planet?

“tomd, you surely meant democratic republic, right?”

Wrong. America is a rebublic, as the founders said repeatedly. NOT a “democratic republic”, which is a modern construct and a euphemism for socialism.

Maldain’ didn’t say the warming trend is exclusively caused by the sun. The argument that “the fact is that climate and climate change involves things we just aren’t able to have an effect on” is valid.

“rahdigly, guess you missed it, there is insufficient evidence to determine the relationship. All that can safely be said is there is a coincidence occurring between the planets, which may or may not be anything more than just that. There are huge differences between the two planets, and therefore many variables that could account for the coincidence besides the Sun alone.”

But there are only two factors common to both planets-solar radiation and cosmic radiation.

j2t2,
Look at who’s pushing it. They are statists of every stripe, or misanthropists, or both. Dissent from global warming dogma ends careers. Look at the solutions proposed to solve the “problem”; they’re all statist to one degree or another.



Posted by: traveller at May 7, 2007 11:45 PM
Comment #219787

“tomd, you surely meant democratic republic, right? For that is accurately what we have.”

No David
I meant exactly what I said. I love our REPUBLIC.

” And, you confessing that you like majority rule when it is wrong?”

I didn’t claim to like majority rule when it is wrong. Pure majority rule is a democratic idea that I don’t like. An example I give often is If 9 men and 1 woman were stranded on a deserted island, and the 9 men wanted to rape the woman, Would majority rule be right?

“Who decides that the majority is wrong? The minority?”

No, Our rule of law makes that decision.

“How often does the minority rule over the majority and for how long? Republicans reign in Congress was pretty short lived, given the length of time they were the minority party previously.”

I’d say not often because to win the seat, it pretty much takes a majority.

” A prime example of minority rule that believes the majority is wrong, and the inevitable outcome - failure, disaster, and short-lived power.”

Failure and disaster are your words. You hate Republicans, so of course you feel that way.

Posted by: tomd at May 8, 2007 3:32 AM
Comment #219810

David,

“All that can safely be said is there is a coincidence occurring between the planets, which may or may not be anything more than just that. There are huge differences between the two planets, and therefore many variables that could account for the coincidence besides the Sun alone.”


Is that from the “consensus” scientists, or is that your opinion?! So, after all the postering, all the “insufficient evidence to determine relationship” comments; you base Mars and Earth’s global warming on “coincidence”?!!! Was it a coincidence that the ocean was quadruple times warmer and the CO2 levels were higher 90-120 million years ago?!


I agree that there’s more than (just) solar activity to defend the position of climate change; there’s a bevy of different variables that cause it, more than humans can ever do, that’s for sure. One, for example, is Methane.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 8, 2007 11:37 AM
Comment #219818

Jack,

Do not make (erroneous) assumptions about what things are founded on. A modicum of understanding in the area of physics -
Only enough to be able to grasp how temperature effects water density and how salination effects both the temperature of water and the density of it, is enough to give the global warming/ice age all the founding it needs.

The ice dam incident you refer to is merely an example of it happening in the past. The potential is there as welll as the fresh water source, the already underway melting conditions and the increase in ocean temperatures.

If another ice age is triggered, a rather small fraction of the human race is liable to survive. Perhaps that is the only way, but I hope you are wrong. Life on Earth for the survivors would be very different under those circumstances. But, the increase in ice coverage afterwrds would reflect more heat back into space and the effects of the ice age on modern industry and travel would put a rather abrupt stop to the vast majority of the factors which caused the global warming in the first place. Perhaps it is the earth’s immune system reacting to the poison. I recognize that is a bit anthropomorphic, but it may none the less be an appropriate analogy.

Posted by: RGF at May 8, 2007 1:15 PM
Comment #219911

rahdigly, yet, you disregard the human contribution out of hand, and against the consensus of the scientists. The bias and prejudice would seem to be all in your comments. Just come out and say you don’t want to have to pay for mankind’s foolishness. That would be far more forthright, IMO.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 9, 2007 12:50 PM
Comment #219912

tomd said: “I meant exactly what I said. I love our REPUBLIC.”

Thank you for your honesty, you don’t like our democracy portion of our republic. Let’s see, a republic without democracy, Ahhh, China should fit your bill quite nicely. Enjoy learning Mandarin.

I appreciate your alerting me to the lack of need to read any further comments of yours on topics like this. I prefer to debate with Americans who love our democracy as much as our republic.

Appreciate the future time savings.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 9, 2007 12:53 PM
Comment #219913

tomd, for the record, I don’t hate Republicans at all. I hate what the GOP and the RNC and Republican’s elected officials have done to our country during their short reign of terror, but, as many a good Republican will tell you, they were deceived by their own party leaders. It’s one of the major reasons the party lost in 2006.

I respect Republicans who stick to their guns on conservative values like border security, sound fiscal management, and government with compassion for the people. I live in the midst of a Republican county and like very much all my Republican neighbors. Fine folk, all.

Perhaps there is a bit of projection on your part in making the statement that I hate Republicans? Yes, I am sure of it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 9, 2007 12:58 PM
Comment #219921

“tomd said: “I meant exactly what I said. I love our REPUBLIC.”

Thank you for your honesty, you don’t like our democracy portion of our republic. Let’s see, a republic without democracy, Ahhh, China should fit your bill quite nicely. Enjoy learning Mandarin.

I appreciate your alerting me to the lack of need to read any further comments of yours on topics like this. I prefer to debate with Americans who love our democracy as much as our republic.

Appreciate the future time savings.”

Nice try for a spin, David, but I said I love OUR Republic. Can you find anywhere in our founding documents where we are called a democratic republic? I can find many that refer to us as a Republic.

As far as need to read my comments, that is totally up to you.

“tomd, for the record, I don’t hate Republicans at all.”

Could have fooled me.but, If I struck a nerve, I apologise.

Posted by: tomd at May 9, 2007 2:48 PM
Comment #219971

tomd, no need to apologize. Your comments and mine stand on their own merits.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 10, 2007 8:05 AM
Comment #220016

David, it’s good to know you didn’t answer the question about your “coincidence” comment. No response to that and the sources I’ve cited; just stick to the consensus and you’ll see where you end up..

Posted by: rahdigly at May 10, 2007 2:15 PM
Post a comment