Global Warming: The other side of the story

[squeeks]

i dont know if this has ever been posted here or not but check out this report ABC news did on the other side of the al gore global warming myth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o&eurl=http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/john_stossel_on_al_gores_global_warming_myth/

[SMM]

i dont know if this has ever been posted here or not but check out this report ABC news did on the other side of the al gore global warming myth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o&eurl=http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/john_stossel_on_al_gores_global_warming_myth/

I do not know if it was posted previously. If so, it was probably laughed-off. What a total crock of corporate disinformation.

[Ugg]

i dont know if this has ever been posted here or not but check out this report ABC news did on the other side of the al gore global warming myth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o&eurl=http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/john_stossel_on_al_gores_global_warming_myth/
Can you prove that global climate change is a myth? Or do you simply have a fascination for ostriches?

[Iscariot]

Can you prove that global climate change is a myth? Or do you simply have a fascination for ostriches?

Who can't appreciate those delicate, slender necks, and graceful bird-like bodies? Ostriches are clearly the kings of the animal kingdom, and you'd do well not to forget it.

[dukebound85]

Can you prove that global climate change is a myth? Or do you simply have a fascination for ostriches?

id like to ask you can you prove global warming is manmade or simply a coincidence with natural cycles that have happened many times before?

[Iscariot]

id like to ask you can you prove global warming is manmade or simply a coincidence with natural cycles that have happened many times before?

Can you prove that dumping thousands upon thousands of tonnes of man-made chemicals into the atmosphere, ground, oceans and freshwater, destroying thousands of acres of habitation, eradicating thousands of species isn't having a negative effect on natural ecological systems? Even if unproven, do you think that continuing on a course that results in the rapid destruction of huge amounts of life on Earth is going to end in a land of rainbows, puppies and sunshine?

Bonus Question: Can you prove the geometrical meaning of the central extension of the algebra of diffeomorphisms of the circle? (Show your work.)

[dukebound85]

Can you prove that dumping thousands upon thousands of tonnes of man-made chemicals into the atmosphere, ground, oceans and freshwater, destroying thousands of acres of habitation, eradicating thousands of species isn't having a negative effect on natural ecological systems? Even if unproven, do you think that continuing on a course that results in the rapid destruction of huge amounts of life on Earth is going to end in a land of rainbows, puppies and sunshine?

Bonus Question: Can you prove the geometrical meaning of the central extension of the algebra of diffeomorphisms of the circle? (Show your work.)

im just saying that the amt of co2 and the like humans emit is MINISCULE to that outputted by volcanoes and things. not saying we dont have an impact but how can you be so sure unless you know all the facts and can get through the biased media?

i dont know all the facts but refuse to believe everything reprters tell me

prove the meaning of life: show all your work please

[Ugg]

id like to ask you can you prove global warming is manmade or simply a coincidence with natural cycles that have happened many times before?

That wasn't my question.

Climate change is a reality.

I've no doubt that in the past the climate has changed in more or less natural cycles.

Neither I nor anyone else can prove that at least part of what we're experiencing is a natural occurence.

However, I do know that mankind has had a huge impact on local climates. The pea soup fog of London at the turn of the last century. Desertification of the middle east a few thousand years ago. Lake Baikal, etc, etc.

It doesn't take a huge leap to see that if humans can have a massive impact on localities then it's very possible that we can also have an impact on a global scale.

While all of you are denying that humans are having any impact, the sheet ice of Greenland, the North Pole, Antarctica, the glaciers in the Andes, Himalayas amongst others is melting at an astonishing rate. Fish stocks have plummeted around the world in the last 20 years, drought is extremely common in areas that have never known it.

It's almost a moot point whether it's human caused or part of a natural cycle. Las Vegas is doomed, Atlanta may well run out of water next year, Washington DC could well become uninhabitable if the oceans rise even a tiny bit.

What are all you naysayers prepared to do about it? Nothing is not an acceptable answer.

I repeat, do you simply have a fascination for ostriches or are you simply blind to what's happening to the planet?

[Iscariot]

im just saying that the amt of co2 and the like humans emit is MINISCULE to that outputted by volcanoes and things. not saying we dont have an impact but how can you be so sure unless you know all the facts and can get through the biased media?

i dont know all the facts but refuse to believe everything reprters tell me

Who cares what reporters say? I think more people are concerned with the general consensus in the scientific community, but even that isn't entirely relelvant. You don't need to have all of the "facts" to recognize that what we're doing is unsustainable and bad for the planet, and what's bad for the planet is bad for us. Our CO2 emissions could be having no impact whatsoever on the planet. We're doing far more damage than just that, and if you're willing to dismiss the idea that hey, maybe we should stop ruining our only planet just because all the facts for one facet of our impact "aren't in", then you're not taking an objective or logical look at the picture.

Additionally, there are no good estimates for how much CO2 volcanoes are emitting, to use your example. But what's missing here is balance; yes there are natural fluctuations, but it's almost always balanced out by the opposite end of the cycle. Plant decay creates carbon. Plant growth consumes carbon. The oceans cyclically release and absorb carbon. Some organisms consume one greenhouse gas and emit another.

Your argument is based on the idea that natural processes create more emissions than anthropogenic processes. Even though this is the case, should a single species, reasonably speaking, be able to wield enough environmental power to even rival natural processes? If the scales have 60 pounds on each platform, even one or two pounds is going to have a significant impact on which way they tip.

prove the meaning of life: show all your work please

This goes to show that you're missing my point, but OK. The meaning of life is to perpetuate our own species. Ergo, part of this process involves maintaining a suitable habitat for one's offspring. A planet stripped of resources is not conducive to survival.

[hulugu]

im just saying that the amt of co2 and the like humans emit is MINISCULE to that outputted by volcanoes and things. not saying we dont have an impact but how can you be so sure unless you know all the facts and can get through the biased media?

i dont know all the facts but refuse to believe everything reprters tell me.

I don't know all the facts either, but having actually read some of the scientific papers, worked through the literature, and browsed articles in National Geographic, Scientific American, Science...I'm more than willing to accept that Anthropogenic Climate Change is happening.

If you're so worried about 'biased media' then go to the library and read the actual articles. Do the work.

One of the easiest examples of an obvious change is the rise of carbonic acid in the oceans, which breaks down coral skeletons. This is unusual.

[dukebound85]

That wasn't my question.

Climate change is a reality.

I've no doubt that in the past the climate has changed in more or less natural cycles.

Neither I nor anyone else can prove that at least part of what we're experiencing is a natural occurence.

However, I do know that mankind has had a huge impact on local climates. The pea soup fog of London at the turn of the last century. Desertification of the middle east a few thousand years ago. Lake Baikal, etc, etc.

It doesn't take a huge leap to see that if humans can have a massive impact on localities then it's very possible that we can also have an impact on a global scale.

While all of you are denying that humans are having any impact, the sheet ice of Greenland, the North Pole, Antarctica, the glaciers in the Andes, Himalayas amongst others is melting at an astonishing rate. Fish stocks have plummeted around the world in the last 20 years, drought is extremely common in areas that have never known it.

It's almost a moot point whether it's human caused or part of a natural cycle. Las Vegas is doomed, Atlanta may well run out of water next year, Washington DC could well become uninhabitable if the oceans rise even a tiny bit.

What are all you naysayers prepared to do about it? Nothing is not an acceptable answer.

I repeat, do you simply have a fascination for ostriches or are you simply blind to what's happening to the planet?

oh i agree prevention is best solution and dont deny that we dont have an impact. i just dont know how significant

but at the same time, who is willing to give up their current llifestyle. for me personally it will be hard

[dukebound85]

I don't know all the facts either, but having actually read some of the scientific papers, worked through the literature, and browsed articles in National Geographic, Scientific American, Science...I'm more than willing to accept that Anthropogenic Climate Change is happening.

If you're so worried about 'biased media' then go to the library and read the actual articles. Do the work.

One of the easiest examples of an obvious change is the rise of carbonic acid in the oceans, which breaks down coral skeletons. This is unusual.

while i agree i also realize that there are probably equal reports from scientists saying the opposite but remember how powerful the media is. i mean remember shark year? the media really overplayed shark attacks when they were normal during that year.

does anyone see where im coming from or maybe im waaaaay off

media controls government to some extent so i would not be suprised at all if research grants are picked out selectivly to support a case they want to make.

NOW i do think our actions cant be good for global warming but you have to remember the source of the information. you can come close to proving anything in science that supports your view based on controlled experiments

like i said we should work on cutting back emissions and the like but part of me wouldnt be suprised if it is being overplayed.

[Iscariot]

oh i agree prevention is best solution and dont deny that we dont have an impact. i just dont know how significant

but at the same time, who is willing to give up their current llifestyle. for me personally it will be hard

I gave up my "current" lifestyle about 5 years ago... I've changed my diet, where I live, where I work, what I do with my time, what I buy (and where), where I volunteer, who I donate to, and next year I start carbon offsetting. It was hard, but it's rewarding to know that you are making a difference, even if only in a small way.

Additionally, vegan girls are really cute.

[hulugu]

while i agree i also realize that there are probably equal reports from scientists saying the opposite but remember how powerful the media is. i mean remember shark year? the media really overplayed shark attacks when they were normal during that year.

Several things I'd like to point out:

1. The "media" is a pretty broad brush and doesn't make a clear difference between the "bleeds it leads" hysteria of nightly TV news and the well-researched reports from a magazine like Harpers. Or for that matter the difference between a local news report or an episode of Frontline.
2. With the above in mind we can clearly see that "shark year" was hysteria brought on by a flood of TV news reporters hauling it to the coast.
3. Numerous shark experts wasted significant amounts of oxygen trying to point out that shark attacks are rare, even when considering the number that happened that year. The scientific media was considerate on this story and avoided the hysteria that the TV news reports lived on.

does anyone see where im coming from or maybe im waaaaay off

media controls government to some extent so i would not be suprised at all if research grants are picked out selectivly to support a case they want to make.

So there might be a conspiracy to keep data (that incidentally the current administration would love to have) or research from happening? I need more than this to start doubting the work of numerous scientists and science reporters working for a wide range of periodicals.

...like i said we should work on cutting back emissions and the like but part of me wouldnt be suprised if it is being overplayed.

Worse case scenario, we stop cutting down old-growth trees, our oceans are healthier, our air is cleaner, we have cities designed to walk rather than 2-hour commutes, clean and efficient public transportation. If all the good that comes from reform happens, finding out that the whole thing was crap will be met with a collective shrug.

[Marble]

We have very little to lose when it comes to playing nicer with the environment. Since we have control over our ecological footprint, whatever it might be, why don't we err on the side of caution?

[Badandy]

I gave up my "current" lifestyle about 5 years ago... I've changed my diet, where I live, where I work, what I do with my time, what I buy (and where), where I volunteer, who I donate to, and next year I start carbon offsetting. It was hard, but it's rewarding to know that you are making a difference, even if only in a small way.

Additionally, vegan girls are really cute.

And emaciated...


EDIT for all you PC people: The above comment was put in for comedic purposes and not as an insult to anyone who may or may not eat the wonderful bounty that the earth has given us...meat.

[Iscariot]

And emaciated...


EDIT for all you PC people: The above comment was put in for comedic purposes and not as an insult to anyone who may or may not eat the wonderful bounty that the earth has given us...meat.

Better than obese and dieabetic :3

[skunk]

Better than obese and dieabetic :3On behalf of MR diabetics (a club of which thankfully I am not a member) I would point out that not all diabetics are obese.

[Iscariot]

On behalf of MR diabetics (a club of which thankfully I am not a member) I would point out that not all diabetics are obese.

Didn't say they were! Just that "emaciated" would be preferable to someone who is both diabetic and obese. Which is an aside, as we're joking (I hope!) as none of the three are healthy.

edit: edited many times for sucking.

[Ugg]

but at the same time, who is willing to give up their current llifestyle. for me personally it will be hard

The point is, you might not have a choice. The NYT had an excellent article on the lack of water in Colorado and the rest of the west. Colorado has about 20-30 years of water left before drastic restrictions will be put into place.

It really is irrelevant whether you are willing or not. Climate change, man made or naturally occurring is taking place as we speak.

[Much Ado]

while i agree i also realize that there are probably equal reports from scientists saying the opposite but remember how powerful the media is. i mean remember shark year? the media really overplayed shark attacks when they were normal during that year.


(Emphasis mine)

Name more than three. Go.

[Much Ado]

Worse case scenario, we stop cutting down old-growth trees, our oceans are healthier, our air is cleaner, we have cities designed to walk rather than 2-hour commutes, clean and efficient public transportation. If all the good that comes from reform happens, finding out that the whole thing was crap will be met with a collective shrug.

Exactly. It's like Pascal's Wager, only without the glaring flaws :D

[SMM]

Worse case scenario, we stop cutting down old-growth trees, our oceans are healthier, our air is cleaner, we have cities designed to walk rather than 2-hour commutes, clean and efficient public transportation. If all the good that comes from reform happens, finding out that the whole thing was crap will be met with a collective shrug.



My wife and I spend ~10 years as professional whitewater guides (we actually met on a river). Our love for rivers, watersheds and river eco-systems encouraged us to devote a great deal of our time protecting them. In fact, my wife is going to be a feature story in American Rivers Magazine.

What we soon learned was, you cannot separate the river from its surrounding environment. Soon we were also working on shorelines management, forestry, in-stream flows, hydro-power, etc. Today, I have changed focus to politics, but my wife is heavily involved with local salmon restoration projects, growth management and surface-water management.

Modern man has been a dreadful steward of his environment. There is no other way to put it. For many years, we could rightly claim ignorance. But, that will no longer wash. There is no excuse for anyone in western civilization not to understand what the major environmental concerns are, and what role they play in solving them, or continuing to contribute to them.

This thread was about the "...The other side of the story...". Well, that is over twenty years-old. The minute corporations found out the 'cat was out of the bag', they went to plan "B"; disinformation, discredit, threaten jobs. In America, when weighing the truth in two opposing viewpoints, follow the money. Who is gaining, where is the profit motive? You usually do not have to look too hard.

I though hulugu made a very good point at the end. If we were to make a concerted effort to reduce our use (and dependancy) on fossil fuels, clean-up our air, restore our forests, etc and it still does not arrest global warming, we are still restoring our environment back to its natural state. That in itself is worth the effort.

[Swarmlord]

<snip> If we were to make a concerted effort to reduce our use (and dependancy) on fossil fuels, clean-up our air, restore our forests, etc and it still does not arrest global warming, we are still restoring our environment back to its natural state. That in itself is worth the effort.

It still doesn't address the basic problem where any efforts at increasing our conservation won't make up for the additional one, two, three, etc. billion people that will be added to the Earth's population over the coming decades and centuries.

The reason this whole thing is a hard sell to a lot of industrialized nations and more specifically the individuals living in them is that we feel what's the point of scrounging and saving resources if it's just to allow five additional people to consume that and more somewhere else.

[skunk]

It still doesn't address the basic problem where any efforts at increasing our conservation won't make up for the additional one, two, three, etc. billion people that will be added to the Earth's population over the coming decades and centuries.The people alive in the coming decades and centuries will have to work something out, won't they? If we don't take a lead now, there won't be anyone around in the coming centuries. We need to be able to offer our descendants something a bit better than a suffocated, burnt out, used up planet.

The reason this whole thing is a hard sell to a lot of industrialized nations and more specifically the individuals living in them is that we feel what's the point of scrounging and saving resources if it's just to allow five additional people to consume that and more somewhere else.Isn't it time we tried to lead by example? Who exactly are these "five additional people"? Are they your grandchildren? Are they foreigners? Are you admitting that you consume five times as much as they do? Does that tell you anything?

[dukebound85]

The point is, you might not have a choice. The NYT had an excellent article on the lack of water in Colorado and the rest of the west. Colorado has about 20-30 years of water left before drastic restrictions will be put into place.

It really is irrelevant whether you are willing or not. Climate change, man made or naturally occurring is taking place as we speak.

that is a good point. as long as it doesnt affect ski season ill be a happy camper :)

[pseudobrit]

oh i agree prevention is best solution and dont deny that we dont have an impact. i just dont know how significant

Fortunately, there are scientists who do know, with data to back them up.

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/ctp/features/2007/10_23/index.php

This is particularly disturbing:

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/ctp/features/2007/10_23/iceloss_trend.gif

that is a good point. as long as it doesnt affect ski season ill be a happy camper :)

Hope you don't mind travelling north to get your skiing in.

[SMM]

It still doesn't address the basic problem where any efforts at increasing our conservation won't make up for the additional one, two, three, etc. billion people that will be added to the Earth's population over the coming decades and centuries.

The reason this whole thing is a hard sell to a lot of industrialized nations and more specifically the individuals living in them is that we feel what's the point of scrounging and saving resources if it's just to allow five additional people to consume that and more somewhere else.

Yes, you are now addressing a huge issue for any progress we (as a race) are going to have to come to terms with; over-population. And, there are many players in this, all with varying degrees of interest, and/or political-economic clout. For discussion sake, I will bite-off a few.

First, there is the religious component. Catholics do not believe in contraception. They are famous for their large families. Since they are probably the largest Christian church and are widespread through the third-world, that is a lot of little Catholics running around. In America, the Mormons believe in a monolithic family structure, with many children. I know there are many other religions which promote large families, but I am less knowledgeable about them.

Secondly, there are the advantages of having large families. Many Americans forget that much of the word lives in an agrarian society. They work the land/livestock much the same way as they have for centuries (allowing for better technology). For them, large families have been an absolute necessity. However, that is changing (see below), and they will need to adapt.

The mortality rates for infants, and children, have always been high in third-world countries. Thus, having large families was required. Now we have groups like the World health Organization, and many others, which are making a significant impact on preventing infant death. The problem is, many of the groups are faith based and do not subscribe to anything related to population control. The net result is over-population in countries least able to support it. This is a serious problem with few willing to acknowledge it, let along address it.

Well, that is as big a bite as I want to chew for now.

[hulugu]

It still doesn't address the basic problem where any efforts at increasing our conservation won't make up for the additional one, two, three, etc. billion people that will be added to the Earth's population over the coming decades and centuries.

The reason this whole thing is a hard sell to a lot of industrialized nations and more specifically the individuals living in them is that we feel what's the point of scrounging and saving resources if it's just to allow five additional people to consume that and more somewhere else.

There's a huge difference between creating efficiencies in a market and 'scrounging.' If you check the air-pressure on your tires, put in a new air filter, and change the oil are you really scounging for gas? Or are you just trimming for efficiency?
That's what we should be doing writ large.

Furthermore, overpopulation is a confluence of culture and socio-economic pressures, which may be blunted by a rapid influx of new technology and the stronger economy contained therein.

But, even if we fail to halt global warming, if the first world has done the work to make new technologies, it may be more ready to respond to the rapid change regardless.

All I see are investments, opportunity, and a chance for positive change. I don't see scrounging.

[CalBoy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o&eurl=http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/john_stossel_on_al_gores_global_warming_myth/

Give me a break. John Stossel is one of the most conservative reporters around. I've heard him try to argue that landfills are better for the Earth than recycling (yes, he really did say this).

Either way, investing in anti-carbon technologies will only be better for the future of humanity. If we can find sources of energy (which we have; we just need to use them) that are renewable and don't pollute, this will only be better for our posterity.

And, I believe that the greatest source of carbon in the atmosphere right now is of bovine origin if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps we all need to eat a little less beef.

[Badandy]

Give me a break. John Stossel is one of the most conservative reporters around. I've heard him try to argue that landfills are better for the Earth than recycling (yes, he really did say this).



And if you've done research on the subject you will find out that many times (excluding recycling aluminum) it takes more power (and thus carbon emissions) to recycle than simply to discard.

[CalBoy]

And if you've done research on the subject you will find out that many times (excluding recycling aluminum) it takes more power (and thus carbon emissions) to recycle than simply to discard.

Power isn't what I was talking about; I distinctly said for the EARTH. Overall, filling up landfills is bad for numerous reasons:

1. Pollutes the local air and water.
2. Deposits important resources into the ground when they could be easily reused (especially petroleum based products, AKA, plastics).
3. Has the psychological effect on humans that lets them think that they can simply use and throw away. Most Americans don't consider the resources it takes to create a new aluminum can of soda, or the time and energy it takes to create new styrofoam.

Only a handful of products' recycling efforts will yield more damage to the environment; by and large, the recycling of most products is beneficial for the plant.

[Iscariot]

And if you've done research on the subject you will find out that many times (excluding recycling aluminum) it takes more power (and thus carbon emissions) to recycle than simply to discard.

If that power came from a renewable, green resource, however...

[hulugu]

And if you've done research on the subject you will find out that many times (excluding recycling aluminum) it takes more power (and thus carbon emissions) to recycle than simply to discard.

Well, as Iscariot pointed out that can change depending on where the energy comes from.

Secondly, Stossel's been known to oversimplify issues, cherry-pick statistics, and generally make a hash out every issue he's touched. His book is a clear example of flash over in-depth reporting.

[CalBoy]

Secondly, Stossel's been known to oversimplify issues, cherry-pick statistics, and generally make a hash out every issue he's touched. His book is a clear example of flash over in-depth reporting.

Yes, I've noticed this too. He's made some other fairly brazen claims as well. Considering the fact that he works as an in-depth reporter, he should do a better job. Oh well, it really doesn't matter too much. 20/20's ratings are in the toilet.

[pseudobrit]

2. Deposits important resources into the ground when they could be easily reused (especially petroleum based products, AKA, plastics).

Most recycled plastic is worthless to the plastics industry and of dubious value in alternative applications. What's salvaged copper selling for a pound? Steel? Aluminum?
Now what about HDPE?

3. Has the psychological effect on humans that lets them think that they can simply use and throw away.

Recycling has the effect that people think they can just toss things they'd normally have to throw away into a special bin and it will save the earth, when in reality most of what they're recycling is wasting more fuel and resources to collect and recycle than if they'd simply thrown it away.

Reduce, reuse, recycle. Emphasis should be on the first two. Focusing on recycling simply lets people feel like they're helping when they're not.

[hulugu]

Most recycled plastic is worthless to the plastics industry and of dubious value in alternative applications. What's salvaged copper selling for a pound? Steel? Aluminum?
Now what about HDPE?



Recycling has the effect that people think they can just toss things they'd normally have to throw away into a special bin and it will save the earth, when in reality most of what they're recycling is wasting more fuel and resources to collect and recycle than if they'd simply thrown it away.

Reduce, reuse, recycle. Emphasis should be on the first two. Focusing on recycling simply lets people feel like they're helping when they're not.

I repeat myself, but Cradle to Cradle is a fantastic read that focuses on the difference between recycling, which can be incredibly inefficient, and design which incorporates the ability to reuse or reincorporate materials into new systems.
Some recycling is actually very energy efficient. Steel for example.

[Iscariot]

Reduce, reuse, recycle. Emphasis should be on the first two. Focusing on recycling simply lets people feel like they're helping when they're not.

Down like a clown, Charlie Brown. I think emphasis should be absolutely placed on the first one, above all. I started a thread awhile ago for people to post suggestions on reducing and reusing. Some examples that can have a significant impact on waste production:


Carry a small handtowel, and keep one in your locker at work. When washing hands in public restrooms, use it instead of paper towels.

Canvas bags instead of grocery bags. Small, lightweight linen bags instead of the clear plastic bags for produce.

Buying local whenever possible.

Taking 5 minute showers whenever possible.

Bringing your own containers to use for take-out.

Using aluminum reusable containers instead of plastic.

If I catch someone littering, I use my Penance Stare and instantaneously immolate their soul, forever dooming them to the darkest reaches of hell.


I've reduced my waste to one small bag every two weeks, and recycling to one bag a week.

[SMM]

And if you've done research on the subject you will find out that many times (excluding recycling aluminum) it takes more power (and thus carbon emissions) to recycle than simply to discard.

If you had done the research, you would have not posted such an ill-informed remark. The only reason aluminum is shown to be cheap to manufacture, is because it is made in areas where the cost of power is artificially cheap. For example, WA State used to produce a huge amount aluminum. That is because they had mills located along the Columbia River, close to hydraulic damns.

However, all metals are cheaper to recycle than to mine for. Paper is cheaper to produce from recycling, than that made from scratch. Glass is cheaper to reuse, than make from scratch. really, the only major substance, in heavy use, and we do not not have an answer for, is plastic.

[solvs]

Yeah, Stossel isn't exactly known as a bastion of truth anymore. Not exactly the go to guy to prove your point. More here (http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel-tampering.html).

i dont know all the facts
Clearly.

while i agree i also realize that there are probably equal reports from scientists saying the opposite
There aren't.

media controls government to some extent
You really think this?

NOW i do think our actions cant be good for global warming but you have to remember the source of the information.
A vast majority of the scientific community provides proof for Global Climate Change and what impact we have. While we can quibble over the details, the overall message is clear. Those who disagree with the majority seem to have ties to oil companies and political groups. Contrary to popular belief, not all scientists who research Global Warming are liberals who get paid tons of money. Actually, this administration didn't even want to fund the research.

Worse case scenario, we stop cutting down old-growth trees, our oceans are healthier, our air is cleaner, we have cities designed to walk rather than 2-hour commutes, clean and efficient public transportation. If all the good that comes from reform happens, finding out that the whole thing was crap will be met with a collective shrug.
We have very little to lose when it comes to playing nicer with the environment. Since we have control over our ecological footprint, whatever it might be, why don't we err on the side of caution?
Always been my argument. They're wrong, we're still better off. They're right and we ignore them, we're screwed.

that is a good point. as long as it doesnt affect ski season ill be a happy camper :)
It already is, but way to prove how myopic and self centered we Americans can be.

[Ugg]

However, all metals are cheaper to recycle than to mine for. Paper is cheaper to produce from recycling, than that made from scratch. Glass is cheaper to reuse, than make from scratch. really, the only major substance, in heavy use, and we do not not have an answer for, is plastic.

Paper can only be recycled so many times before the fibers are simply too short. There's been a lot of discussion about this issue and recycled paper can be poor in quality. That doesn't mean that other uses can't be found for paper, just that unlike metal or glass which can be recycled infinitely, paper has a finite cycle.

[Badandy]

If you had done the research, you would have not posted such an ill-informed remark.
If you had a good point to make, you would have made it following that sentence.


The only reason aluminum is shown to be cheap to manufacture, is because it is made in areas where the cost of power is artificially cheap. For example, WA State used to produce a huge amount aluminum. That is because they had mills located along the Columbia River, close to hydraulic damns.
I don't think I disputed anything close to this.

However, all metals are cheaper to recycle than to mine for. Paper is cheaper to produce from recycling, than that made from scratch. Glass is cheaper to reuse, than make from scratch. really, the only major substance, in heavy use, and we do not not have an answer for, is plastic.
I agree with metals such as aluminum, I've said that from the beginning. Paper runs into the problems Ugg mentioned. Glass is cheaper to reuse than make from scratch? Not to be captain obvious here, but I would think it would take less energy to refill a glass bottle once I'm done with it than make a new one...

Plastic and styrofoam are huge.


Psuedobrit: Your post was right-on. Wow, I can't believe I said that.

[solvs]

The administration’s war on science — revisited (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13341.html#more-13341)

Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told a Senate panel yesterday that climate change “is anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans.” If that sounds a little vague and non-specific, there’s a good reason — the White House refused to let her say what she wanted to say.

Testimony that the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention planned to give yesterday to a Senate committee about the impact of climate change on health was significantly edited by the White House, according to two sources familiar with the documents.

Specific scientific references to potential health risks were removed after Julie L. Gerberding submitted a draft of her prepared remarks to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review.

Instead, Gerberding’s prepared testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee included few details on what effects climate change could have on the spread of disease. Only during questioning did the director of the government’s premier disease-monitoring agency describe any specific diseases likely to be affected, again without elaboration.

A CDC official familiar with both versions told the AP that Gerberding’s draft “was eviscerated.” Among the deletions were “details on how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming and the scientific basis for some of the CDC’s analysis on what kinds of diseases might be spread in a warmer climate and rising sea levels.”

Moreover, TP notes that a “January report found 435 instances in which the Bush administration interfered into the global warming work of government scientists over the past five years.”
So why not even study it? And when we do, why cover up the info found? Her report was "eviscerated". That's pretty bad.

Now do you see why some of us wonder if maybe there's something to this whole thing?

[shikimo]

I don't know all the facts either, but having actually read some of the scientific papers, worked through the literature, and browsed articles in National Geographic, Scientific American, Science...I'm more than willing to accept that Anthropogenic Climate Change is happening.

If you're so worried about 'biased media' then go to the library and read the actual articles. Do the work.


YES YES YES!!! We must educate ourselves!!! The upside of the modern world is that we have access to mass amounts of information, and we have the ability to spend time filitering it and have informed opinions. Too bad that some people choose to have their opinion pre-formed and handed to them...but it's a fact that, for many people, there has never been a better time to learn.

I gave up my "current" lifestyle about 5 years ago... I've changed my diet, where I live, where I work, what I do with my time, what I buy (and where), where I volunteer, who I donate to, and next year I start carbon offsetting. It was hard, but it's rewarding to know that you are making a difference, even if only in a small way.

Right on...if everyone does even a small percentage of that, we're already buying ourselves more time as a species to find a long-term solution. There will eventually be too many people for the planet to support and the global War of Resources may be inevitable, but isn't putting it off as long as possible and working for a solution better than saying "BRING IT ON MUTHA%%#$@#"??

when weighing the truth in two opposing viewpoints, follow the money. Who is gaining, where is the profit motive? You usually do not have to look too hard.

Good reminder of a valid principle of evaluation. When I lived in the US this was often my best tool for evaluating the myriad ballot measures that came the way of Oregon voters each election. 9 times out of 10 it was easy to see the responsible way to vote after learing who paid to support this or that measure.

Secondly, Stossel's been known to oversimplify issues, cherry-pick statistics, and generally make a hash out every issue he's touched. His book is a clear example of flash over in-depth reporting.

Stossel is a clown who makes a living voicing the opinions of a scared, immobile minority that won't admit the passing of time.

[Prof.]

John Stossel, has as much intelligence as my little toe.

[pdham]

Anyone who thinks human impact is insignificant should take 15 minutes and do a little research (even a quick google search). You will find numerous graphs that show CO2 variations over the last 600,000 years. Yes they are cyclical, and yes we are on an up swing, but even so, our cuurent levels are higher than they have ever been. And with ice core sampling it isn't that hard to empirically show this stuff.

[Don't panic]

while i agree i also realize that there are probably equal reports from scientists saying the opposite but remember how powerful the media is. i mean remember shark year? the media really overplayed shark attacks when they were normal during that year.
mmmh, yes, except there aren't.

does anyone see where im coming from or maybe im waaaaay off
the second one


media controls government to some extent so i would not be suprised at all if research grants are picked out selectivly to support a case they want to make.
true to some extent, except the gov tried to force the argument that there was NO global warming. the opposite of what you say.

NOW i do think our actions cant be good for global warming but you have to remember the source of the information. you can come close to proving anything in science that supports your view based on controlled experiments
like i said we should work on cutting back emissions and the like but part of me wouldnt be suprised if it is being overplayed.

it depends on what you use as your source. if, as suggested, you go to the primary source (scientific journals) you'll find the data minus the spin.
and no, you cannot prove anything in science based on controlled experiment. Quite the contrary, a properly controlled experiment will show you the facts as they are, whether you like them or not.

[Swarmlord]

The people alive in the coming decades and centuries will have to work something out, won't they? If we don't take a lead now, there won't be anyone around in the coming centuries. We need to be able to offer our descendants something a bit better than a suffocated, burnt out, used up planet.

<snip>

Why? It will give them incentive to move off the planet before our Sun turns it into a cinder.

[pdham]

Why? It will give them incentive to move off the planet before our Sun turns it into a cinder.

Slightly different timelines...

[imac/cheese]

...And, I believe that the greatest source of carbon in the atmosphere right now is of bovine origin if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps we all need to eat a little less beef.

All carbon that comes from bovine origin was fairly recently absorbed out of carbon dioxide in the air by the grass that the cows ate. That carbon was broken down by the cows digestion and turned into flesh and excess gas. The carbon in the flesh stays there until the cow is eaten by a human. The carbon in the excess gas is rereleased back into the atmosphere in some form or another. Cows do not create carbon and this process is actuallly "carbon negative" because the cows capture carbon that would normally be released into the air when the grass biodegrades. This carbon passes on to meat- eaters that retain the carbon until they die.

...Plant decay creates carbon. Plant growth consumes carbon...

This should say, "Plant decay releases carbon. Plant growth captures carbon." And this doesn't just apply to plants. Since people eat plants our own growth continues to retain the carbon the plants captured while our decay releases that carbon back into the atmosphere.

As a world we are currently transferring carbon into the atmosphere faster than the earth is returning it to a non-gasueos state in forms such as plant and animal matter, coal, oil, natural gas, diamonds, etc.

The overpopultaion crisis is actually a benefit in one aspect because more people exist to capture carbon in their bodies which keeps it out of the air. Of course those additional people also use a lot of fuels that break down the carbon that the earth has stockpiled and puts it back into the atmosphere.

[iGav]

And, I believe that the greatest source of carbon in the atmosphere right now is of bovine origin if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps we all need to eat a little less beef.

On Countryfile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countryfile) a few weeks ago, they stated that the agricultural industry emits more CO2 per year than every other industry combined.

[imac/cheese]

On Countryfile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countryfile) a few weeks ago, they stated that the agricultural industry emits more CO2 per year than every other industry combined.

It takes a lot of fuel to run those tractors over the field seven times or so per season, then actually process the crops, and ship the crops.

[Queso]

The overpopultaion crisis is actually a benefit in one aspect because more people exist to capture carbon in their bodies which keeps it out of the air.
Once again a very homocentric comment. Every extra human being takes the place of other creatures that could have locked that carbon in their bodies. I suspect the net effect is pretty neutral.

[Desertrat]

Some bits and pieces: I've read that young, growing trees absorb more CO2 than do mature trees. If this is factually correct, we should harvest old growth and replant--as is done in the southeastern U.S., from I-45 to the Atlantic, from the Gulf north to around I-30 (roughly).

Nationwide in the US, we use about 40 gallons of treated water per person, per day. Even non-industrial cities will treat ten times that much, daily. IOW, a lot of unnecessary use.

Liquid motor fuel is rising in price and declining in availability. The alternative to mechanized equipment in farming is the use of horses/mules/oxen. Such a retrogression halves the available land for human-use crops.

The oceans have been over-harvested for some fifty years that I know of; maybe before that. And the carbonic acid is reductionary as to species populations, particularly at the bottom of the food chain.

A U.S. problem is that of meeting the Kyoto reductions of CO2 without having 25% unemployment. Our system is based on cheap electricity and inexpensive transportation--both of which are high emitters. To replace with wind or solar or geothermal, the parts and pieces to create non-emitters are smelted and shaped via electricity from emitters--and this manufacturing takes many years before there can be a net gain over coal-fired power plants.

Same sort of problem for transportation. Folks gotta get to work to load and unload transported cargo--which then is moved to a use point. If the cargo is raw materials, the products must then be moved to a point-of-purchase and then home to the consumer.

Sure, our system can be changed. But, how fast? Or, how fast without political kickback? Change is ungruntling, particularly when it's unwelcome. So far, I see little evidence of politcally-acceptable proposals which would actually help avoid the harmful effects of a climate change with warming.

'Rat

[imac/cheese]

Once again a very homocentric comment. Every extra human being takes the place of other creatures that could have locked that carbon in their bodies. I suspect the net effect is pretty neutral.

You are probably right and I will agree that this is pretty neutral. I was making the statement with a good dose of sarcasm. I guess I should have included a rolled eyes icon.

Some bits and pieces: I've read that young, growing trees absorb more CO2 than do mature trees. If this is factually correct, we should harvest old growth and replant--as is done in the southeastern U.S., from I-45 to the Atlantic, from the Gulf north to around I-30 (roughly)...

'Rat

I will agree that young trees absorb and capture more carbon than older trees and this can be observed by the grwoth rates of the trees. Young trees grow quite fast while older trees grow at a slower rate. The size difference in ten years between a sapling and a ten year old tree is much greater than the difference between a 50 year old tree and a 60 year old tree.

The problem with cutting down old growth and planting new is that over a hundred year period the net carbon contained by a certain land area is about the same. Since climate change is a long term process there is really no benefit to cutting down the old growth, and a lot of fuel is burned to cut the forest down. The only way to really capture additional carbon is to take some of the trees completely out of the growth/decay cycle. This can be done for some time by making furniture or other wooden structures and preserving them, but eventually they will decay and release their carbon back to the atmosphere.

The earth does a good job of natuarlly balancing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere but it is a long term process to turn that carbon into oil, natural gas, and coal. As dynamicv stated above, the amount of organic matter contained in creatures is pretty much going to be a wash as the carbon will be stored in whatever organisms are currently living on the planet. If we burn all of our available oil and coal in a relatively short time period, we will put all that carbon into the atmosphere. The earth will probably recapture the carbon eventually but that process is a long one and humans might not even be around to see it.

The only way for the current and near generations to keep all of that carbon from getting back to the atmosphere is for us to stop burning oil and coal and start using renewable fuel sources. Even reducing our fuel usage will eventually use up all the fuel if we don't stop burning it placing every bit of that carbon into the atmosphere.

[skunk]

Once again a very homocentric comment. "Anthropocentric", surely? Unless you are just being pink for the hell of it...

[Queso]

"Anthropocentric", surely? Unless you are just being pink for the hell of it...
Always someone spoiling my fun :D

[CalBoy]

All carbon that comes from bovine origin was fairly recently absorbed out of carbon dioxide in the air by the grass that the cows ate. That carbon was broken down by the cows digestion and turned into flesh and excess gas. The carbon in the flesh stays there until the cow is eaten by a human. The carbon in the excess gas is rereleased back into the atmosphere in some form or another. Cows do not create carbon and this process is actuallly "carbon negative" because the cows capture carbon that would normally be released into the air when the grass biodegrades. This carbon passes on to meat- eaters that retain the carbon until they die.


From what I remember, most of the carbon that cows emit is through their...droppings (couldn't find a nicer word :p). As there are more cows than humans in almost every nation of the world, the total emissions of cabron are quite large. This is primarily because meat is an energy-losing proposition. Of the total energy that was once in a plant (grass for example) the cow can only pass on about 70% as fat to its consumer (humans). Thus, we have an extra stage of carbon emmissions that produces less overall consumable nutrition.

[lofight]

I still think that it's by mankind... probably i won't go as fast as Gore says, but it will change..

[Ugg]

Some bits and pieces: I've read that young, growing trees absorb more CO2 than do mature trees. If this is factually correct, we should harvest old growth and replant--as is done in the southeastern U.S., from I-45 to the Atlantic, from the Gulf north to around I-30 (roughly).

Liquid motor fuel is rising in price and declining in availability. The alternative to mechanized equipment in farming is the use of horses/mules/oxen. Such a retrogression halves the available land for human-use crops.

The oceans have been over-harvested for some fifty years that I know of; maybe before that. And the carbonic acid is reductionary as to species populations, particularly at the bottom of the food chain.


The old growth scenario simply doesn't fly. Those old growth trees, shade and cool the earth. Clear cuts, or even selective harvesting tend to seriously disrupt this cooling effect. Old growth forests are not only massive carbon sinks but suck up massive amounts of air pollution. Something young trees simply can't do. The other aspect is that there's so little old growth left that such a tactic would have no appreciable impact.

What's needed are more programs like Chicago's or Los Angeles'. Street or Urban trees get stressed out pretty quickly because of the pollution they're exposed to but they suck up phenomenal amounts of it as well. Lining the nation's highways with trees a la Napolean would mean a phenomenal reduction in the amount of pollution that reaches the atmosphere.

Food production is a big issue. I haven't seen any viable solar powered tractors yet and like you say, horses and oxen simply make the problem worse.

I have a hard time imagining not eating salmon or halibut, but it's very probable that they'll be mostly extinct in my lifetime.

We reap what we sow.

[Peterkro]

From what I remember, most of the carbon that cows emit is through their...droppings (couldn't find a nicer word :p). As there are more cows than humans in almost every nation of the world, the total emissions of cabron are quite large. This is primarily because meat is an energy-losing proposition. Of the total energy that was once in a plant (grass for example) the cow can only pass on about 70% as fat to its consumer (humans). Thus, we have an extra stage of carbon emmissions that produces less overall consumable nutrition.

The major emissions from cattle is via burps and not farts as many think.I agree with your statement about the efficiency of meat as food but I think you'll find cows are much less efficient than 70% off the top of my head it's about 33%.

[hulugu]

...A U.S. problem is that of meeting the Kyoto reductions of CO2 without having 25% unemployment. Our system is based on cheap electricity and inexpensive transportation--both of which are high emitters. To replace with wind or solar or geothermal, the parts and pieces to create non-emitters are smelted and shaped via electricity from emitters--and this manufacturing takes many years before there can be a net gain over coal-fired power plants.

I'd like to see a source for this number. I'm not a huge proponent of Kyoto either, but 25% unemployment may as well be ether, I don't trust this number at all.

As for the creation of wind/solar/geothermal parts and pieces, this can't be counted against them, as we can assume the carbon produced in their construction would be produced by current and future systems. Of course, everything manufactured before an entirely solar economy produces carbon, but that's like refusing to create coal-fired plants because they would have burned wood.


Same sort of problem for transportation. Folks gotta get to work to load and unload transported cargo--which then is moved to a use point. If the cargo is raw materials, the products must then be moved to a point-of-purchase and then home to the consumer.

Tesla Roadster. Hybrids. Electric trains. You don't have to solve every problem at once, our infrastructure wasn't created in a day and thus you can't expect green technologies to do the same. Some technologies are ready now, some technologies will be ready soon, and some we don't really know how to build, but if we implement as much reasonable change as possible through a combination of good policy and science we can do very well, plus we'll receive all the ancillary benefits, including a robust and growing economy. We can't just keep burning dinosaurs forever, just as we stopped relying on the nearby forests for fuel.

Sure, our system can be changed. But, how fast? Or, how fast without political kickback? Change is ungruntling, particularly when it's unwelcome. So far, I see little evidence of politcally-acceptable proposals which would actually help avoid the harmful effects of a climate change with warming.

I think the populace is ready for a leader who is wiling to enact smart changes, but there are political operatives who are too busy protecting their friend's assets. It's not the population that's not ready to change, rather it's the buggy-whip makers and their high-powered cohorts.

[CanadaRAM]

what's the point of scrounging and saving resources if it's just to allow five additional people to consume that and more somewhere else.

the point of scrounging and saving resources is to allow five additional people to live -- even at the level of what we would call 'poverty'.

If we 'allowed' the population of China to increase their minimum standard of living to the threshold of what we call 'poverty' in North America, the world's resource consumption would double. If all the world's citizens reached what we call the minimum standard for living, we would need three planets of resources to supply us all.

First World dwellers (that's us Mac-computer-using, car-driving, electrical-power-consuming, endless-supplies-of-cheap-consumer-goods-buying, lettuce-from-California-in-January-eating people) consume so much more than the world median that it is absurdly imbalanced.

[Iscariot]

Some bits and pieces: I've read that young, growing trees absorb more CO2 than do mature trees. If this is factually correct, we should harvest old growth and replant--as is done in the southeastern U.S., from I-45 to the Atlantic, from the Gulf north to around I-30 (roughly).


The problem there, my friend, is that trees themselves are about 50% carbon. When we harvest old growth, we are releasing an absurd amount of additional carbon into the atmosphere just by the amount of dust and debris that's kicked up by pulverizing the layers of dead and decaying trees that are unsuitable for human use.

[Desertrat]

hulugu, I don't intend the 25% as any sort of exact number. However, compare today's generation of coal-fired electricity (and only coal-fired) with that of 1990 minus 10%. Same for consumption of transportation fuels.

Our economy is tied to energy and transportation, which means employment is tied to production of CO2.

Realize I'm looking at some of this in light of the various calls to "Do something, NOW!" Some sort of rational changes over time, and I don't think we'd necessarily have all that much of a problem with employment. Some sort of hurry-up, and I think we would.

WRT the energy cost of cutting existing mature trees, at present they are cut elsewhere and then hauled trans-ocean or from Canada. Less transportation energy to cut here. It's a world energy balance, not just a US energy balance, that's important.

I couldn't find anything comparing CO2 uptake for young vs. old, but did find this: http://www.americanforests.org/resources/ccc/

I need about 45 trees. I already have several hundred, so...

:D

'Rat

[CalBoy]

The major emissions from cattle is via burps and not farts as many think.I agree with your statement about the efficiency of meat as food but I think you'll find cows are much less efficient than 70% off the top of my head it's about 33%.

Burps huh? Who knew:p

I thank you for the more precise figures (70% was a number I vaguely recalled; I probably read that 70% of the energy is lost:rolleyes::p). If 33% is indeed the transfer rate, then it's even more imperative that we cut down on beef consumption.

[solvs]

Why? It will give them incentive to move off the planet before our Sun turns it into a cinder.

And that's more practical than working to reduce our carbon footprint, finding more efficient ways to recycle, attempting to reduce our energy usage, working towards more viable alternative fuels, and a couple of other reasonably realistic things that could easily help rather than hurt how?

[hulugu]

hulugu, I don't intend the 25% as any sort of exact number. However, compare today's generation of coal-fired electricity (and only coal-fired) with that of 1990 minus 10%. Same for consumption of transportation fuels.

Our economy is tied to energy and transportation, which means employment is tied to production of CO2.

Realize I'm looking at some of this in light of the various calls to "Do something, NOW!" Some sort of rational changes over time, and I don't think we'd necessarily have all that much of a problem with employment. Some sort of hurry-up, and I think we would.

WRT the energy cost of cutting existing mature trees, at present they are cut elsewhere and then hauled trans-ocean or from Canada. Less transportation energy to cut here. It's a world energy balance, not just a US energy balance, that's important.

I couldn't find anything comparing CO2 uptake for young vs. old, but did find this: http://www.americanforests.org/resources/ccc/

I need about 45 trees. I already have several hundred, so...

:D

'Rat

This number seems high and depends on several variables, but I see your point: acting just to act won't do any good.

I need about 60 trees, so I've got some work to do, but I've got 10 so far, although I planted around a dozen or so more for my parents over the years as well.

I can't say it enough, there are no silver bullets, rather reducing carbon production will happen by a thousand cuts.

And that's more practical than working to reduce our carbon footprint, finding more efficient ways to recycle, attempting to reduce our energy usage, working towards more viable alternative fuels, and a couple of other reasonably realistic things that could easily help rather than hurt how?

Not to mention that energy conservation, recycling, and control of various waste streams is necessary to get off planet in the first place. There's not exactly a world of plenty out there without serious investments in solar arrays, oxygen production (and carbon reduction), and control of the use of water, food, and material.