This letter appeared in today’s Mobile Press-Register, and it raises a few questions about the science and politics behind the so-called global warming “debate”. I’ll present it in it’s entirety, and will then address some specific issues.
Global warming claim a ‘hoodwink’
Nancy Pelosi, in addition to being speaker of the House, has apparently become a climate change expert. Her proclamation that global warming is an undeniable fact is bold, authoritative and for the most part correct, except that human activity cannot be proven to be its cause.
Blaming a warming Earth on humankind has become the mantra of liberal, left-leaning politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington. A Jan. 21 letter to the Press-Register (“Environmental battle is about control”) by Kenneth D. Slade of Theodore hit the nail squarely on the head when he said it’s about seeking political control over our lives and livelihoods.
I believe that global warming is the biggest hoodwink in our present time, and I have expressed this view to the Press-Register in recent months. I’ve said that warming on a global scale is part of a natural cycle that has happened over and over again, and that it must be respected and planned for. It should not become a scare tactic used by politicians and environmentalists to gain control of our lives.
The “climate experts” that have been cited by syndicated columnist Tom Teepen and politician Al Gore in this newspaper are always anonymous and never brought into debate with climate experts who see things differently. Mr. Slade is correct when he says that the eco-left is trying to make a power grab. What’s going on now is beginning to smell like the McCarthy era in the 1950s, and it scares me.
Look for many more global warming declarations and propaganda from the Democrats and the eco-left as we progress toward the 2008 elections. We’re going to be buried under an avalanche of it. Tell a big lie often enough and it stands a chance of being believed.
In the meantime, look for liberal Democrats, with Nancy Pelosi leading the way, to begin sponsoring anti-global warming bills, with each in turn increasing regulations on “greenhouse gases” and auto and manufacturing emissions, which go to the very heart and soul of our nation’s manufacturing economy.
I believe Democrats are willing to play a high-risk game with global climate change in their quest to control the things we produce and what we, as a “free people,” can do in America.
And I do believe that liberal Democrats would sell out our country to a higher world authority if they thought it would give them the power they truly desire to have. In doing so, they are playing a dangerous game with our democracy and our lives.
THOMAS L. M.
Fairhope, AL
Now, Let’s look at some of the specific claims in this letter, and I’ll demonstrate why they are either misleading or just plain false.
Nancy Pelosi, in addition to being speaker of the House, has apparently become a climate change expert. Her proclamation that global warming is an undeniable fact is bold, authoritative and for the most part correct, except that human activity cannot be proven to be its cause.
Here the claim is that human activity cannot be proven to be the cause of Global Warming. That is entirely true, since science is an inductive process of discovering truth via discrete observations and hypothesis testing. In fact – science can never prove anything, although science is particularly good at disproving false claims.
The author implies that human activity is not the cause of global warming, and through this, makes two assumptions: that Global Warming is real (which I personally agree with, though it’s generally poor form to contradict the thesis of your essay in its opening paragraph), and that there is just a single cause or Global Warming. This is misleading, and paints an overly simplistic picture of the available data.
It is more accurate to claim that, on average, surface temperatures are indeed rising around the world, and that human activity, specifically the emissions of so-called “green house gases” are playing an increasing role in this temperature increase.
Blaming a warming Earth on humankind has become the mantra of liberal, left-leaning politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington. A Jan. 21 letter to the Press-Register (“Environmental battle is about control”) by K. D. S. of Theodore hit the nail squarely on the head when he said it’s about seeking political control over our lives and livelihoods.
Here there are several misleading claims. First, the author claims there are, “left-leaning politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington”, which is only 51% accurate since the November elections. Second, the author claims that these politicians have a mantra, and that mantra is “blame warming on humankind.” Finally, the author claims that another letter writer, K.D.S. of Theodore, Alabama was correct is his assertion that those who intone this mantra have a desire to seek control over our lives and livelihoods. Since we have already clearly demonstrated that the first claim is, at best, barely more than half-true, then my guess is that the other two claims that flow from it are somewhat less true. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, we would be best served by assuming these claims are simply false, and ignore them altogether.
I believe that global warming is the biggest hoodwink in our present time, and I have expressed this view to the Press-Register in recent months. I’ve said that warming on a global scale is part of a natural cycle that has happened over and over again, and that it must be respected and planned for. It should not become a scare tactic used by politicians and environmentalists to gain control of our lives.
The misleading claim here us that global warming is actually part of a natural cycle. The basis of this claim is the authors belief that politicians (presumably the left-leaning, ones chanting the mantra above) are trying to “hoodwink” us. The claim is misleading because warming and cooling periods are indeed seen throughout history. Recent evidence, however, indicates that, natural fluctuations were responsible for most temperature changes through the first half of the 20th century, but since the latter half of the 20th century, we have moved outside the bounds of normal, natural temperature fluctuations.
As to Thomas’ belief that, “global warming is the biggest hoodwink in our present time”, I would humbly submit that the original case for war in Iraq might be a hoodwink on par with any in history.
The “climate experts” that have been cited by syndicated columnist Tom Teepen and politician Al Gore in this newspaper are always anonymous and never brought into debate with climate experts who see things differently. Mr. S. is correct when he says that the eco-left is trying to make a power grab. What’s going on now is beginning to smell like the McCarthy era in the 1950s, and it scares me.
Here’s the crux of Thomas L. M.‘s argument – he disagrees with the position taken by syndicated columnist Tom Teepen, and former US Vice President Al Gore, and claims that they cite “climate experts” but do not reveal their identities, nor have them debate climate experts (sans quotations, signifying greater credibility) who see things differently.
This is not entirely true. First, neither Teepen nor Gore are scientists, so they’re not actually required to outline their sources. Their central claim, that the vast majority of environmental scientists have concluded that the data for Global Warming is compelling, and that human activity is, at least in part, responsible for this trend is well documented – even within various agencies of the US government. For example, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has several recent, informative articles on global warming (here). In addition, the National Climate Data Center Has a Global Warming FAQ that refutes Thomas’ arguments, as does the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Further, a recent article by Science Magazine reviewed 928 peer reviewed articles on global climate change, and concluded that 75% agreed with the consensus view that human activity is responsible for most of the warming seen in the past 50 years. The remaining 25% did not take any stance on the issue, and the article stated, “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”
Now, this is also where the author takes a cheap shot at the “eco-left” by conflating and equating their goals and methods with those of Joseph McCarthy. While the eco-left most likely has its own agenda, it’s not likely that it’s anything like that of the infamous Republican Senator from the great State of Wisconsin.
Look for many more global warming declarations and propaganda from the Democrats and the eco-left as we progress toward the 2008 elections. We’re going to be buried under an avalanche of it. Tell a big lie often enough and it stands a chance of being believed.
Here’s where the author tugs at your heart strings. Be afraid of the scary, tree hugging Democrats. They want to take your job away and bury you under an avalanche of propaganda.
Ironically, the part where he says, “Tell a big lie often enough and it stands a chance of being believed”, is actually true.
In the meantime, look for liberal Democrats, with Nancy Pelosi leading the way, to begin sponsoring anti-global warming bills, with each in turn increasing regulations on “greenhouse gases” and auto and manufacturing emissions, which go to the very heart and soul of our nation’s manufacturing economy.
Again, the suspenseful theme music plays in the background as liberals start to rise from the political netherworld of near complete powerlessness, and Nancy Pelosi leads the way toward the utter destruction of Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet.
I believe Democrats are willing to play a high-risk game with global climate change in their quest to control the things we produce and what we, as a “free people,” can do in America.
Thomas, I appreciate your fear. Your government has been telling you for years to fear change, and to fear your Democratic neighbors. You’ve been played, however, since Democratic Americans are at least equal to Republican Americans in all things.
And I do believe that liberal Democrats would sell out our country to a higher world authority if they thought it would give them the power they truly desire to have. In doing so, they are playing a dangerous game with our democracy and our lives.
THOMAS L. M.
Fairhope, AL
OK – here’s where Thomas goes for the big finish. Not only are evil Democratic Americans out to “hoodwink” the good Republican Americans, but they’re actually trying to subvert the very core of our democracy. Up until the last couple paragraph, this actually seemed like a reasonable, though naive and poorly executed, argument that global warming is a myth. Instead, as we see Thomas’ scientific argument collapse, he relies more and more heavily on the Democratic bogeyman, claiming that the Democratic Party is somehow un-American and against workers.
More importantly, about one half of Thomas’ arguments are based on his belief, and his agreement with someone else’s beliefs. If we were discussing a religious point, then this might add strength and credibility to his case. Since, however, he’s arguing what is essentially a scientific point – about the existence of global warming and the role human activity plays in it – his beliefs are beside the point. They’re irrelevant, and simply cloud the issue at hand. Science, my friends, isn’t a democracy. There are certainly debates among experts, often about subtle nuances of various theories. In many cases, there isn’t any such thing as a “fair and balanced” view. Beliefs aren’t particularly valuable. Science is about evidence, and global warming is one of those cases in which the vast majority of the evidence is irrefutable – it exists, and we are playing an increasing role in it.
Please, don’t simply take my word – I’m no climate expert. Instead, look at the evidence yourself. It’s all over the place for anyone who cares to read it.
That’s what I’m saying though: despite some people’s obvious financial imperatives for dispute on the issue, there are overall more financial benefits for agreement.
There’s a tendency in every change to see it as being catastrophic and radical, unable to be dealt with properly because if it were an “easy” change then people would adjust seamlessly and never notice it in the first place. But every change means a response to change, and that response is always an economic force. In that respect, both the proponents and opponents of global warming are both being fairly conservative in their approach. No matter what the change, there’s an opportunity to be had. I mean, necessity is the mother of invention and innovation is one of the cornerstones of civilization.
I guess the best example of something similar to that is how technology comes out of war efforts, like radar from ww2, or out of other military projects like the computer from the space race. These projects are what create the necessity for the spending, the rewards are further down the line so the spenders need a non-financial kick like war to get them looking away from short term
DC, Awesome avatar.
How about a president who would declare war on a global environmental catastrophe? What would 450bn do towards conservation and alternative energy sources? Like another whole industrial revolution, only this one planet-wide and cognizant of the environment.
Thanks DoF, got it from:
http://bitsandpieces1.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_bitsandpieces1_archive.html
I didn’t think the one entitled ‘because he can’ was quite appropriate
I guess it requires the public to vote environment over industry+petrol, in order to get an environmental politition
Again, both sides are being conservative. The green lobby is conservative in going “It’s change! It’s horrible! We’re all gonna die!” and the opposition lobby is conservative by going “We’re not going to change! Change is bad! You only want us to change because you’re all hippies!”
If you think this is a “neutral” change, MM, think again. A huge part of the world’s economic infrastructure is in coastal cities for good reason. None of it has carrying handles. That’s just one problem.
The old saying; “Change is good” is nonsense. Some changes are good.
Some changes are good yes. And the changes that get us away from destroying our planet are the best ones. How can one argue short term gains over destruction of human life?
Depends how long you’re going to live (as to whether it affects you) and how concerned you are about humanity. Those who couldn’t care less what happens after they die only see the short term
Odd how many of those are Xtians. I guess if you think the Earth was created for Man and is only a few thousand years old, and will be washed away by a new heaven and a new Earth anytime soon, it doesn’t matter.
And if every coastline in the world changes then a huge part of the world’s economic infrastructure will still be in coastal cities. I didn’t claim that change was neutral, bad or good. I said that change was opportunity.
I believe that humans are an exploitative, adaptive species. That’s mostly a good thing, because as we exploit we learn to adapt. That’s reasonable, considering that we’re our only real danger. And if we stop exploiting then we mostly stagnate, and if we stop adapting then well maybe we’re just holding the space for someone who can in the future.
I mostly think that both sides are being incredibly defeatist and short-sighted. The world is screwed up. Things get harder. Cry me a river. Stop whining and figure out what you can do to adapt.
Sounds like it’s a good time to start thinking about getting into construction, and maybe building more beach houses in Vermont. Or figuring out how to build handles into your coastal cities.
Or a good time to get busy fixing the problem from the root of it. A breakdown in the world’s economy – and no less than such would result – would issue in a few billion hungry people, and hungry people don’t reason well.
The problem is fixable, there really aren’t any serious technological barriers and we know it’s coming. We can reduce our carbon output and reverse this trend; it’s whether we will.
Yes, humanity would adapt and survive but there’d be a lot of bloodshed. That isn’t being “defeatist” it’s being realistic. If you are unmoved by bloodshed, nuttin’ I can do to fix what’s wrong wit ya.
But, change is our only constant; ‘progress’, on the other hand, is another matter entirely – one man’s progress is another man’s disaster.
If we don’t change our minds we’re headed for two avoidable disasters; one is a clash of beliefs between us, the wise ones, and governments & companies ‘focusing’ on the bottom line at the expense of global warming, and the other is a clash of beliefs between two ‘faiths’ composing more than half the world’s population, focusing on imaginary supernatural beings and the method of getting to an imaginary hereafter.
I wonder which one will fuck us first.
What hope have we got when there are people like this in our slice of the ‘civilised’ world?
Apparently “there’s enough Geothermal Energy in northern South Australia in one rock, to run the entire Oz economy for a century.”
I just heard that from our Australian of the Year being interviewed on PBS.
I haven’t had a chance to look at what he’s talking but it sounds interesting.
I gotta go – I might check back into this later.
Geothermal energy is seen as an environmentally friendly source of energy because it’s not carbon based, but what they don’t tell you is that it’s not renewable (unlike fossil feuls even, it will never be replaced, not even over millions of years); you’re essentially taking energy away from the finite amount of heat below the ground from when earth was first formed. This heat is what makes earth’s core molten (molten iron causes the magnetic poles of the earth and allows seasons), and this heat is constantly escaping to the surface all the time (keeping us warm before escaping into space), never to be replaced. Without this source of heat I wonder if solar energy really would be enough to keep earth warm, even with global warming, it’s just this effect of permanent shortening of earth’s time to sustain life is overshadowed by the much shorter term global warming thing.
If earth can be warm enough on solar energy alone, it will still not be able to support life forever (for one thing we know the sun has a fionite amount of energy anyway and will consume earth as a red giant) but also earth’s atmosphere is very slowly escaping into space never to return, obeying entropy essentially. Gas molecules have a boltzman distribution of energy and so some will have enough kinetic energy to be above the escape velocity needed to escape earth’s gravity, or the gravity of anything else that isn’t a black hole (where the escape velocity is defined as being above the speed of light). How the earth will end first I don’t know, but any religion that claims people will live on earth forever is simply wrong.
Les, why did apostrophes and the squiggly line thing go awry halfway through the comment?
Right, because we’re all hugs and fuzzy bunnies with each other now. Predicting bloodshed in the future for nearly any reason doesn’t move me, not because (as you imply) I’m some sort of mean nasty person, but because it’s as predictable as the sun rising. That is, it might be “realistic” but unless you’ve got specific knowledge it’s a useless indicator. People don’t need global warming to kill each other. People don’t need economic collapse to kill each other. People don’t need reasons to kill, period. They’re perfectly capable of making up some rationale as they go along, or ignore the “why” entirely.
Bullshit. I’ve just spent several days of discussion explaining why there won’t be a “global economic collapse,” or at least why such an occurrence isn’t certain because of global warming anymore than it is because of an increase in the price of tater tots.
Even if global warming amounts to major flooding and disasters, that doesn’t mean much when weighed against the economic potential in dealing with major flooding and disasters. And I’ve read the reports the same as anyone else, and while localized droughts seem to be indicated the overall language I’ve read seems to outline a greater global humidity and precipitation…If that’s shitty for farming then excuse me I ask for your 4H membership card before I believe you.
If you’ve invested heavily in land on the coast, then sure – you’re in a bad spot. But while value is degraded it increases in other places…money is just really hard to “lose” without disasters like wars that absolutely stall economies on many levels. Even if Manhattan Island were struck with a Katrina scale disaster though, or London were forced to retreat to higher ground, you’re not going to get the same effects as say even World War One as far as a penetrating lingering economic disaster. You’ll have several cascading industry specific issues, but the basic economic unit of labor won’t be dying or locked up in a conflict for years. A lot of infrastructure is frighteningly distributed and difficult to damage too, so even if “Telemarketerville” were swept away in a tsunami it’s probably not going to mean that telemarketers are going to be catastrophically impacted.
The problem with the sky-is-falling claim is that everyone acts as if we’ve no experience with major cities facing rising sea levels, or inclement weather, or issues of food distribution, or any number of the problems we’re told we’re going to be facing. There’s also some strange implication that all the bad weather is going to hit everyone at the same time, that one day all the water that was once somewhere else will suddenly be in everyone’s bedrooms drowning them, and that while we’re all flooding and falling into the sea we’ll all also be fighting hurricanes and starving because of the droughts.
If that all happens at once then you’re right, we might as well grab our ankles with both hands kiss our ass goodbye and give our Toyota’s a kick on the way to being swept out to sea.
On the other hand, no matter how quick the increments, climate change seems to be occuring incrementally. The cool thing about incremental change is that it gives you time to get good at something and do things about stuff.
MM I implied you are piling one rationalization on top of another; you inferred that I was saying you were a mean and nasty person. Whatever, there is little point in arguing with you as you seem quite prepared to do nothing about global warming and just start surveying inland areas for new cities as if that were all there are to it. I think India, already home to a billion people, and facing an influx of refugees from Bangladesh, would disagree. Refugees are not as easy to handle as you seem to believe.
And sea levels are only one problem among many. Change the composition of the atmosphere, you change the chemistry of the sea. Coral reefs and their biota erode. Sea diversity, which can adapt to slow change, erodes. Certain species of algae – the wrong kind to say the very least – proliferate, making another change in the atmosphere that you won’t like at all. And it doesn’t have to happen.
I’ll just put you down in the “Global warming is peachy, it’s just an opportunity disguised as a challenge” motivational poster category. You should definitely write a book; it will probably make you rich and you can move to Colorado.
Right. Do feel free to be a dick. Fuck you too, sweetness.
Small correction, DC: while some of the warmth underground is primordial heat left over from the formation of the Earth, most of it (an estimated 90%) is caused by decay of radioactive isotopes in the Earth’s mantle.
And while it’s true that geothermal energy is not renewable, there’s a whole lot of it. I suspect if we could tap it efficiently (and that is indeed the rub with geothermal, not the quantity) we could run our society at current rates of energy usage for, say, another few hundred million years- I doubt that our energy needs are more than a miniscule fraction of the amount of energy the Earth radiates anyway. Just my guess- I haven’t done the math.
Well our energy needs are certainly a tiny fraction of the energy that falls upon the Earth anyway. There’s enormous energy all around us if we care to harvest it, but it’s so much easier to dig carbon out of the ground and burn it. *sigh*
That bastion of objective energy information, Chevron, says in an advertisement that “There are 193 countries in the world. None of them are energy independent.” They cite Saudi imports of refined gasoline, for instance and leap to this conclusion:
Sounds good, and not exactly false, but the wording is a clue to the situation: if no nation is energy independent, what ties the global energy market together?
Right – multinational corporations like Chevron. And for all their talk about diversified energy supplies, what’s their major infrastructure investment? Carbon. They’re gonna ‘dance with the one whut brought ‘em.’ Oh, and build ethanol refineries too (hardly a great solution) touted on their fuzzy-warm website ‘willyoujoinus.com’ presented by ‘The Aspen Institute’. Y’ think they don’t know it takes as much oil to make the ethanol as the ethanol is worth? How nice of them to steer us through these difficult times.
I’m not sure you quite grasp exactly how global warming will affect the Earth. Cause when rain floods one area, lack of rain is causing drought in another. Imagine people in the billions in India and China being affected by drought. Actually this is already happening, on a smaller scale because of climate change, in china.
So even if there is a net increase in rainfall for Earth on a whole, the impact this will have on the areas that do not get any rain will be devastating to say the least. And the areas that see an increase in rain will see more rain than they can handle. With an increase in rain comes an increase of wetland insects that carry disease. And the negatives of the impact of global warming go on and on.
Your right that it won’t happen immediately, but according to this article that LJ posted (possibly on a different thread), and I quote:
The bold section is my doing…
To have worldwide sea levels rise 20 or more feet in as little as a couple of years is way beyond the scope of a hurricane. That would be like comparing my out of shape fat ass to Arnold S (I’m not even going to attempt to spell his name). Arnold and I are in two completely different categories. Yes, as sea levels rise we could certainly adapt and create levies that don’t fail right away and such. But what do you do when the water just keeps rising? What do you do in Florida when the entire panhandle is covered in water.
Or what about India. What do you do when flooding on a major scale has displaced over 10 million people?
True, but we aren’t talking about your mother-in-law moving into your house with your family…
And for the record, I do not think that people who dismiss global warming are asshats. I think people (like the asshat I wrote about in my post, that try to keep our children from learning about global warming and when they win claim it as a victory for knowledge) are asshats or shitheads, whichever you prefer.
I’d forgotten that, but main thing is concencus on the non-renewable status, and the implications, however slow, but maybe for now outweighed. There are people who call geothermal renewable despite there being no energy inputs, just because it can redistribute itself back to old sites, and the assumption that the supply is infinite. Note for anyone reading thinking that tectonic activity replenishes geothermal, it’s only a re-distributing agent using geothermal energy to move in the first place, there are no external inputs.
MM – Don’t hold vendetta, think of DoF more like a spiring partner at karate school – conflict as a well intended practise oppertunity and a chance to learn new moves (a move representing a way of thinking). The spiring oppertunity comes when there is a topic you want to explore further, and disapears afterwards
Chill out and lose the bias
Well to be Frank…
(one of my old avatars, still my photo on members page, my favourite film with deep meaning and inspiration of thought)
I can’t be assed to get into the debate, too much going on, too many points for me to follow, I would forget as I go along, I can’t remember anyone’s stance anyway, I just want to see it chilled
Brock was responsible for pointing me to that VERY interesting site which explained “The Great Conveyor Belt” very nicely.
I was looking for a map to show me where the Panhandle was and came across this:
Which neatly encapsulates Webs’
And, I still don’t know exactly where (in Texas – it’s like a whole other country) the Panhandle is … but do I care?
We got a lot of mileage out of that link though, didn’t we.
(I think it was linked to 3 times in as many days)
The greatest thing about the link, which probably explains it’s popularity, is the simplicity of it. Anyone can understand what is being stated. You don’t need a degree in science. Which is also why Al Gore’s documentary was so popular.
I’m not even really sure how to respond to MM,‘s comments. They are, in most respects, true. But they seem to centre around the idea that something which may be preventable should be treated as though it is inconsequential because there’s still opportunity to be had from it – that economy will continue.
Yes, people kill each other. Should we encourage it? Significant profit can be made through war, should we encourage it?
It should be obvious that just because worth of resources will be balanced by supply and demand regardless of circumstance does not, in itself, imply high efficiency. How much is the last drop of oil worth? When we are overly concerned with the profit from that last drop of oil, we WILL sell it to the highest bidder so that we can reap the profits in our lifetime. And then do what with them? Begin to research alternative energy supplies while our industry slowly reorganizes?
Adam Smith’s invisible hand will do its work – given time and a perfect knowledge of the system, for any given system. To perform a transition takes time and resources – transition is, functionally, a product subject to economy. The question becomes, “can transition of sufficient amount be generated to avert collapse?” and that answer depends on the disaster.
Sure, humanity will most likely recover. Why should it have to? We’re talking about invoking a transition to prevent a disaster that would force transition anyway – much less to say that we don’t have a way of measuring the demand for transition or the cost for doing so if global warming goes overboard. We can measure the loss in efficiency if we make that transition now.
The way I see it, paying out for a change of infrastructure is a sunk cost. Best do it now.
That’s a really great way to put it.
Hopefully there will be no “last drop of oil” because long before that happens higher prices (a consequence of scarcity) will drive the development of alternatives. But this is a case where the market will not move early enough to protect the environment, because the environment is not a buyer. Adam Smith saw an important truth but it certainly isn’t the only truth in play.
I’m not sure whether or not market forces will be strong enough, here in the UK petrol prices are high because the infrastructure’s demand for oil is fairly inelastic of price, we may simply have massive inflation so that the last drops can be bought. The cost of everything made from oil or transported in an oil-burning vehicle, or made using electricity powered from oil, will go up, and that may cause inflation. People in the developed world may well starve because food won’t be delivered, and the commuting pattern will change very much, so we may need industry closer to home
You could say that inflations a good thing, that it’s the economy in overdrive and lots of things get done with money changing hands quickly, but I think beyond a certain point the human cost will outweigh any economic advantage in voters eyes, same for global warming, and war
The running out of oil may be the thing that stops global warming spiraling out of control, maybe not, I havn’t done the calculation of what would happen if you were to burn all of it, but the time it takes will be important as some is fixed back as sugars or carbonates, and you can’t just extrapolate on current use when oil cost and industrial growth are factored in.
Running out of oil may make us switch to coal and gas though, being cheaper to set up than nuclear. Gas burning makes less carbon emissions than coal as shorter hydrocarbons have a larger Hydrogen:Carbon ratio, because the terminus of a hydrocarbon chain has to bond to an extra hydrogen if it can’t bond to a carbon, if it is to have full valency. Ring hydrocarbons don’t necessarily have a terminus so size won’t change the H:C ratio, but the size of ring you can have is limited by ring strain
Projections I’ve seen run towards that we have “enough” oil for present rates of consumption for maybe 50 years before shortages would become a big problem (lots of variables and disagreement there), and that we have literally hundreds of years worth of coal if we choose to keep making energy that way.
So we have enough carbon on hand to screw things royally if we want to.
DOF, given that our rate of consumption doubles every ten years, 50 years at current rates isn’t all much.
I probably will live to see it, interesting times. Scary thing is that’s around the time I’ll be drawing pension, so if the economy goes kaput maybe I should start hording barrels of oil/petrol for when the prices rise – might get burned to death, but hell either way I won’t have to worry about poverty in old age that way
Nah, we’ll be rogered long before that.
I think we’ve already committed planetary suicide … and the devil had nothing to do with it.
It’s all because women wanted us to get them MORE STUFF.
World would be very different w/o women; I wonder what the economy would be like for a start, I’ve no idea why they take interest in jewlery, clothes, etc, or why they make so much effort socially – then again men have arbitary hobbies, but they tend to be cheaper
(I had to find an inapropriate use for that emoticon)
- and culture would be different, down to the daily life level. Men might also try to find other means of finding company
Chemical description of women:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=women
I think that advert where a man gets his house re-organised with the toilet next to a beer fridge in front of the TV describes what men really want well, it’s perfection
Reminds me of Mark Twain’s Diary of Adam and Eve really funny stuff
- Mark Twain
John Gewin
Bummer, I can’t take credit when there was none due – I didn’t even think of it that way – I was being much softer and romantic.
Jeez, I woulda been clever if I had though – it’s quite funny, eh?
More Readin Material for DOF.
Once again, bland link.
We are uncertain as to the degree to which we cause global warming, and estimates vary. Models vary.
There is a list of things which we have no influence on which may influence global warming – increases in solar activity and volcanism are two that come to mind most prominently.
But there is no reasonably denying that we play a role in the warming of the planet in several ways. Ultimately, the article takes one glacier in one part of the world and uses that as a representative sample. It sidetracks the issue by removing it from it’s context, then making inferences on it.
The commenters had more good material than the article though.
Hey, don’t discourage him! It’s better than the last three he put up.
From the article:
And since the scientific consensus (as opposed to the journalistic or political consensus) is that anthropogenic warming is on a long-term trend, we can expect to see more of the starts and fewer of the stops. Given the stakes, we shouldn’t be complacent about it.
Climate is a turbulent phenomenon with some counterintuitive local effects. So everytime it snows (or a glacier slows down) someone is saying, the major trend is false. Why bother gathering global data and modelling it with supercomputers? Just look out the window.
Patness:
I would agree. I take issue with the chicken little approach by some. I’ve directed the link to DOF because from what I have read he has a more reasonable voice than many of the others on this thread that are more involved in their personal screed. I believe it’s possible to dialogue with him on some subjects, when he doesn’t get confused by emotion.
Awww! What a warm fuzzy.
Thanks, Consi!
Lucky we have you around. You never get confused by emotion. There aren’t any issues where you just can’t get past yourself to the heart of the matter.
Seriously, I don’t know about you, but I am an emotional being. So when I find a point of view attractive, I make an effort to grasp the arguments against it. Somehow I have been unable to find the arguments against conservation, clean technology, and the economics of a clean environment, to be convincing.
Here is an excellent editorial on solar input to the global weather cycle.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4
Underwhelming, Lordklegg. This looks to be just another “don’t listen to the commie environmentalists- global warming is a scam” pro-industry article.
Of course, there are lots of uncertainties, and there are conflicting data. But the vast majority of climatologists who are not subsidized by industry say that global warming is real, it’s serious, and it’s manmade. My money is on the scientists who aren’t selling CO2.
Fair enough.
My biggest issue is some of the best known names in science in Canada who have “jumped on the Global warming bandwagon” won’t discuss variations to their theories re:causes. It’s like they have their fingers in their ears LA LA LA we’re right and you’re wrong.
Now don’t get me wrong here it’s obvious to any fool that the planetary average temp is curently clearly on the rise and so are CO2 levels. However I keep coming across solar researchers who keep saying “you may be missing the real culprit”.
I think I’ll wait for more evidence before I jump whole heartedly on the CO2 bandwagon.
That article was filled with a lot of BS. I wish I could devote more time to it but I can’t right now. Maybe later. Anyways, the Sun does cause a lot of heating in cooling periods on our planet. But nothing to the extent of what is happening right now.
But even if you don’t believe any of this just think about the simple fact that the Earth has never had as many carbon producing life forces as it does today. In fact there have been more carbon producing creatures in the last 1000 years than there have been in the last billion. And that isn’t going to have an effect? How many billions of tons of carbon are being dumped into the atmosphere in the last 10 years? And that isn’t going to have an effect? To answer no is to completely dismiss any and all credible science that exists.
OK So I have a question. At the bottom of the article is says
“R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University”
So based on your opinions this is “just another “don’t listen to the commie environmentalists- global warming is a scam” pro-industry article.” and “That article was filled with a lot of BS”.
So should we totally disregard the research of prominent scientists around the world because it goes against the accepted dogma of how climate change works becasue obviously his research conclusions must be incorrect? Should we disregard the research of other scientists pointing in this direction because it does not fit the socially accept dogma?
Should I have jumped on the global cooling bandwagon of the 70’s also?
I could have sworn the point of science was to gather as much information as possible to have an informed conclusion.
Perhaps DOG is heating up the plannet because man is evil and must be punished
The “global cooling bandwagon of the ‘70’s” thing is a canard. It was never a scientific concensus. It won’t surprise you to know that the media was comprised of idiots in the 1970’s just like now. Some scientists suggested that was a possibility due to particulate reflection, a couple thought it was a strong possibility, and the media went nuts with it. A handy excuse to ignore the much larger and better-studied body of data that exists today.
Like I said, I don’t have time for a full dissection but here is the basics of my point.
No! Normally I would expect someone in Timothy’s position to say something like, “Although humans contribute greatly to Global Warming, there is still a lot we have to uncover as we are now learning about the Sun’s roll… blah blah blah”
Instead here is what he states right from the beginning:
Very very very untrue. His starting premise, first sentence is riddled with errors. No scientist and I have yet to hear any politicians (something he could of referenced but didn’t) say there is nothing left to study or discover. What they say is that the evidence for Global Warming is large and not refuted by scientists. So why are some still denying it.
Here is the next sentence, bolded words are my doing:
Anyone who uses this kind of language obviously has a bias. And he is missing the point of his “science is settled” statement which I explain above.
Again the language shows an obvious bias and actually makes an assumption, carbon capture and sequestration makes no impact, wastes resources, and is a hopeless crusade. Something which is still being studied and being found to not be true. In fact there is a new kind of sequestration method that appears promising. But don’t be surprised if Timmy fails to mention it.
The important thing he misses here is that the current warming temperatures are correlated with rising CO2 levels. I don’t have a link to this data due to time constraints, but read Al Gore’s book or watch his documentary to see the data presented. Basically as far back as we can go with temperature readings we can go back with CO2 readings and essentially the two correlate almost perfectly.
I am by no means at all saying you fall into this crowd, but the True Believers™ and Conspirators will say the same thing about their causes.
To me it seems as though Timothy is more interested in confusing the understanding of Global Warming, or to dissuade public opinion on the issue than to actually present or interpret data and findings. As I said, more will come when I have time.
Thanks for the link, Lordklegg. I apologize for coming off as an ass.
I hear you.
It could also be said that he is “wrapped up in his own work”. Is he interested in “confusing the understanding of Global Warming” or does he feel that others have already created the confusion and that his work poionts in a totally different cause/effect than the public consensus. His point seems to be we are wasting resources trying to fix something that it is possible we cannot affect? i.e. global temperature change caused by solar activity or lack thereof.
I am not arguing that he has a bias. Without actually being able to talk to him, assuming a political bias whereas it’s possibly a research based bias? He has some to a politically and environmentally unpopular conclusion via hs research.
I have to get back to work. I will not return here until I have left the office as it’s too much fun.