Is climate change a bigger threat to the TDF than doping? [Archive]

Black Dog

07-14-2013, 04:07 PM

I think it was in the 70's the climate scientists were predicting another ice age just around the corner.
I agree that pollution is a problem that we all need to be concerned about and do something about. "Man made" global warming or cooling isn't something I'm convinced is actually happening.

You do not need to be convinced that gravity is happening but it is. Same for global warming. Do you really think that all the data that has been collected over the past few hundred years is all wrong or fake?

I don't think it is clear at all. That is subject to much debate and the only real fact is it is a political hot potato. I tend to think the big furnace in the sky has more impact on climate change. Isn't that the weather by definition, change?

And what happened to global warming?

When evidence suggested that Carbon Emissions are a lagging indicator, that was changed to climate change. Talk about inconvenient truths!!! The fact we are in a cooling period prompted the name change, how Orwellian.

Don't forget about e-mail gate either.

TdF doping is a fact, homeogenic caused warming is still very much debated.

mIKE

There is no debate among climate scientists about the fact that the earth is warming. It is. There are a few voices that say it isn't and they are often from other fields of study and they are usually funded by oil, coal, and or gas lobbies. It was changed to climate change because the warming earth is changing the planets climate and so, along with overall warming, there are changes in precipitation, temperature (yes some places may be cooler at times), seasonal effects and so on. Climate change is simply a more accurate description of the effect of increased global temperatures. The current climate models are very accurate and the outlook is no good. The cooling concern in the 70's was no well accepted among climate scientists, had weak data, but made good news copy. When you say that anthropogenic warming is still very much debated can you put a reference to that? How many peer reviewed papers have been published that contradict the fact of global warming or the theory of its causes?

P.S. emailgate was about an esoteric application of statistical analysis and not a coverup or attempt to manipulate humanity into thinking that the earth is warming when it is not.

sfscott

07-14-2013, 04:11 PM

Sen Tom Coburn says climate change is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated. Considering his sterling academic credentials and, not to mention the millions he gets paid by in-state oil interests, that's good enough for me.:confused:

Why should this be a political issue? When the global scientific community comes together with study after study and conclusions based on the scientific method, why is this something open for debate led largely by people who believe man roamed the earth with dinosaurs?

This denial and opposition is nothing more than an illogical aversion to change, powerful business interests and, most critically, the need for one side to oppose an idea--any idea--simply because the other side likes it.

Rather than see R&D into cleaner forms of energy, pollution reduction and water management as a huge growth industry, it's more acceptable to bury one's head in the sand, or elsewhere.

The U.S. Navy--that tree-hugging bastion of liberal thought--has cited climate change, its effects on the oceans and weather patterns as one of its key national security concerns. But what to they know? Better to listen to the Koch brothers.

93legendti

07-14-2013, 04:36 PM

Oh boy. I think it's pretty clear that 'Man made global warming' is real and something to be totally concerned about.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

http://boards.dailymail.co.uk/news-board-moderated/10193237-31-000-scientists-sign-petition-say-global-warming-not-true-2.html

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/04/brrr-nearly-10000-snow-and-cold-records-set-in-us-in-last-6-weeks/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9338939/Global-warming-second-thoughts-of-an-environmentalist.html

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54147

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/hansen-busted-again-turning-a-cooling-trend-into-a-warming-trend/

Villgaxx

07-14-2013, 05:11 PM

cuz those are some wicked great sources, beyond reproach, not at all biased clowns or willful misrepresentations or just plain laughable. it's so much better if you could add some american enterprise institute and heritage foundation stuff too, cuz those guys are on the cutting edge of science and everything else!

thanks so much for helping us understand.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

http://boards.dailymail.co.uk/news-board-moderated/10193237-31-000-scientists-sign-petition-say-global-warming-not-true-2.html

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/04/brrr-nearly-10000-snow-and-cold-records-set-in-us-in-last-6-weeks/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9338939/Global-warming-second-thoughts-of-an-environmentalist.html

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54147

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/hansen-busted-again-turning-a-cooling-trend-into-a-warming-trend/

OtayBW

07-14-2013, 05:15 PM

^
^
Where is the 'head slap' smilie when you need one?

Black Dog

07-14-2013, 05:31 PM

The weatherman can barely predict tomorrow's weather, let alone 100 years from now.

Weather and Climate are very different beasts.

Wilkinson4

07-14-2013, 06:08 PM

I don't think it is clear at all. That is subject to much debate and the only real fact is it is a idealogical hot potato.

Fixed political to idealogic. What I believe versus what I know are two different things. I believe based on what I have read that this seems to be some ginned up crisis to prop up big enviro to be the next big pharm.

But, I am agnostic to the whole thing. I'm open to solid evidence... But, when you have climategate and the way the believers attack the non-believers, that gives me pause.

Attacking articles that may be published by rags that have a bias or leaning is just an example of the level of dogma that this has come to. These articles do reference and quote many dissenter scientest who believe otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/12392-former-global-warming-supporter-now-shows-data-that-refutes-it

What I know is the there is and has been doping in TDF, or sports for that matter. And I believe there is global warming in this friggin airport as my flight has been delayed for 3hrs and it is stuffy and hot here.

mIKE

slidey

07-14-2013, 06:26 PM

Oh great! This again...beautiful. I've heard this comedy routine quite a few times before, and there's nothing that anyone can say that'll satisfy you lot anyway. However, I do have a couple of fitting videos which you might amuse yourself with in the meanwhile.

1. Climate Change (http://youtu.be/yKUPUznJZoE) is not a cool concept invented by hipsters, and
2. the burden of proof (http://youtu.be/SI5ulKiZAoE) (that climate change isn't real) is on y'all.

I don't think it is clear at all. That is subject to much debate and the only real fact is it is a political hot potato. I tend to think the big furnace in the sky has more impact on climate change. Isn't that the weather by definition, change?

And what happened to global warming?

When evidence suggested that Carbon Emissions are a lagging indicator, that was changed to climate change. Talk about inconvenient truths!!! The fact we are in a cooling period prompted the name change, how Orwellian.

Don't forget about e-mail gate either.

TdF doping is a fact, homeogenic caused warming is still very much debated.

mIKE

BumbleBeeDave

07-14-2013, 06:51 PM

I think it's real.

If climate change is NOT real, and yet we still take measures to deal with it like developing renewable energy, then we leave the world a better place for our great-great-grandchildren.

If climate change IS real, and we still take measures to deal with it like developing renewable energy, then we leave the world a better place for our great-great-grandchildren.

If climate change IS real and yet we do nothing, then the potential price is a world that is a far, far WORSE place for our great-great-grandchildren.

Given the price for being wrong, is that a bet you're willing to take?

BBD

PQJ

07-14-2013, 06:59 PM

This thread is a hot potato. The evidence is all around us. All the time. Everywhere. The only one/thing setting more records than the weather is Chris Froome.

Wilkinson4

07-14-2013, 06:59 PM

I think it's real.

If climate change is NOT real, and yet we still take measures to deal with it like developing renewable energy, then we leave the world a better place for our great-great-grandchildren.

At what price??? What is the economic impact of proping up renewable energy sources vs. allowing the free market innovate? Maybe the real question is, "Is the economic threat bigger that the
climate change threat?"...

I don't know if our impact to it is real or not... There is compelling evidence at both ends if you can get past the religious fervor from both sides.

mIKE

Bradford

07-14-2013, 07:40 PM

There is compelling evidence at both ends if you can get past the religious fervor from both sides.
mIKE
The latest published reports from scientific sources are that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is happening. In other words, of the people who have the training and intelligence to understand this subject, one side has 97% of the people and the other side has 3% of the people.

Now, if you include all the people, including most of the people on this forum, they you can get "compelling evidence at both ends." If you only count people who know what they are talking about...you can't.

I'm not a scientist, and I'm guessing you aren't either. So neither one of us is qualified to actually understand this issue. However, we do know where the people who know what they are talking about stand. And we also know what the people who have no science background, but either a left or a right political agenda, stand.

So, you get to chose who you are going to trust here. I think I'll take all the PhDs who spend their entire careers on this issue.

BumbleBeeDave

07-14-2013, 07:58 PM

I think I'll take all the PhDs who spend their entire careers on this issue.

Yeah.

BBD

Kirk007

07-15-2013, 12:30 AM

At what price??? There is compelling evidence at both ends if you can get past the religious fervor from both sides.

mIKE

no there's not. not a shred at the denial end. None, nada zip. If you believe any of those articles cited by Legend Ti I've got a bridge in Brooklyn among other things to sell you.

Considering climate change impacts in key to my profession. Forget the hysterics and follow the credible science and open your eyes to the phenomena occurring all around us.

What price you ask? How 'bout our kids and grandkids are completely f*cked if we don't get off our asses, hell they may be there already.

93legendti

07-15-2013, 01:24 AM

Oceans didn't rise.
Snow didn't stop.
No dust bowls.
Temperatures stopped rising long ago.
Manhattan isn't under water.
Even with all the lies by Climategate I and II, the public understands the fraud of global warming.

31,000 scientists have come to a consensus: global warming is a con and a sham. I know people making a living from the con won't be happy, but there is always carbon credits and other con games.

And as to the "for the children" emotional tug, re polar bears? Doing just fine, thank you. In fact, better than ever:

http://www.ibtimes.com/polar-bear-population-higher-20th-century-something-fishy-about-extinction-fears-821075

'"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations 'may now be near historic highs,'" it read.'

93legendti

07-15-2013, 01:29 AM

'“The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

“If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change,” he says.

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.”

Or to put it in terms any lay person can comprehend, Al Gore’s “inconvenient truth” is, in fact, a convenient lie meant to line his pockets with billions of green backs.'
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54147

93legendti

07-15-2013, 01:33 AM

'So even Tim "Trougher" Yeo admits he was wrong about climate change. (Well done young Matthew Holehouse for screwing this admission out of him.)
Here's what he said in 2009:
"The dying gasps of the deniers will be put to bed. In five years time, no one will argue about a man-made contribution to climate change.”
And here, less than five years on, is what he is saying now:
“Although I think the evidence that the climate is changing is now overwhelming, the causes are not absolutely clear. There could be natural causes, natural phases that are taking place.”'

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100219218/trougher-yeo-recants-on-global-warming/

'Asked on Tuesday night whether it was better to take action to mitigate the effects of climate change than to prevent it in the first place, he said: “The first thing to say is it does not represent any threat to the survival of the planet. None at all. The planet has survived much bigger changes than any climate change that is happening now.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10086694/Tim-Yeo-humans-may-not-be-to-blame-for-global-warming.html

129 scandals re falsifying "warming data"-must be necessary because it is so obvious and dire...

http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/us-january-may-temperatures-declining-for-15-years/

"But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean..,.

Now, here is a crucial piece of background: It turns out we had an earlier plateau in global warming, from roughly the 1950s to the 1970s, and scientists do not fully understand that one either. A lot of evidence suggests that sunlight-blocking pollution from dirty factories may have played a role, as did natural variability in ocean circulation. The pollution was ultimately reduced by stronger clean-air laws in the West."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=1&

"But when the latest official global temperature figures from the Met Office are placed over the predictions, they show how wrong the estimates have been, to the point of falling out of the ‘95 per cent’ band completely.

The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions.

The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. The forecasts have also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no emissions targets.

A version of the graph appears in a leaked draft of the IPCC’s landmark Fifth Assessment Report due out later this year. It comes as leading climate scientists begin to admit that their worst fears about global warming will not be realised...
The graph confirms there has been no statistically significant increase in the world’s average temperature since January 1997 – as this newspaper first disclosed last year.

At the end of last year the Met Office revised its ten-year forecast predicting a succession of years breaking records for warmth. It now says the pause in warming will last until at least 2017. A glance at the graph will confirm that the world will be cooler than even the coolest scenario predicted."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html

soulspinner

07-15-2013, 04:40 AM

Wow. Had someone tell me photographs from high peaks showing lowest snow totals in our short history here ( are at an all time low ) are doctored. Really?:confused:

nighthawk

07-15-2013, 05:20 AM

http://www.chasingice.com/

CDollarsign

07-15-2013, 05:35 AM

Seems like we've got some birthers on this forum. Yeesh.

PQJ

07-15-2013, 05:38 AM

Wow. Had someone tell me photographs from high peaks showing lowest snow totals in our short history here ( are at an all time low ) are doctored. Really?:confused:

Rumor has it that Elvis Presley and Jim Morrison, in addition to still making music in Africa together, have been seen carting snow off mt Kilimanjaro as they are paid hacks of the global conspiracy.

Bikerist

07-15-2013, 06:06 AM

You do not need to be convinced that gravity is happening but it is. Same for global warming....

For you to imply that global warming is as obvious as gravity, simply confirms that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Unless you mean the kind of global warming that happens pretty much everyday between 6:00 Am and Noon.

DreaminJohn

07-15-2013, 06:11 AM

The latest published reports from scientific sources are that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is happening. In other words, of the people who have the training and intelligence to understand this subject, one side has 97% of the people and the other side has 3% of the people.

Can I see one please?

Len J

07-15-2013, 06:51 AM

A few observations.

- climate has been changing since the formation of the earth, swinging back and forth between ice ages and overheating. The earth will be fine. Why is the assumption that the earth won't adjust to compensate as it has done for millennium? Over heating has led to the ice age has led to over heating, wash, rinse, repeat. More co2 = heating, = more arable land = more plants consuming CO2 = less co2 = cooling etc etc....over the long term.

- everyone focuses on the losses of warming....human nature, but for every loss, there will be a gain. As areas closer to the equator become less usable for their current use, other areas further north become more usable for other uses.

- humans will be the most effected. Adaptation has and will be our greatest asset as a species. Why do we assume that we can't adapt?

- climate is about long term trends not seasons. Extrapolating no snow for one winter is absurd.

- the economics of developed societies that create a problem trying to impose costs and barriers to economic development on developing nations is the height of irony.

- waving a magic wand and eliminating co2 emissions in us & Europe would slow the warming marginally.

- The sky is not falling.

That said, the development of methods to reduce emissions is not a bad thing done rationally.

IMO, ymmv etc.

Len

PQJ

07-15-2013, 06:55 AM

There's a wealth of information, including secondary sources, in the following link for anyone seeking to better educate themselves on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming.

oldpotatoe

07-15-2013, 07:12 AM

An interesting perspective.

http://qz.com/103669/climate-change-is-a-bigger-threat-to-the-tour-de-france-than-doping/

Wow, big subject, very political, surprised it's not closed yet.

For me, unless China and India, who 'own' a third of the global population or thereabouts, get onboard, what the US does means little(even as the number 2 energy consumer on the globe)..mostly feel good(see a lot of that around here).

AND a really smart guy, can't find the article, says if we really want to reduce carbon emissions, and still have the energy needed for the future, Nuclear is the only real option. Remember there have been more deaths as a result of coal, natural gas or other fossil fuel production in a year than in the entire past of nuclear energy.

BUT it's about $..we are poised to become on par with Saudi Arabia as an oil producer. Natural gas is putting coal out of biz..People buy Prius' because of the gas milage, not because they are 'green'(they aren't anyway).

-Unless energy is scarce, not expensive, don't expect anything to really change.

-Wind and solar won't replace natural gas and even coal until it's more expensive than wind/solar.

DreaminJohn

07-15-2013, 07:26 AM

A few observations......

Len

Thanks as always for being a voice of reason, Len.

verticaldoug

07-15-2013, 07:37 AM

phcollard

07-15-2013, 07:49 AM

Wow I can't believe so many are still in denial! It's good practice to question everything with a bit of doubt but haven't we passed that point long ago? Thousands of the world's top scientists drawing the same conclusions, as well as personal observations, are enough for me.

Should we do something? Hell yeah. Are we going to do something? I doubt it. And even if we react the momentum of systems we would need to change will prevent us to do it on time. How much is it going to cost to change things? Less than if we do nothing.

Len J

07-15-2013, 07:54 AM

You left off all the fun parts: Five Mass extinction events and the many little die offs. .

And what about the new species that adapt and evolve? Are they less valuable than what we have? Life is change. Seems like a lot of people want the earth to remain exactly as it is.

Len

William

07-15-2013, 07:56 AM

I'm stocking up on Suzuki 250's and all the studded leather jackets and pants I can find. That's what's needed to rule when the world goes down the flusher (at least according to just about every post-apocalyptic movie I've ever seen).

;)
William

oldpotatoe

07-15-2013, 07:57 AM

phcollard

07-15-2013, 07:59 AM

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/elysium-2013/trailers/elysium-trailer-200248321.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGC3zNalXkQ

Uh? What d'ya mean buddy? :)

oldpotatoe

07-15-2013, 08:02 AM

Uh? What d'ya mean buddy? :)

The scenes at the beginning of each, after civilization has collapsed, brown air, too many people. Because, with too many people living on 'Elysium', nobody is going to do anything.

nighthawk

07-15-2013, 08:05 AM

And what about the new species that adapt and evolve? Are they less valuable than what we have? Life is change. Seems like a lot of people want the earth to remain exactly as it is.

Len

Evolution and adaptation are slow procesees... Your statements don't really take this into consideration, nor do they take into account how various organisms interact within ecosystems. Extinction, not speciation is the more likely outcome of this scenario.

J.Greene

07-15-2013, 08:07 AM

I've noticed a close correlation between folks who deny climate change and who thought RXstrong was clean. Sarcasm alert.

phcollard

07-15-2013, 08:19 AM

The scenes at the beginning of each, after civilization has collapsed, brown air, too many people. Because, with too many people living on 'Elysium', nobody is going to do anything.

Ah OK. Looks like a decent action movie. I'll sure go watch it in a highly climate controlled theater! Lol. Damn humidity in Quebec. Matt Damooooon!

Ahneida Ride

07-15-2013, 08:45 AM

In 1470, Europe, they were growing grapes in England.

PQJ

07-15-2013, 08:52 AM

In 1470, Europe, they were growing grapes in England.

What was the FRN/grape?

Ahneida Ride

07-15-2013, 08:54 AM

The "solution" will be to set up and other federal reserve ...

Which will control our carbon supply just like the fed controls our money supply.

The derivative contracts, swaps and trades, will make a select few
immense wealth, while the rest of us suffer.

Ahneida Ride

07-15-2013, 08:57 AM

What was the FRN/grape?

there were no frns back then..... sorry ....

they were on the tally stick system ...

The King ie government created its own money using tally sticks.
No private central banking cartel was involved.

gdw

07-15-2013, 08:59 AM

"I'm not a scientist, and I'm guessing you aren't either. So neither one of us is qualified to actually understand this issue. However, we do know where the people who know what they are talking about stand."

Two of the local groups involved in climate research, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), have been trimming their staffs over the past several years and just canned a couple long time employees last week. I'm an agnostic on the issue but sure would be supporting the climate change theory if I were a scientist hoping to stay gainfully employed in Boulder. :banana:

Rueda Tropical

07-15-2013, 09:00 AM

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/hansen-busted-again-turning-a-cooling-trend-into-a-warming-trend/

This guy is typical of the denier types.

Goddard is your typical know nothing AGW denier blogger. He used to be a regular guest author on WattsUpWithThat, except that he became a regular embarrassment, and he and Watts parted ways. In one of the worst examples (although there are so many to choose from), Watts had to apologize for the utter stupidity of one of Goddard's articles:

"My apologies to readers. I'll leave it up (note altered title) as an example of what not to do when graphing trends"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/ar…

John Cook rebutted another of Goddard's idiotic WUWT posts here as well:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up…

Goddard now runs his own blog. Considering that he was too ignorant even for the exceptionally low standards at WUWT, not surprisingly, very few people actually read it. Apparently it's not his real name and Steven Goddard is a pseudonym, which is funny, because Anthony Watts claims that everybody who writes on his site goes by their real names.

Amazing in the 21st century that we still have the same hostility to science that Galileo and Darwin dealt with. You would think the thinking of the middle ages had ended by now. Most of the predicted trends are happening as fast or faster then predicted. From Arctic melting, extreme weather (which impacts agriculture in very negative ways), - to sea level rise ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm ).

I am sure we will not do anything about it. So we will have to deal with the consequences as they happen. We seem to be set up on a societal-political scale like a business that is so focused on this quarters results that we feel it is impossible to account for any long term or strategic planning. In today's world (as in yesterdays) you are more likely to find some religious ayatollah or paid political hack protecting some businesses interests setting policy then see any rational policy based on actual study.

phcollard

07-15-2013, 09:09 AM

I am sure we will not do anything about it. So we will have to deal with the consequences as they happen. We seem to be set up on a societal-political scale like a business that is so focused on this quarters results that we feel it is impossible to account for any long term or strategic planning. In today's world (as in yesterdays) you are more likely to find some religious ayatollah or paid political hack protecting some businesses interests setting policy then see any rational policy based on actual study.

This. Exactly.

oldpotatoe

07-15-2013, 09:18 AM

verticaldoug

07-15-2013, 09:22 AM

And what about the new species that adapt and evolve? Are they less valuable than what we have? Life is change. Seems like a lot of people want the earth to remain exactly as it is.

Len

You are correct and life will continue. However, the niche species are probably the ones that will benefit. Humans being the dominate species will probably put too much strain on the evolving eco-system just by our sheer numbers.

I plan on being the old guy in Soylant green when the �� hits the fan.

Jaq

07-15-2013, 09:24 AM

phcollard

07-15-2013, 09:32 AM

...fueled by dead dinosaurs siphoned from some of the world's worst places.

You're talking Alberta tar sands right?

Blame Harper :mad: :mad: :butt: :butt:

nighthawk

07-15-2013, 09:34 AM

What a great word..speciation

It's the least I could do, considering all the things I've learned from you! :p

nighthawk

07-15-2013, 09:39 AM

The only way it's ever gonna work is to have less people. So, until population control is seriously on the table, I'll keep barbecuing my resource-foolish steaks over increasingly scarce hardwoods, and chasing that savory dish with libations that require thousands of miles of transport in rusty tubs fueled by dead dinosaurs siphoned from some of the world's worst places.

I think climate change IS population control, we just didn't get invited to the planning meeting.

I'm with you, though.... We're doomed, enjoy it while it lasts. :)

Bradford

07-15-2013, 10:06 AM

Can I see one please?

How about this from NASA, you know, the rocket scientists.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

phcollard

07-15-2013, 10:10 AM

How about this from NASA, you know, the rocket scientists.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Thanks for sharing. The rest of the site isn't bad neither. Oh My Oh My...

Kirk007

07-15-2013, 10:18 AM

Evolution and adaptation are slow procesees... Your statements don't really take this into consideration, nor do they take into account how various organisms interact within ecosystems. Extinction, not speciation is the more likely outcome of this scenario.

Exactly. And the "new" species will likely be invasive ones that quickly damage ecosystems, we've seen this for decades.

Yes, earth will continue, but will we want to live in it? Adam talks about seas not rising, snow not melting etc. Adam you should take a road tour of the West. Ride the Rising to the Sun Road in Glacier National Park - the opportunity to do so and see glaciers is quickly closing. Come to Seattle - watch our storm drains spout storm surge multiple times a year as one a decade storm surges happen a few times each winter. But summer is becoming nicer and nicer - sunny and dry. Drive through the Southwest without air conditioning. I can introduce you to a wonderful Navajo teenager - who's home has lost all of its groundwater; who has had to sell off all of the families' horses as they can't afford to buy water for them. Come talk to Taylor Shellfish about how they have to grow oyster larvae in Hawaii due to the acidification of the upwelled waters in Puget Sound and on the West Coast - here's a good one - pH levels that are currently hampering shellfish formation are due to CO2 deposited in the ocean 40-50 years ago. What do you think the future holds for sections of our oceans? Don't believe the sea is rising. I can set you up with a visit to some villages in Alaska and you can physically help them relocate their buildings which are falling into the sea. There's a wonderful 16 year old boy who could use your help. Or if the West isn't your cup of tea I can set you up with some wonderful foresters in the east who can tell you about how our eastern hardwood forests are being impacted. It is easy to pontificate as to how this is all made up as long as you are not directly experiencing the consequences.

Temperature data and CO2 readings don't lie. Real time experiences across the world are consistent with data and hypotheses. We are outpacing even the worst case scenarios that have been posited. If you strip away the spin and the rent a scientists hired by vested economic interests, and look at the numbers and the folks who are seeing and recording first hand what is happening, and who really understand the carbon cycle, I don't see how anyone can be very optimistic unless perhaps you believe in a higher power that is going to mystically pull our asses out of the fire.

And this is not even considering all of the other impacts we are having that are knocking everything out of kilter A shortage of potable water may well do in much of the country and those locations current economic bases (like agriculture; although returning to dry land farming may be the answer for some areas). A lack of predators has allowed a ridiculous proliferation of ungulates (primarily white tail deer) and other species that would in a functioning ecosystem be controlled by apex and meso predators, on the east coast, that combined with weather patterns and invasive species have sent tick populations skyrocketing (and with that, increased disease). If you sit and talk with emeritus professors of Conservation Biology from Duke, Harvard, Stanford, and the University of California as to why they believe that we may see entire ecosystems across America collapse within our lifetimes it is hard to not be concerned.

As to whether we can do anything about it - sure we can, but will we? I don't think we'll do enough. As to the until China, India blah, blah blah - I see that as a handy excuse to keep the status quo - an economic based decision rather than taking a leadership position based on what is the moral and ethical thing to do. I would never associate such a stance with a country that claims to be the leader of the free world.

I'm very much a long term pessimist at this point about humans' future. We are a species with a very short term view and a technological chip on our shoulder; a species that repeatedly fails to learn fundamental lessons of biology and ecology. We will keep breeding, eating and using until we crash. And this isn't even taking into consideration all the rest of the challenges that we face as a nation and a world. I'm glad my wife and I are past the child rearing stage; it would be a very challenging decision for me to bring a kid into this world.

phcollard

07-15-2013, 10:49 AM

^ Excellent writing. Thanks a lot!

PQJ

07-15-2013, 11:04 AM

Actual post deleted in the interest of brevity - apologies to Kirk007

In addition to the afore-requested spel chekir, can we please please please add 'like' button functionality. Please.

nighthawk

07-15-2013, 11:36 AM

^ Excellent writing. Thanks a lot!

+1

Thank You, Kirk007.

Len J

07-15-2013, 11:53 AM

The species will survive.

Why is a world different than the one we know always assumed tone worsening every way?

Len.

Kirk007

07-15-2013, 12:10 PM

The species will survive.

Why is a world different than the one we know always assumed tone worsening every way?

Len.

Species will survive. A question is who will the winners and losers be and what will be the quality of existence? There is little question that we are moving our global ecosystems to a very different status - an "alternative stable state" where they function in some new but degraded way. An analogy is a trauma victim who figures out a way to accomodate a terrible disturbance. And we don't know when (or if I suppose, but I think it is more a question of when) things will start to hit the fan. "Small" things like the disappearance of honey bees or the spread of tropical diseases to more temperate climates could rock our world in a very bad way.

As the dominant species on earth our actions have triggered the sixth great extinction crisis. Biodiversity is falling through the floor. This is much more complicated than climate change, but climate change is the kicker that is enhancing, in a destructive way, all the other adverse impacts we are having - pollution, resource use, population etc., etc. As biodiversity falls, the risk of collapse increases - think of it like a stock portfolio - if you put all your $$ in one hot stock you are doing great, until your not, and then you are sunk.

Sure, different does not necessarily have to be bad, but it sure as heck will be for many, many species, and the world as we know it.

Len J

07-15-2013, 12:14 PM

Species will survive. A question is who will the winners and losers be and what will be the quality of existence? There is little question that we are moving our global ecosystems to a very different status - an "alternative stable state" where they function in some new but degraded way. An analogy is a trauma victim who figures out a way to accomodate a terrible disturbance. And we don't know when (or if I suppose, but I think it is more a question of when) things will start to hit the fan. "Small" things like the disappearance of honey bees or the spread of tropical diseases to more temperate climates could rock our world in a very bad way.

As the dominant species on earth our actions have triggered the sixth great extinction crisis. Biodiversity is falling through the floor. This is much more complicated than climate change, but climate change is the kicker that is enhancing, in a destructive way, all the other adverse impacts we are having - pollution, resource use, population etc., etc. As biodiversity falls, the risk of collapse increases - think of it like a stock portfolio - if you put all your $$ in one hot stock you are doing great, until your not, and then you are sunk.

Sure, different does not necessarily have to be bad, but it sure as heck will be for many, many species, and the world as we know it.

Why is it necessarily degraded?

soulspinner

07-15-2013, 12:40 PM

The only way it's ever gonna work is to have less people. So, until population control is seriously on the table, I'll keep barbecuing my resource-foolish steaks over increasingly scarce hardwoods, and chasing that savory dish with libations that require thousands of miles of transport in rusty tubs fueled by dead dinosaurs siphoned from some of the world's worst places.

As they say across the pond BANG ON............the single most drain on our resources is another human being. All things crave balance, and so will this..........

Kirk007

07-15-2013, 01:22 PM

Why is it necessarily degraded?

We have removed, poisoned, altered fundamental, critical features of ecosystems in ways that have led to the die of of tremendous number of species. We are lowering biodiversity, not increasing it, on a time scale that evolution/speciation cannot keep pace with.

If you kill a stream, either with acid mine drainage or by overgrazing that destroys riparian habitat and increases stream temperature so that native fish cannot live, or remove predators such that ungulate populations explode, that eat everything in the riparian area, that reduces beaver population (what little remained after trapping) such that streams lose woody debris, become channelized, have increased sedimentation and temperature such that native species go extinct in that stream segment, this is what I think of as a degraded state. These situations decrease biodiversity, decreasing habitat resilience, and making the ecosystem more susceptible to failure.

I suppose it is a social question whether barren streams and landscapes with decreased biodiversity or taken over by invasive species are"just as good;" and whether a completely urbanized landscape with chemically manufactured food pellets and bike rides on virtual reality machines is "just as good" as what we have had, but for me that's an easy "no." But some folks are writing that we just need to accept that change is inevitable and invasives like pythons in the Everglades and Lion Fish in the Caribbean are just as good as what we had generations ago. This reasoning sends smart folks like E.O. Wilson around the bend as it disregards, among other things, time frames and the role of natural selection/speciation.

I don't think that any smart people are denying that change happens and is indeed the fundamental concept with evolution nor are too many smart people (some are) thinking that we can keep everything in a 1960s - 2000 statis. The worry (my worry) is that the human induced change is a runaway train with a drunken conductor - not likely to be a pretty ending.

verticaldoug

07-15-2013, 01:40 PM

I prefer a simpler track. Both of the following statements are true.
Never before in human history have so many lived in such luxury.
Never before in human history have so many lived in such squalor.

Now depending on which group you belong to, your experience will be quite different.

zap

07-15-2013, 02:15 PM

You're talking Alberta tar sands right?

Blame Harper :mad: :mad: :butt: :butt:

.......started well before Harper.

phcollard

07-15-2013, 02:30 PM

.......started well before Harper.

Yeah but you have to admit he has pushed the concept further than anybody else before him. His propaganda makes me sick. And don't forget it's his government that withdrew Canada from the Kyoto protocol. What an absolute shame that is. What a fantastic leader. A model for all. Enough said. I'm getting on nerves just writing about him.

zap

07-15-2013, 02:42 PM

A member of my family was part of the Conservative leadership in Canada in the 80's and 90's so............................I hear nothing but good about Harper.

Hey, he lowered taxes no...........

SpokeValley

07-15-2013, 02:46 PM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

http://boards.dailymail.co.uk/news-board-moderated/10193237-31-000-scientists-sign-petition-say-global-warming-not-true-2.html

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/04/brrr-nearly-10000-snow-and-cold-records-set-in-us-in-last-6-weeks/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9338939/Global-warming-second-thoughts-of-an-environmentalist.html

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54147

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/hansen-busted-again-turning-a-cooling-trend-into-a-warming-trend/

:)

phcollard

07-15-2013, 02:48 PM

A member of my family was part of the Conservative leadership in Canada in the 80's and 90's so............................I hear nothing but good about Harper.

Hey, he lowered taxes no...........

Rednecks!!!

Just kidding :) :)

I very often talk to Steven Guilbeault - one of Quebec's most prominent environmentalist - and I hear nothing but bad about Harper. To each his own.

Yes. Lowering taxes was a good way for him to gain votes. It's the tip of the iceberg that's easier being seen.

R2D2

07-15-2013, 03:01 PM

In 1470, Europe, they were growing grapes in England.

And it used to be France had maybe two ripe vintages every ten years.
Now, it is almost every year. But then 1947 was a very hot year.
Anyway, no point other than I like talking about wine and plan on drinking some great 1986's this coming weekend.

professerr

07-15-2013, 03:22 PM

50% of Republicans believe there is no evidence of global warming vs 10% of Democrats (And 87% of Dems. believe there is "solid evidence" of global warming).

19% of Reps. believe global warming is caused by human activity vs. 57% of Dems.

http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/04/4-2-13-4.png

58% percent of Republicans believe "God created humans in pretty much their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-us-believe-creationism-2012-6

There are fundamentally different belief systems at work among masses of people in the US.

Despite this I can only think of one family member, friend, colleague, or acquaintance who denies global warming or believes in creationism.

It seems incredible to me that I and virtually everyone one I know can hold such fundamentally different views from a great number of fellow citizens.

zap

07-15-2013, 03:45 PM

Rednecks!!!

Just kidding :) :)

That's another story............:banana:

Anyhow, I don't go back to Canada much (I get tired of visiting the effing boonies north of Toronto where road cycling sucks) so politics (one sided or not) hardly ever comes up.

I just wonder what the plan is once they finish with the oil sands project........the worlds largest ice rink?

Seramount

07-15-2013, 04:02 PM

arguments on internet forums about climate change are usually a 'must avoid'...but, there's been a couple of interesting posts here.

specifically, kudos to Kirk for very well-written insights.

CO2 emissions are not just about hotter/colder weather patterns and the size of glaciers and numbers of polar bears...the real issue is what covers 70% of the planet...oceans.

once the marine ecosystems are significantly altered by acidification and rampant overfishing, the demise of untold numbers of species that feed a large part of the human population is going to be some serious payback for not addressing these problems.

cloudguy

07-15-2013, 04:08 PM

'nuff said and funny as ***:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/louis-ck-animation-destroys-global-warming-deniers_n_3599126.html

OtayBW

07-15-2013, 06:08 PM

Even if we take the question of whether climate change is man-induced OUT of the equation, it is clear - at least to me - that man is the only species on the planet that seems to be intent on destroying it's nest. Shameful.

slidey

07-15-2013, 06:48 PM

And the fundamental problem for this is the so-called democratic process that this country employs. Americans (a vast majority) believe that every problem has only 2 views, and they're necessarily the exact opposites of each other. :eek:

There are fundamentally different belief systems at work among masses of people in the US.

Mr. Squirrel

07-15-2013, 06:55 PM

global warming makes my nuts smaller. my nuts have evolved a period of dormancy to cope with cold winter temperatures, winter frosts and short winter warm periods. That period of dormancy is important for triggering new growth...

http://climateimc.org/en/original-news/2013/04/14/winter-chill-fruit-and-nut-trees-feeling-heat-global-warming

http://faculty.washington.edu/girvetz/drupal/Climate%20Impacts%20to%20Fruit%20and%20Nut%20Orcha rds

mr. squirrel

shovelhd

07-15-2013, 07:13 PM

global warming makes my nuts smaller.

/thread

SlackMan

07-15-2013, 08:06 PM

There are fundamentally different belief systems at work among masses of people in the US.

Despite this I can only think of one family member, friend, colleague, or acquaintance who denies global warming or believes in creationism.

It seems incredible to me that I and virtually everyone one I know can hold such fundamentally different views from a great number of fellow citizens.

Several years ago, I hit "reply all" to respond to a friend's email that was admittedly very political in nature--and of course, I responded with an opposing viewpoint. One person on the reply list responded with absolute and total anger that she didn't even know who I was and certainly wouldn't be my friend given my response. I responded that I had many friends with divergent political views, and that I would never decide who could be my friend based on his or her political views. An angry exchange ensued with her threatening (and attempting) to block my email address so she didn't have to hear my views. So, this experience, coupled with many others, tells me that many people don't want to hear divergent opinions and will do whatever necessary to block themselves from hearing those views. She was not exactly the tolerant and open-minded person she professed to be. And the situation was not exactly a stellar recipe for a society that should be at least willing to listen to others' views and try to understand them. It was very disappointing to say the least.

firerescuefin

07-15-2013, 08:25 PM

Chance

07-15-2013, 08:32 PM

Was watching a Weather Channel segment where they claimed smog can help keep the earth cooler. Apperantly it can block some of the solar energy from reaching the surface.

Maybe we're just doing to great a job at cleaning-up air pollution.:rolleyes:

gasman

07-15-2013, 08:46 PM

Travel a little before you condemn western practices. Environmental considerations much less protection isn't evident in much of the world. Making it through today is a more pressing issue. Anyone care to tackle that one for me....I'm all ears.

Having worked on medical missions in Haiti it is true that they are more concerned about getting their next meal. But, the amount of energy and resources used in daily living in Haiti is dwarfed by what we use in our daily life in Western society. I know what my family uses could support many families in Haiti.

firerescuefin

07-15-2013, 08:50 PM

Having worked on medical missions in Haiti it is true that they are more concerned about getting their next meal. But, the amount of energy and resources used in daily living in Haiti is dwarfed by what we use in our daily life in Western society. I know what my family uses could support many families in Haiti.

Not being argumentative...but that doesn't touch the point I was driving home. The govt's there could not care less...and this attitude is mirrored in far more countries than not...and in the case of some of these countries (see Middle East)...wealth is not the issue.

BumbleBeeDave

07-15-2013, 08:51 PM

. . . to the polarization of views in our society. In the past if you wanted to read opinions you had to go to the editorial page in your local newspaper (or the NY Times, or wherever.) Even if you violently disagreed with opposing views, at least there was the chance you would be exposed to them and perhaps actually read them, enticed by a headline or some other factor, and on a good editorial page both sides were on display. That was the whole purposed of an editorial page--to encourage an exchange of differing ideas.

Today on the Internet it's possible to totally avoid any views that you disagree with, to arrange your news consumption so you never even see them. I'm convinced many people do exactly that and so are never even exposed to divergent views, much less actually engage in any kind of informed debate. It's "my way or the highway" for everybody. Even here we prohibit strictly political threads because they inevitably lead to virtual shouting matches.

But I like to think that even with that prohibition we still serve as a place where people can share divergent ideas and we're at least willing to give each other a fair hearing.

BBD

Several years ago, I hit "reply all" to respond to a friend's email that was admittedly very political in nature--and of course, I responded with an opposing viewpoint. One person on the reply list responded with absolute and total anger that she didn't even know who I was and certainly wouldn't be my friend given my response. I responded that I had many friends with divergent political views, and that I would never decide who could be my friend based on his or her political views. An angry exchange ensued with her threatening (and attempting) to block my email address so she didn't have to hear my views. So, this experience, coupled with many others, tells me that many people don't want to hear divergent opinions and will do whatever necessary to block themselves from hearing those views. She was not exactly the tolerant and open-minded person she professed to be. And the situation was not exactly a stellar recipe for a society that should be at least willing to listen to others' views and try to understand them. It was very disappointing to say the least.

SlackMan

07-15-2013, 09:00 PM

. . . to the polarization of views in our society. In the past if you wanted to read opinions you had to go to the editorial page in your local newspaper (or the NY Times, or wherever.) Even if you violently disagreed with opposing views, at least there was the chance you would be exposed to them and perhaps actually read them, enticed by a headline or some other factor, and on a good editorial page both sides were on display. That was the whole purposed of an editorial page--to encourage an exchange of differing ideas.

Today on the Internet it's possible to totally avoid any views that you disagree with, to arrange your news consumption so you never even see them. I'm convinced many people do exactly that and so are never even exposed to divergent views, much less actually engage in any kind of informed debate. It's "my way or the highway" for everybody. Even here we prohibit strictly political threads because they inevitably lead to virtual shouting matches.

But I like to think that even with that prohibition we still serve as a place where people can share divergent ideas and we're at least willing to give each other a fair hearing.

BBD

Great observation. Every day I read the NY Times editorial page *and* and the WSJ editorial page with pretty much polar opposite views to each other. Although I generally agree with one set and generally disagree with the other set, at least I know where the opposing viewpoint is coming from. If more people in our society would do that with an open mind, I think the level of civil discourse, and our progress toward shared goals, would improve immensely.

slidey

07-15-2013, 10:01 PM

I'm sorry Geoff...I started writing a long explanation of what's wrong, etc but I don't have the energy/patience/eloquence to explain/stave off clich�'s/explain this at the moment. We can take this offline though if you please, or once I feel a bit fresher maybe I'll have another crack at it.

In the meanwhile, here's the tip (http://youtu.be/PkCgkf25Tus) of the message I was getting at. Not explained very eloquently, but drives home the message nonetheless.

Travel a little before you condemn western practices. Environmental considerations much less protection isn't evident in much of the world. Making it through today is a more pressing issue. Anyone care to tackle that one for me....I'm all ears.

nahtnoj

07-15-2013, 10:10 PM

At what price??? What is the economic impact of proping up renewable energy sources vs. allowing the free market innovate? Maybe the real question is, "Is the economic threat bigger that the
climate change threat?"...

I don't know if our impact to it is real or not... There is compelling evidence at both ends if you can get past the religious fervor from both sides.

mIKE

Nevermind...fools errand.

Kirk007

07-15-2013, 10:34 PM

Not being argumentative...but that doesn't touch the point I was driving home. The govt's there could not care less...and this attitude is mirrored in far more countries than not...and in the case of some of these countries (see Middle East)...wealth is not the issue.

Complicated for sure, but for developing nations, they are emulating stages that we passed through. We have many opportunities to lead, to demonstrate better practices and to do so even through our economic power. Look at the current discussion re working conditions in Bangledesh. We can force changes in practices in these countries.

I just don't buy the argument that we get a pass because of what is happening outside our borders. When we feared a nuclear attack from the Soviets, how did we respond? With passion, aggression, focus. Time and again in our history, when we have perceived a threat we have responded to meet the threat. Well, climate change plus other externalizations of real impacts, like the use and pollution of water by fracking, are easily commensurate threats to anything else we face. We aren't responding because vested economic interests continue to see short term profits to be made by maintaining the status quo or at best switching to other harmful practices centered on fossil fuels. There is no excuse here, only self interest and greed. We are morally and ethically on the wrong side of this and no amount of pointing at the other guys changes that. And by the way what Gasman said is directly on point. The per capita contribution of many of the other countries is a drop in the bucket compared to ours. Go for the big fish first.

BdaGhisallo

07-16-2013, 06:00 AM

Even if we can establish that the warming of the Earth is entirely due to man's work, do we know that it is entirely bad? There will be winners and losers. Do we know that the balance of those winners and losers will be a net negative?

The Earth has been a lot warmer in times past than it is now. What happened then? I don't know that there was mass destruction and dislocation in the past periods of very moderate warming, which is what we are talking about.

As for things like fracking, and the potential for water pollution, do the benefits from fracking outweigh the negatives? Fracking allows us to access natural gas and drive the price down to a level that drives coal out of the market for electricity generation. Coal is a lot more pollutive than nat gas is. Could that benefit to the country and globe as a whole outweigh the localized damage to water supplies, if that is truly what is happening?

Why is the US, the most prominent non-signatory of the Kyoto Accord, the only nation that is actually meeting those targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions due to its displacement of coal by natural gas? Why aren't the nations that berated the US about their supposed callousness toward the environment achieving the same reductions?

Climate change may be entirely caused by man. Or it may not. Even if you accept that it is caused by man, is it clear that we can do anything about it?

BTW, aren't more people killed each year by the cold rather than the heat?

shovelhd

07-16-2013, 06:31 AM

Although I generally agree with one set and generally disagree with the other set, at least I know where the opposing viewpoint is coming from. If more people in our society would do that with an open mind, I think the level of civil discourse, and our progress toward shared goals, would improve immensely.

Let's start with Washington, DC.

Rueda Tropical

07-16-2013, 07:11 AM

The Earth has been a lot warmer in times past than it is now. What happened then? I don't know that there was mass destruction and dislocation in the past periods of very moderate warming, which is what we are talking about.

Abrupt climate change caused mass extinctions in the past as there was no time for species to adapt. The effect was catastrophic on life forms dependent on the ecology / climate system that was disrupted.

What would be the impact of massive disruptions to agricultural production as weather patterns change. What would be the impact of the loss of coastal megapolis's where the majority the world's populations live, where most of the world's commerce takes place and most of the logistical support for world trade is.

Competition under extreme stress for rapidly shifting and collapsing resources is an experiment you don't want to perform in a world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and various other weapons of mass destruction.

Kirk007

07-16-2013, 09:41 AM

As for things like fracking, and the potential for water pollution, do the benefits from fracking outweigh the negatives? Fracking allows us to access natural gas and drive the price down to a level that drives coal out of the market for electricity generation. Coal is a lot more pollutive than nat gas is. Could that benefit to the country and globe as a whole outweigh the localized damage to water supplies, if that is truly what is happening?

Why is the US, the most prominent non-signatory of the Kyoto Accord, the only nation that is actually meeting those targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions due to its displacement of coal by natural gas? Why aren't the nations that berated the US about their supposed callousness toward the environment achieving the same reductions?

Climate change may be entirely caused by man. Or it may not. Even if you accept that it is caused by man, is it clear that we can do anything about it?

BTW, aren't more people killed each year by the cold rather than the heat?

Rueda Tropical's response is right on.

Re Fracking: it releases huge quantities of methane which is 4x as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. We are moving from coal for 2 reasons: natural gas as currently regulated is cheaper and the costs of trying to make coal anywhere near clean are prohibitive. As soon as we force the industry to internalize the true cost of production by appropriately regulating both air emissions and coal ash, they start to retire plants. I.e., the gig is up and they will move on; it has been all about extending the useful life of a production method that is profitable only because they foist the true costs onto the public. Back to fracking: which would you rather have - water or power. Power we can get from multiple sources. Without potable water we die. Guess what the major externalized cost is that allows fracked fossil fuels (same story for other low grade sources like tar sand btw - its used and polluted water. Cheap energy or no water; like the old saying with bikes re being light, cheap and durable, you can't get them all. Here, maybe, maybe you can get natural gas from fracking without the externalities but I doubt it. You can control the methane emissions. The technology is well established; has been around for years, and not very expensive. Industry won't use it (unless and until the feds/states make them). Why? Reduces profits plain and simple. Natural gas has a place - a short term bridge to clean renewable energy.

We are reducing our emissions for 2 reasons: the recession is the biggest. The inevitability of the switch away from coal is another, buts its mostly the recession: we the consumers are the big emitters; use less, emit less.

Other countries: not my problem (until we get our own house in order) think global, act local.

Heat vs. cold: its not just warming its variability. Tropical storms are getting bigger in large part due to ocean warming. Other regions will get wetter, much wetter, and rain instead of snow - google Calgary floods 2013.

It is clear that we can do much about climate change. We can mitigate impacts by curbing emissions, but this doesn't solve the dilemma that will impact us (as in Paceline members and their immediate families). It is too late to change the course that would minimize change; that ship has sailed. We will see very large shifts in our climate and it will effect agriculture, demographics, water use and rights, shipping, everything we do will be impacted in some way. Yes there will be winners and losers. Some are already losing and it includes many human communities. I wasn't kidding in my earlier post about going to Alaska to help relocate villages that are toppling into the sea. I've got friends up their right now working on one such project, which will cost millions upon millions of dollars. These folks are not just losing their homes they are losing the only lives they've known as climate change also hammers their traditional hunting and fishing regimens.

Down here we have people outraged that they can't rebuild their vacation homes in coastal fringes or that the insurance companies are saying enough or heaven forbid FEMA may not bail them out for the 5th time or that Gov. Christie would have the temerity to suggest maybe we shouldn't rebuild in some areas. Yes, there are already winners and losers, but the magnitude of the lose varies considerably and that will continue, with poor countries with low elevation coastal regions, island nations and native populations in these areas being the early losers. But, if I lived in the Southwest, southern Florida and other low lying coastal areas, I would be plotting an exit strategy. If I was a cattle rancher, I'd be looking for a way out. The examples are many and they will continue to grow.

We are in a stage where adaptation strategies are just as necessary as mitigation.

goonster

07-16-2013, 10:16 AM

Travel a little before you condemn western practices.

The more I travel, the more I realize how cheap our energy is here, and how much of it is wasted. (And I have traveled some.)

Just one case in point: 90+ deg F heat at the local outdoor mall, multiple stores have all doors wide open, a/c going full blast so you can feel the chill as you walk past. That is a practice you will see in few other countries, and it deserves to be condemned on general principle.

Once we agree on the obvious science (and, really, the science is very solid for all those who a) understand it, b) aren't actively looking for reasons not to accept it, c) don't have their livelihood depending on not believing it), there are some fairly low-hanging fruits in energy conservation we could tackle first.

Wilkinson4

07-16-2013, 10:24 AM

Nevermind...fools errand.

Please explain? We are on our way to 20T of debt. Now Ray would say, it is all a sham and that the notes are monopoly money anyway. But, the debt is the debt and that will crush our future generations before our .3% contribution to Green-House gasses do. So, if I am a skeptic I am a fool? There is more evidence that our debt accumulation far outpaces the 2 mm/yr sea level rise so I don't understand why can't agree to disagree, instead of the name calling.

That said, I will look at some of these links supplied by other and try to keep an open mind.

mIKE

jblande

07-16-2013, 10:33 AM

Please explain? We are on our way to 20T of debt. Now Ray would say, it is all a sham and that the notes are monopoly money anyway. But, the debt is the debt and that will crush our future generations before our .3% contribution to Green-House gasses do. So, if I am a skeptic I am a fool? There is more evidence that our debt accumulation far outpaces the 2 mm/yr sea level rise so I don't understand why can't agree to disagree, instead of the name calling.

That said, I will look at some of these links supplied by other and try to keep an open mind.

mIKE

just a side note and not an attempt to start a further controversy:

the market efficiency hypothesis is nothing more than that, a hypothesis. read some books by leading macroeconomists and you will quickly discover just how hotly debated and contentious this issue is.

the ideas behind statements like 'the market, when left to its own devices, will sort things out' are actually, among academic economists, more contentious than claims about the deleterious effects of our carbon emissions on the environment.

the different impact within American society of these hotly debated economic models and the consensus on climatological ones has more to do with the influence of business on government and the structure of our bipartisan democratic system than on the quality of the scientific hypotheses or observations themselves.

and this is to say nothing about questions of justice.

Rueda Tropical

07-16-2013, 10:35 AM

Please explain? We are on our way to 20T of debt. Now Ray would say, it is all a sham and that the notes are monopoly money anyway. But, the debt is the debt and that will crush our future generations before our .3% contribution to Green-House gasses do. So, if I am a skeptic I am a fool? There is more evidence that our debt accumulation far outpaces the 2 mm/yr sea level rise so I don't understand why can't agree to disagree, instead of the name calling.

That said, I will look at some of these links supplied by other and try to keep an open mind.

mIKE

Actually, your statement about the economy is debatable. From Warren Buffet to a whole host of economists who have a better track record then a lot of the debt doom sayers there are many who would say we are focused on the wrong economic problem.

So unlike the science on global warming there is a case to be made for both sides of the dealing with the debt / economy argument. The case for things like global warming, evolution and whether or not the earth is flat is settled science.

We can however agree to disagree on economic policy.

Wilkinson4

07-16-2013, 10:54 AM

Wait, the earth is not flat???

mIKE

PQJ

07-16-2013, 11:04 AM

firerescuefin

07-16-2013, 11:30 AM

The more I travel, the more I realize how cheap our energy is here, and how much of it is wasted. (And I have traveled some.)

Just one case in point: 90+ deg F heat at the local outdoor mall, multiple stores have all doors wide open, a/c going full blast so you can feel the chill as you walk past. That is a practice you will see in few other countries, and it deserves to be condemned on general principle.

Once we agree on the obvious science (and, really, the science is very solid for all those who a) understand it, b) aren't actively looking for reasons not to accept it, c) don't have their livelihood depending on not believing it), there are some fairly low-hanging fruits in energy conservation we could tackle first.

My point was that we do more to proactively take environmental precautions and remediate past harm than pretty any place else in the world. We are huge consumers, but that's a different discussion, isn't it.

Jaq

07-16-2013, 11:32 AM

Just one case in point: 90+ deg F heat at the local outdoor mall, multiple stores have all doors wide open, a/c going full blast so you can feel the chill as you walk past. That is a practice you will see in few other countries, and it deserves to be condemned on general principle.

Palm Springs & Phoenix & desert-y places in the summer: restaurants over-cool indoors, while the outdoor patrons are bathed in clouds of water-vapor blown from nozzles, and inked-up waitresses schlep 3,000 calorie meals to the morbidly obese.

Last one into the cheesecake's a rotten egg!

Chance

07-16-2013, 11:39 AM

.....cut......

Climate change may be entirely caused by man. Or it may not. Even if you accept that it is caused by man, is it clear that we can do anything about it?

.....cut.....

This is the best point articulated in the entire thread. And by far in my opinion.

Even if we can demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that man is causing global warming, what�s the point in worrying about it unless there is something, or anything significant, that we can do about it? The science of global warming is not the biggest issue needing attention.

We need to spend a lot more time discussing how to control the actions of 100 autonomous countries, driven by very different interests, in a manner that can reduce global warming. That�s the real issue. By comparison the science, which many don�t accept entirely, is easy.

Kirk007

07-16-2013, 11:54 AM

Please explain? We are on our way to 20T of debt. ....

mIKE

Clearly economics is huge, and its just one of the big challenges, like climate change, that are in the mix that I think are going to make the coming decades extremely challenging and perhaps volatile.

I don't think sane fiscal policy and addressing climate change are incompatible though, not in the least. First we need to start with removing the perverse incentives that riddle our tax code and statutes, and that reward behaviour that makes things worse, everything from our mining and oil and gas laws (natural resource extraction laws in general) that give away the people's resources for pennies on the dollar rather than a reasonable market rate (the days are long past since we need to provide an incentive for western expansion). Appropriate regulation and directed stimulus away from dirty fossil fuels to clean fuels would help. A jobs/infrastructure program could rebuild our deteriorating highways, improve public transportation build seawalls, retrofit building to increase efficiency, create an effective distributed solar energy system (see Germany) all the while creating jobs that will increase tax revenues (crap I sound like a Republican). All of these things would both help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and be needed adaptation strategies.

We could easily address all of these issues. It isn't rocket science and we've proven that we can do rockets. But it takes political will; it takes sacrificing individual interests for the common benefit; it takes public servants that will serve the public rather than themselves and their well financed benefactors; it takes setting aside greed and returning to a sense of, belief in and commitment to the greater good for a national or better yet global community. It frustrates me to no end that the only way I see to get to this stage from where we are today is through truly catastrophic events, and by then it may well be too late.

Chance

07-16-2013, 12:00 PM

What percent of global warming is caused by USA? It's a serious question. Just want to put what we can do directly in perspective.

phcollard

07-16-2013, 12:01 PM

Even if we can demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that man is causing global warming, what’s the point in worrying about it unless there is something, or anything significant, that we can do about it? The science of global warming is not the biggest issue needing attention.

I don't understand. We are the poison. Can't we be the remedy? :confused:

Or we do nothing about it. Let nature go mad at us and extinct the entire human race? Sure the elephants will be happy when we're gone.

nahtnoj

07-16-2013, 12:01 PM

Kirk007

07-16-2013, 12:10 PM

What percent of global warming is caused by USA? It's a serious question. Just want to put what we can do directly in perspective.

somewhat old data from EPA: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html#four

19% from USA
23% China
6% from Canada and Japan (but Canada's is probably going through the roof with tar sands development)
6% from Russia
6% India
the balance from the rest of the world.

slidey

07-16-2013, 12:24 PM

Best point, my foot! What kind of horse's ass logic are you purporting here? That the very existence of the planet is under threat, and as an effective means of combating this you would like to propose to spend more time not on acting, but inside boardrooms discussing how not your blasted country can act, but how other countries should? And you wonder why the world is so hostile towards you guys? What gives you the right to judge the world's actions from a high-horse when you do absolutely nothing? Mind your own damn business, and make an earnest effort for your own people...set an example for the world so they can follow in your footsteps. But don't you dare sketch on a white-board a plan as vague as an amoeba's shape, and use that as leverage to start dictating terms to other nations. Stick your nose in your own pie!

Also, what point are you lauding? The point that is it clear we'll be able to do anything about saving the planet? So what's the alternative - sit on your hands, and count your money with your nose? What do you suggest, let the planet go to hell? Lets hear something concrete from you, which doesn't involve some circuitous nonsense and weaseling around to pass the buck.

This is the best point articulated in the entire thread. And by far in my opinion.

Even if we can demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that man is causing global warming, what�s the point in worrying about it unless there is something, or anything significant, that we can do about it? The science of global warming is not the biggest issue needing attention.

We need to spend a lot more time discussing how to control the actions of 100 autonomous countries, driven by very different interests, in a manner that can reduce global warming. That�s the real issue. By comparison the science, which many don�t accept entirely, is easy.

goonster

07-16-2013, 12:29 PM

My point was that we do more to proactively take environmental precautions and remediate past harm than pretty any place else in the world. We are huge consumers, but that's a different discussion, isn't it.
We are talking global warming, and therefore carbon emissions, not scrubbing NOx and particulates out of stack gases. Since carbon emissions correlate so closely to fossil fuel consumption, it's not really a different discussion, no.

If we (i.e. The World) are going to do something about global warming, it will come down to some combination of energy use reduction* and switching to non-/reduced-carbon fuels.

(* = This is generally discussed as "efficiency", perhaps to make it sound less austere, but I wish we'd have more discussion about outright reduction as well)

Chance

07-16-2013, 12:30 PM

I don't understand. We are the poison. Can't we be the remedy? :confused:

Or we do nothing about it. Let nature go mad at us and extinct the entire human race? Sure the elephants will be happy when we're gone.

Who exactly is "WE"?

Let's say "we" is you, kirk007, and me. And let's say the three of us cut our "pollution" footprint in half, or eliminate it entirely for that matter. How does that keep 1 billion people in China from building more Coal power plants and offsetting what the three of us accomplished?

Human nature being what it is, there is almost no chance of anything working unless "we" all first find a way to get everyone to comply to the same rules. Our good intentions and self sacrifice alone won't do much of anything at all in my opinion. Other than make us feel good about ourselves. Beyond that nothing substantial will come of it.

Jaq

07-16-2013, 12:32 PM

somewhat old data from EPA: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html#four

Well dangit! Why didn't you show us that there pie chart! Hell, alls we gotta do is nuke the crap outta Other an' it's problem solved. Damned Otherians, messin' up the world! Bet they talk funny, too. Hm. Can't find it on a map, though. Maybe I can ask Caitlin Upton (http://youtu.be/lj3iNxZ8Dww) to point it out.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/GlobalGHGEmissionsByCountry.png

Chance

07-16-2013, 12:34 PM

Best point, my foot! What kind of horse's ass logic are you purporting here?

....cut......

Stopped reading there. Whatever else you stated went unread. If you can't make a point without offending people by becoming personal you need to reconsider why you can't change anything.

goonster

07-16-2013, 12:38 PM

How does that keep 1 billion people in China from building more Coal power plants and offsetting what the three of us accomplished?
People in China are reminded daily of the benefits of coal power.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/14/1358174513421/Severe-smog-and-air-pollu-010.jpg

That is one reason why they are a global leader in solar energy.

Jaq

07-16-2013, 12:41 PM

mike p

07-16-2013, 12:42 PM

+1 you save me much typing!

Mike

I don't think it is clear at all. That is subject to much debate and the only real fact is it is a political hot potato. I tend to think the big furnace in the sky has more impact on climate change. Isn't that the weather by definition, change?

And what happened to global warming?

When evidence suggested that Carbon Emissions are a lagging indicator, that was changed to climate change. Talk about inconvenient truths!!! The fact we are in a cooling period prompted the name change, how Orwellian.

Don't forget about e-mail gate either.

TdF doping is a fact, homeogenic caused warming is still very much debated.

mIKE

bcm119

07-16-2013, 12:46 PM

The public �debate� about climate change, as reflected in this thread, is difficult at best. The simple reason is that climate change is such an incredibly complex phenomenon that you really can�t have any understanding of it without some background in science, if not climatology. There are many, many bits of bad information and myths floating around in articles, op-eds, blogs, etc., that people grasp onto because they make sense to them. When things make sense you tend to believe them. A good example is �if we can�t predict the weather next week how can we predict it in 10 years? 100 years?� On the surface that makes a lot of sense; many people hang onto it as a valid point when deciding what to believe. The reality is that it is a completely irrelevant question. If you knew anything about global climate models as compared to short term meteorological models you�d know that it makes absolutely no sense, but how many people reading articles about climate change written for the lay person know anything about climate science? Very few. I think most of the blame lies with journalists, who are famously inept at interpreting scientific findings accurately, especially findings related to extremely complex earth processes. In fact, I don�t think they even try�they would rather find a talking point that makes sense to the layperson, because concepts that make sense to readers make the articles more satisfying to read, and gain a larger audience. My advice? Read as much or as little as you want, but do not develop your own conclusion based on anything other than original, peer reviewed papers written by climatologists (warning�they will probably be very boring). Everything else is just garbage�even articles that cite many peer reviewed sources, because they always take minor points out of context.

In my opinion, we�ve already passed the point of maintaining any semblance of the current environment. The earth will be fine; but I don�t think it will be as hospitable for humans in the future, possibly the near future. I think the root of the problem is population growth. Whether it�s the air, the water, disease, or most likely a combination of all 3, we won�t be around much longer at the current population growth rate. We can do things to mitigate that, maybe delay it a bit, but the best thing you can do for humanity is not have children.

However one way to mitigate our demise is moving to a cleaner source of energy. Technology starts in the developed world, and trickles down, so it�s up to us and the rest of the developed countries. No one is going to switch to cleaner energy sources until it makes economic sense, so we have to focus on developing the technology to make it viable. How we do that and who funds the research is another topic, but I don�t think there is much to debate until you get to this conundrum.

Chance

07-16-2013, 12:46 PM

People in China are reminded daily of the benefits of coal power.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/14/1358174513421/Severe-smog-and-air-pollu-010.jpg

That is one reason why they are a global leader in solar energy.

Wow. And apparently they didn't stop building and or using coal "before" they got to that extreme point. That's why we need some form of enforcement in my opinion.

Used China as an example, but tomorrow it could be some other country. And the problem is not limited to burning coal either. Could be cutting down forest too or something else.

slidey

07-16-2013, 12:50 PM

Go to this website (http://www.google.com/publicdata/directory#!dp=World+Resources+Institute) and browse the per-capita GHG emissions of various countries yourself.

The first link will give you country-wise relations, whereas the second one is US detailed.

slidey

07-16-2013, 12:53 PM

Calling out your logic is not calling you out. I don't care/need to explain myself but just so you know I don't label people, only their actions.

Stopped reading there. Whatever else you stated went unread. If you can't make a point without offending people by becoming personal you need to reconsider why you can't change anything.

goonster

07-16-2013, 12:55 PM

That's why we need some form of enforcement in my opinion.
I've heard this one before. See "Court, International Criminal".

Enforcement is great for everyone else, but would you want the U.S. to submit to it?

phcollard

07-16-2013, 01:23 PM

Who exactly is "WE"?

Let's say "we" is you, kirk007, and me. And let's say the three of us cut our "pollution" footprint in half, or eliminate it entirely for that matter.

Eff yeah. Let's do it! Let us be leaders. Lets us do it for us, for our family. And let us do our best so our family, friends, neighbors will follow. Wouldn't that be great?

It's not the "I won't do nothing because my neighbors won't give a damn" attitude that's going to save us here.

Human nature being what it is, there is almost no chance of anything working unless "we" all first find a way to get everyone to comply to the same rules. Our good intentions and self sacrifice alone won't do much of anything at all in my opinion. Other than make us feel good about ourselves. Beyond that nothing substantial will come of it.

Enforcement? Regulations? How do you see it? Do you agree to be the first to be scrutinized before we blame the others?

Chance

07-16-2013, 02:14 PM

I've heard this one before. See "Court, International Criminal".

Enforcement is great for everyone else, but would you want the U.S. to submit to it?

Can we ever solve the problem without being part of the solution? It's doubtful. So if a fair system can be found for everyone to work with, we won't have a choice.

But it's my opinion that we'll all agree on the technical aspects of global warming before that happens.

Chance

07-16-2013, 02:18 PM

Eff yeah. Let's do it! Let us be leaders. Lets us do it for us, for our family. And let us do our best so our family, friends, neighbors will follow. Wouldn't that be great?

It's not the "I won't do nothing because my neighbors won't give a damn" attitude that's going to save us here.

Enforcement? Regulations? How do you see it? Do you agree to be the first to be scrutinized before we blame the others?

Sorry but not great for me. It won't be great if only symbolic or to make a few people feel good about themselves. It has to lead to real tangible results otherwise many like me will see it as merely a waste of time.

Kirk007

07-16-2013, 02:25 PM

Whether it�s the air, the water, disease, or most likely a combination of all 3, we won�t be around much longer at the current population growth rate. We can do things to mitigate that, maybe delay it a bit, but the best thing you can do for humanity is not have children.

I cut the rest not because I disagree; quite the opposite (and well said). Rather it is that BCM119 says much more plainly what I feel, and it is this ^ that really bums me out as a father and just as a human period. I would not bring a child into the world today given where I believe we are headed. I have colleagues that know just as much or more than me; they are much younger and all having their second child. I don't know if it is blind optimism or just the overpowering genetic drive but in either event, I could not make that same decision today.

BTW, it has been great that this thread has remained open and that we have had a frank but relatively courteous discussion. It is such am important topic to discuss honestly and frankly. Chapeau!

jlyon

07-16-2013, 02:27 PM

I would think that would get the quickest way to decrease some (maybe not enough) of the carbon burning.

But we can not even get a large number of people to agree on that so on down the slippery slope we will continue.

phcollard

07-16-2013, 02:35 PM

Sorry but not great for me. It won't be great if only symbolic or to make a few people feel good about themselves. It has to lead to real tangible results otherwise many like me will see it as merely a waste of time.

It has to start somewhere. Why not start by yourself? You don't believe in preaching by example? Be it at your level as an individual or as a nation. I understand you live in a world of enforcement then. Do you believe in anything else?

BumbleBeeDave

07-16-2013, 02:54 PM

Take a deep breath. Count to ten. Relax.

I think you're misunderstanding him. I don't think he was talking about the United States controlling or dictating to the rest of the world. Unless I'm the one totally misunderstanding, he was talking about how do we get 100 different countries to all make commitments and cooperate and then live up to their commitments.

That's the near impossible part. Next to that, the technology is easy.

BBD

Best point, my foot! What kind of horse's ass logic are you purporting here? That the very existence of the planet is under threat, and as an effective means of combating this you would like to propose to spend more time not on acting, but inside boardrooms discussing how not your blasted country can act, but how other countries should? And you wonder why the world is so hostile towards you guys? What gives you the right to judge the world's actions from a high-horse when you do absolutely nothing? Mind your own damn business, and make an earnest effort for your own people...set an example for the world so they can follow in your footsteps. But don't you dare sketch on a white-board a plan as vague as an amoeba's shape, and use that as leverage to start dictating terms to other nations. Stick your nose in your own pie!

Also, what point are you lauding? The point that is it clear we'll be able to do anything about saving the planet? So what's the alternative - sit on your hands, and count your money with your nose? What do you suggest, let the planet go to hell? Lets hear something concrete from you, which doesn't involve some circuitous nonsense and weaseling around to pass the buck.

PQJ

07-16-2013, 02:59 PM

I don't know if it is blind optimism or just the overpowering genetic drive but in either event, I could not make that same decision today.

Sometimes crap just happens and birth control fails. Don't ask me how I know that.

Kirk007

07-16-2013, 03:03 PM

Sometimes crap just happens and birth control fails. Don't ask me how I know that.

Hey, I resemble (or am an example of) that remark!

Kirk007

07-16-2013, 03:08 PM

Sorry but not great for me. It won't be great if only symbolic or to make a few people feel good about themselves. It has to lead to real tangible results otherwise many like me will see it as merely a waste of time.

Someone has to go first. The rest of the world (most) aspires to our capitalist consumptive ways that we have broadly marketed for decades, why shouldn't we take the lead in fixing the unintended consequences of those decisions?

America used to pride itself on being a leader but on this vested economic interests have turned us into at best a follower (and there is some precedent for this on big global issue, like WW I and II when we sat on the sidelines for quite awhile before riding into the maelstrom. Perhaps this aspect of history will repeat but I'm not holding my breath.

One thing about China and a totalitarian state: if and when they decide to do something they can move quickly and decisively. Something to be said for that; and likely not something that we will see from our leadership.

Chance

07-16-2013, 03:23 PM

It has to start somewhere. Why not start by yourself? You don't believe in preaching by example? Be it at your level as an individual or as a nation. I understand you live in a world of enforcement then. Do you believe in anything else?

I do my part. Actually, I probably do much more than my part towards the environment. However, I�m realistic enough to know that my personal contribution is infinitesimally small. Of that I have no delusions.

In my opinion without a mechanism for some form of structure that can then be enforced there is zero chance of success. Not sure what you mean by whether I believe in anything else. Regarding this subject matter, I seriously doubt autonomous countries will do the right thing based solely on good will. History suggests that shouldn�t be expected. In the end people pull in the direction that is most beneficial to them as a smaller group. What is important to the bigger group is secondary. Not saying that's a good thing, but it's just the way it is.

Chance

07-16-2013, 03:29 PM

Someone has to go first. The rest of the world (most) aspires to our capitalist consumptive ways that we have broadly marketed for decades, why shouldn't we take the lead in fixing the unintended consequences of those decisions?

....cut.....

We should as long as it has a reasonable chance of working. However, capitalism works so well because everyone is looking after their own best interest first. That's natural to humans and most other animals. What you propose is not the same. It goes against our nature. That's why it's so difficult to accomplish.

Rueda Tropical

07-16-2013, 03:46 PM

slidey

07-16-2013, 03:59 PM

I'm level headed even when I disagree, so no worries on that front. At least I didn't do this (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/13/132).

Back to the point though, I think you misunderstood Chance's message. I don't have issues with people who say they don't believe in global warming, as I know that's just an opinion that I can live without. But to their credit, at least they're being honest about sitting on their ass. What I think is particularly disingenuous is saying that "Oh yes, hmm...this is a serious quagmire we're in...tell you what, lets talk this over tea tomorrow, and lets see if we can't invite another 200 people to join us in our 'Benefit the World' high-tea extravaganza." This is just another setup for inaction. And inaction is the one thing that we don't need, rather can't afford. And why does it matter that the US be one of the first countries to get off its butt? Because as the GHG per capita emissions plot I pasted shows, the US is still one of the world's largest polluters by a long way. Most of the BRICS countries are fast becoming major polluters as well, and if this mexican stand-off between US/BRICS continues on this matter, who does it really benefit? There'll be no more earth to play silly games on.

The problem with mobilising people to embrace moves which save the planet have to do with the conflict of interest of the corporations who are in the business of doing what we've always done, lack of initiative (financial and otherwise) to make end-end energy-saving technology mainstream, lobbying power of dirty corporations, inability to carry out personal sacrifices due to forever comparing ourselves against our neighbour, and above all the conclusion that new technologies are the torch-bearer in solving our global warming problems. The point that new technologies will somehow save the day is akin to an obese person wanting to get "healthy" (not thin) by innovative means, but strictly against any restriction in their diet. How does this rubbish approach even make sense? Gas prices in the US, as someone else already pointed out are amongst the cheapest. How many of us are willing to pay more for gas? I for one, would applaud the price of gas to treble (i.e. $12.27/gal) with the extra revenues going into developing cleaner technologies, developing better bike paths, developing better public transportation, etc. Since some of us have talked about enforcement, how about enforcing some restrictions on ourselves before calling for a wide-sweeping enforcement? After all, I don't recall the US wanting to enforce the automobile age upon China or India in the early-1940s either.

Take a deep breath. Count to ten. Relax.

I think you're misunderstanding him. I don't think he was talking about the United States controlling or dictating to the rest of the world. Unless I'm the one totally misunderstanding, he was talking about how do we get 100 different countries to all make commitments and cooperate and then live up to their commitments.

That's the near impossible part. Next to that, the technology is easy.

BBD

jblande

07-16-2013, 04:58 PM

phcollard

07-16-2013, 05:20 PM

Chance

07-16-2013, 05:59 PM

Really? The country that takes the lead in green technologies and industry will lead the next industrial revolution. Sounds like a once in a century business opportunity to me.

.....cut......

Yes, that sounds like a capitalist opportunity for sure. The country that leads the next �GREEN-BASED� industrial revolution will benefit enormously. And to my point, they will benefit by obtaining wealth and power for themselves; not for other countries. It�s highly doubtful they will do it for altruistic reasons.

Burning higher-cost fuels at one�s expense so it mainly benefits others is what is not natural for any country to want to do. Most people want to help themselves first before they help others.

OtayBW

07-16-2013, 06:03 PM

Companies that can't see past the next quarters bottom line are usually shocked when someones changes the game on them and they are no longer viable ventures.Unfortunately, it's not just 'companies' - it's cartels that make it their business not to let the game change on them. 'Cheney' energy policy seems applicable as well....

Wilkinson4

07-16-2013, 06:07 PM

somewhat old data from EPA: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html#four

19% from USA
23% China
6% from Canada and Japan (but Canada's is probably going through the roof with tar sands development)
6% from Russia
6% India
the balance from the rest of the world.

That is 19% of the man made CO2 emissions is from the USA... CO2 is about 3.6% of the total emissions that contribute to the green house effect. 3.5% is occuring naturally.

mIKE

Bikerist

07-16-2013, 06:14 PM

.....Other than make us feel good about ourselves......

Here lies the key to the environmentalist movement.

It's a win-win for them. If they are right and the world comes to an end they get to say "I told you so". If they are wrong on the world doesn't come to an end they will simply take credit for saving it.

Either way they are better than you and me.

rnhood

07-16-2013, 06:15 PM

There are a lot of people, Americans or other, that live paycheck to paycheck and do, or did not have the luxury of inheriting money or assets. These are the salt of the earth in a way. To wish for gas to be $12 / gal tells me the person has little regard for this class of people who depend on transportation in order to earn their livelihood.

I'm all for being good stewards of our environment, but not at the expense of the class that really need our economy to stay on course.

Gas might get that high anyway, given the economic trends and global crises - especially in the ME. But let nature take its course. We are are resilient society and will figure out what to do. No sense in forcing big changes when we really don't understand the need.

slidey

07-16-2013, 06:30 PM

Firstly, the $12 was merely a hypothetical.

Secondly, I'm a student so I do live paycheck-paycheck for the most part.

Thirdly, it is necessary for gas prices to rise higher than the price of other alternative-fuels, to dissuade people from taking the easy way out. This should obviously go hand-in-hand with subsidies for alternative fuels so people like me, who will be either forced or want to try out the alternative fuels find the economic motivation to do so as well. As long as gas is cheap, the motivation to migrate to alternative technologies or cut-down on usage of fossil fuels is absent. As someone else already mentioned, most people opt to buy a Prius mainly to give their conscience a free pass whilst driving around more.

There are a lot of people, Americans or other, that live paycheck to paycheck and do, or did not have the luxury of inheriting money or assets. These are the salt of the earth in a way. To wish for gas to be $12 / gal tells me the person has little regard for this class of people who depend on transportation in order to earn their livelihood.

I'm all for being good stewards of our environment, but not at the expense of the class that really need our economy to stay on course.

Gas might get that high anyway, given the economic trends and global crises - especially in the ME. But let nature take its course. We are are resilient society and will figure out what to do. No sense in forcing big changes when we really don't understand the need.

Kirk007

07-16-2013, 06:35 PM

Here lies the key to the environmentalist movement.

It's a win-win for them. If they are right and the world comes to an end they get to say "I told you so". If they are wrong on the world doesn't come to an end they will simply take credit for saving it.

Either way they are better than you and me.

Sorry to be blunt: your full of feces. I know a whole lot of folks in the"environmentalist movement" having worked in it for over a decade. We are just as selfish as the rest of "you others" probably more so. We just see it a bit differently as in self preservation of ourselves and our genes as passed on to multiple future generations (or not a given the path we are on) rather than can we by a bigger car next year yada, yada. No one that I know is hoping for the world to end so we can smugly laugh at "others" while we all go up in flames. Nor do I see any increased proportion of ego maniacs in the "movement" and certainly none who are in it to take credit for saving the world (and let me tell you the $$ pay absolutely sucks so NO ONE is in it for that either). If "we environmentalists" wanted to play the better than you game we could simply go back to the for profit world and play the out consume your neighbor strategy employed everyday in every town in America.

If you want to add to this discussion add something of value rather than a BS, simple minded ad hominen attack on people you don't know. We strive for a level of discourse a few levels above the typical internet cesspool.

P.S. Gore is not an environmentalist he's a capitalist.

bcm119

07-16-2013, 06:41 PM

Here lies the key to the environmentalist movement.

It's a win-win for them. If they are right and the world comes to an end they get to say "I told you so". If they are wrong on the world doesn't come to an end they will simply take credit for saving it.

Either way they are better than you and me.

I won�t deny that there aren�t a few people who claim to be part of the �environmental movement� (btw that is very 1960s) for whom your statement may be true. But I find it very sad that you feel that �feeling good about themselves� is the key to the entire effort to clean up our environment. It�s especially sad to see this posted on a bike forum�I would have guessed that recreational cyclists, in general, might have a slightly above average concern for air quality, if not natural beauty.

There are a million ways you can minimize your contribution to environmental degradation, and you can choose to do some, all, or none of them. You can also choose to do them unobtrusively and not tell anyone else you�re doing them. But don�t let the irritating or perceived pompousness of a few high-profile do-gooders prevent you from making your own contributions in whichever ways you choose. If you choose to do none of them, as an act of rebellion, I can assure you no one will care except the air and water supply of future generations.

Kirk007

07-16-2013, 06:49 PM

We should as long as it has a reasonable chance of working. However, capitalism works so well because everyone is looking after their own best interest first. That's natural to humans and most other animals. What you propose is not the same. It goes against our nature. That's why it's so difficult to accomplish.

I don't disagree with you at all on the selfish focus theory, indeed I once gave a speech in my Speech 101 class on how altruism doesn't exist, all behavior is motivated by self interest (I was a snotty Biology major who liked to stir the pot).

Here's where perhaps we see things differently: I think everything I postulate is absolutely in our best interest, its just that it is a much longer play obscured by needs/wants/interests that manifest in the more immediate. By nature we respond to threats we can perceive, that are immediate and clear, not ones that sneak up on us. IF we don't see, hear, smell it then it doesn't exist (which is how we end up with latent disease, polluted air and water, exhausted soils etc.). I don't know if there is a way to overcome this on the broad level as it will always call for regulatory (either imposed or self willed) responses that will be unpopular. In theory this is a central role of our systems of governance. Protection of the commons goes way back to the beginnings of Roman law. Its just damn hard to pull off.

phcollard

07-16-2013, 06:53 PM

That is 19% of the man made CO2 emissions is from the USA... CO2 is about 3.6% of the total emissions that contribute to the green house effect. 3.5% is occuring naturally.

mIKE

In 2011, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. [1 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html)]

... carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth�s greenhouse effect. [2 (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html)]

Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas. Carbon Dioxide 17% + 57% [3 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html)]

phcollard

07-16-2013, 07:07 PM

Here lies the key to the environmentalist movement.

It's a win-win for them. If they are right and the world comes to an end they get to say "I told you so". If they are wrong on the world doesn't come to an end they will simply take credit for saving it.

Either way they are better than you and me.

Obviously you have never been involved in any movement of that sort. I know a fair amount of environmentalists since my girlfriend works for one of Canada's top environmental non-profit and non-governmental organization. None of them - none - could fit in your description even with generous margins. These guys and gals have a higher degree of education, and they have chosen to work insane hours at ridiculous salaries in an attempt to save the planet's arse, and yours too btw. None of them have that pedantic "we've warned you" or "we're better than you" attitude... Anyways. I just hope that people like them don't quit and go corporate as most of them could have the opportuinity to do so. You know, that narrow short sighted view, hey I can make double and buy the SUV I have always dreamed of.

Scuzzer

07-16-2013, 07:16 PM

If "we environmentalists" wanted to play the better than you game we could simply go back to the for profit world and play the out consume your neighbor strategy employed everyday in every town in America.

How do you square that condescension for consumerism with the fact that you list three virtually identical expensive bikes in your sig? Is consumerism only bad if it's the wrong kind?

slidey

07-16-2013, 07:32 PM

Not that Kirk007 can't speak for himself, but I fail to understand the basic logic behind this Q; care to explain?

How do you square that condescension for consumerism with the fact that you list three virtually identical expensive bikes in your sig? Is consumerism only bad if it's the wrong kind?

BumbleBeeDave

07-16-2013, 07:35 PM

. . . let's grab the bars on this one and steer it back on subject before it runs into the ditch.

Thanks.

BBD

Kirk007

07-16-2013, 07:37 PM

How do you square that condescension for consumerism with the fact that you list three virtually identical expensive bikes in your sig? Is consumerism only bad if it's the wrong kind?

who says I'm condemning buying things? Whether we like it or not capitalism drives our and the world's economy and without it we'd all be in a real mess in short order. (although it is hard to deny (at least for me) that our runaway consumerism contributes to all sorts of social ills). What I object to is the mindset drilled into folks by more is always better, that a bigger house, car, riding lawnmower, pool, gated community yada, yada is an affirmation of ones manhood, womanhood or status in society. It drives unhealthy behaviors in many ways ATMO (indeed I used to be on that treadmill, working 70 hours a week leaving time to do nothing but buy things as rewards; what an insane period that was).

I'm not claiming sainthood. I do what I can where I can where it makes a difference. Which includes trying to buy products from "green companies" living in a "green" house, eat organics when it makes sense etc. (although its not always easy to distinguish true green products from whitewashed ones), and for the past decade I've chosen to step off the accumulative path, and make my living working to protect whats left, and restore where its necessary, of ecosystems and other species who we share this place with in an effort to ensure that we have healthy functioning ecosystems for the future. And my level of consumerism is greatly reduce over what it was (huge pay cuts will do that). I don't think supporting two artisan bike builders is inordinately contributing to my consumer footprint (particularly since I drive a car about once a week). But, there's no question that consumption of goods is the reason American's have such disproportionate shares of GHG emissions on a per capita level. And I spent 16 years in a for profit (the horror) environmental law firm seeing first hand how many, many American companies, including many, many Fortune 500 ones violate our environmental laws on a regular, sustained basis and spend millions lobbying state and federal agencies to gut both the laws and enforcement efforts so that they can continue to do so.

For Dave: And the unfettered profit motive, the need to keep selling, motivates cost cutting measures, like environmental compliance while the marketing arm convinces folks we need more stuff which drives more buying, which drives more production of GHG and the circle of destruction continues.

And by the way, if you can't distinguish the different roles between my bikes, well that's not my problem.

Scuzzer

07-16-2013, 08:10 PM

who says I'm condemning buying things?

It seemed to me that you were drawing a line between yourself and the consumerist masses (the rest of us). I thought that was a funny distinction to make on a site whose major thrust is buying the latest and greatest.

I'm not claiming sainthood. I do what I can where I can where it makes a difference... (snipped other good stuff)

Sounds good to me. I don't really care how people spend their cash so whatever makes you happy is obviously fine.

And by the way, if you can't distinguish the different roles between my bikes, well that's not my problem.

I did qualify my statement with the word virtually. What percentage of the population could tell a difference though?

SlackMan

07-16-2013, 08:48 PM

Hmmmm, dare I step into this angry quagmire? I'm an economist so I think about tradeoffs for a living. That doesn't make me smarter than anyone else, but let me offer the following of how I think about it. Now donning flack jacket. :)

For people who choose to conserve resources (I'm in this camp), doing so provides increased personal utility (i.e., satisfaction that you're doing "good"), and no matter how small the overall effect on EITHER global warming or on energy consumption, it definitely has a non-negative effect. People who do this do so by consuming less and/or consuming in ways that consume less energy and/or generate less carbon. There is generally little cost to this behavior and it generates benefits for those who do it in terms of increased utility and reduced dollars spent on consumption. In other words, not only do I get to feel better by consuming less stuff and less energy, but I save money in doing so.

For people who reject the notion that humans have any affect on global warming, they are the ones who consume more. In doing so, they pay a cost for their consumption--they pay more for stuff and more for the energy. A critical point is that many on the other side think that these guys don't pay the FULL cost because the actual cost they pay excludes any potentially damaging effects on the environment. But in fairness to these guys, the potential costs of their actions are highly uncertain, and it is at least possible that the costs are near zero. Thus, to impose costs on them, and the collateral costs on economies, means that the other side would be imposing costs on guys when the actual estimates of the costs they create are highly uncertain. That is not the way our society has generally worked in the past, so the current situation could be viewed as a reasonable compromise between the two camps.

What is really distressing about the global warming debate and so many others in our society is the fact that one or both groups usually winds up adopting a position that claims they are morally superior to the other group. Think about it for a minute. If I claim that you are morally inferior to me (e.g., you don't care about the world, you're selfish, you're delusional, you're a hypocrite with a big house and private jet plane (i.e., Al Gore)), am I likely to change your mind? Are we likely to really reach a reasonable compromise if we are attacking each other's motives and values? These last questions are rhetorical in case it's not obvious...:rolleyes:

CunegoFan

07-16-2013, 09:24 PM

Wow. This is still going. Are members getting subsidies from the oil industry to post?

Bikerist

07-16-2013, 09:34 PM

Sorry to be blunt: your full of feces. I know a whole lot of folks in the"environmentalist movement" having worked in it for over a decade. We are just as selfish as the rest of "you others" probably more so. We just see it a bit differently as in self preservation of ourselves and our genes as passed on to multiple future generations (or not a given the path we are on) rather than can we by a bigger car next year yada, yada. No one that I know is hoping for the world to end so we can smugly laugh at "others" while we all go up in flames. Nor do I see any increased proportion of ego maniacs in the "movement" and certainly none who are in it to take credit for saving the world (and let me tell you the $$ pay absolutely sucks so NO ONE is in it for that either). If "we environmentalists" wanted to play the better than you game we could simply go back to the for profit world and play the out consume your neighbor strategy employed everyday in every town in America.

If you want to add to this discussion add something of value rather than a BS, simple minded ad hominen attack on people you don't know. We strive for a level of discourse a few levels above the typical internet cesspool.

P.S. Gore is not an environmentalist he's a capitalist.

ATMO, your propensity for long winded responses simply confirms by beliefs.

The ONLY measure that consistently indicates an individual's or country's carbon footprint (or whatever BS term you choose to use) is wealth. Wether you consume it or invest it. Feel free to continue to pat yourself on the back for collecting high end bikes instead of Humvee's but keep these statistics in mind:

Have $61,000 in assets? You�re among the richest 10% of the adults in the world.

�If you earn $25,000 or more annually, you are in the top 10% of the world�s income-earners.

� If you have any money saved, a hobby that requires some equipment or supplies, a variety of clothes in your closet, two cars (in any condition), and live in your own home, you are in the top 5% of the world�s wealthy.

�If you earn more than $50,000 annually, you are in the top 1% of the world�s income earners.

� If you have more than $500,000 in assets, you�re part of the richest 1% of the world.

Villgaxx

07-16-2013, 09:35 PM

regarding the new american website as a source of unimpeachable climate change skepticism, you do know that's the JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY don't you?

i mean, i always look the JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY for all my scientific facts and political analysis and stuff, but not everybody is as enlightened as i am.

Fixed political to idealogic. What I believe versus what I know are two different things. I believe based on what I have read that this seems to be some ginned up crisis to prop up big enviro to be the next big pharm.

But, I am agnostic to the whole thing. I'm open to solid evidence... But, when you have climategate and the way the believers attack the non-believers, that gives me pause.

Attacking articles that may be published by rags that have a bias or leaning is just an example of the level of dogma that this has come to. These articles do reference and quote many dissenter scientest who believe otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/12392-former-global-warming-supporter-now-shows-data-that-refutes-it

What I know is the there is and has been doping in TDF, or sports for that matter. And I believe there is global warming in this friggin airport as my flight has been delayed for 3hrs and it is stuffy and hot here.

mIKE

Villgaxx

07-16-2013, 09:46 PM

it's not much of a secret that the middle class, upper middle class and upper class in the united states in the last 100 years are all way way up there in a list of the wealthiest life forms in the history of the known universe.

bringin' it up in such a fashion seems during a purported discussion about climate change, global warming, scientific evidence, or energy policy feels a bit like a misdirection play, but i'm not the sort of girl to impugn the motivation of another person.

fwiw, any time anyone brings up al gore as some sort of serious example of anything except naked political opportunist and/or awful candidate, it looks like a clue that they are not really serious. just sayin'. al gore is not any sort environmentalist.

ATMO, your propensity for long winded responses simply confirms by beliefs.

The ONLY measure that consistently indicates an individual's or country's carbon footprint (or whatever BS term you choose to use) is wealth. Wether you consume it or invest it. Feel free to continue to pat yourself on the back for collecting high end bikes instead of Humvee's but keep these statistics in mind:

Have $61,000 in assets? You�re among the richest 10% of the adults in the world.

�If you earn $25,000 or more annually, you are in the top 10% of the world�s income-earners.

� If you have any money saved, a hobby that requires some equipment or supplies, a variety of clothes in your closet, two cars (in any condition), and live in your own home, you are in the top 5% of the world�s wealthy.

�If you earn more than $50,000 annually, you are in the top 1% of the world�s income earners.

� If you have more than $500,000 in assets, you�re part of the richest 1% of the world.

Bikerist

07-16-2013, 09:53 PM

Rueda Tropical

07-16-2013, 10:02 PM

What does the behavior of some environmentalist or environmental group have to do with global warming? Sea rise is not dependent on what al gore had for lunch.

If I know there is a shift in the market coming that will put me out of business I respond. We now have fairly good intelligence on the causes and impacts of global warming and we have not responded in any serious or effective way. Just like the markets and businesses. Natural selection ( natures market mechanism ) rewards species that adapt and respond and eliminates those that don't.

Villgaxx

07-16-2013, 10:04 PM

no, but it is a political trope that outs a flagrantly non-serious person: al gore is fat; al gore has a big house; al gore is rich; it's hot out; it's cold out; it snowed in april. al gore's just one of those things, and the misdirection play using gore as some sort of hero of the left, of the environmentalists, of the liberals, of the whoever is similar to other misdirection plays that've been used in this thread. when some anti-science zealot or entry-level apparatchik spews up al gore as an attack, you kinda know they've left the reality-based community.

gore wasn't in the thing i quoted from you; you were just a target of convenience for the quotation.

Your the 2nd person that has mentioned Al Gore in reply to one of my post.

I was under the impression that Al invented the internet. Did he invent the term environmentalist as well?

Villgaxx

07-16-2013, 10:12 PM

the problem will be that if some group's standard of living gets selected away for some reason, they might not take it so well, and if that group happens to have a worldwide military infrastructure, well, things might get ugly.

What does the behavior of some environmentalist or environmental group have to do with global warming? Sea rise is not dependent on what al gore had for lunch.

If I know there is a shift in the market coming that will put me out of business I respond. We now have fairly good intelligence on the causes and impacts of global warming and we have not responded in any serious or effective way. Just like the markets and businesses. Natural selection ( natures market mechanism ) rewards species that adapt and respond and eliminates those that don't.

Kirk007

07-16-2013, 10:23 PM

ATMO, your propensity for long winded responses simply confirms by beliefs.

The ONLY measure that consistently indicates an individual's or country's carbon footprint (or whatever BS term you choose to use) is wealth. Wether you consume it or invest it. Feel free to continue to pat yourself on the back for collecting high end bikes instead of Humvee's but keep these statistics in mind:

Have $61,000 in assets? You�re among the richest 10% of the adults in the world.

�If you earn $25,000 or more annually, you are in the top 10% of the world�s income-earners.

� If you have any money saved, a hobby that requires some equipment or supplies, a variety of clothes in your closet, two cars (in any condition), and live in your own home, you are in the top 5% of the world�s wealthy.

�If you earn more than $50,000 annually, you are in the top 1% of the world�s income earners.

� If you have more than $500,000 in assets, you�re part of the richest 1% of the world.

And your point is, what? You conveniently label and then diss a group of folks that you assume think differently than, perhaps have different values than you, suggesting "they" simply enjoy being smug and judgmental. So that's apparently your belief, which you then back up with a word count critique and facts and figures that back up the "environmentalist's" lament about Western levels of consumption? Perhaps you're suggesting that anyone that meets the criteria above is hypocritical if they urge behaviors which reduce GHG emissions, is that it? Yet then you fail to see why someone would associate the Al Gore strawman with your position.

I don't see anyone patting themselves on the back. You want to attack folks values and integrity expect a little push back.

Anyway I think this thread has about run its course of interesting give and take.