I don't think anyone is claiming we should pollute as much as possible. There is certainly nothing wrong with making the effort to put more crap into the air.

But I'll let the quote below, which I've heisted from a poster of another blog, sum up the issue.



"[Global Warming is] A nebulous, shadowy threat which can be used to justify almost anything, but especially an open-ended, never ending demand for sacrifices in the here and now to prevent some future catastrophe.

And it justs gets better and better. What are the signs of this climatic apocalypse?

Well, maybe warming, but maybe cooling. Maybe deserts, but maybe glaciers. Maybe warmer temps around the world, but maybe a new ice age. Maybe furious storms, but maybe drought, and no rain storms at all.

It's even better than the war on drugs, or the war on poverty---it's the war on excess, the war on lifestyle, the war on mean, greedy capitalism and all its accompanying waste and frivolity.

After all, why should all these spoiled, self-indulgent westerners be allowed to go flying and driving all over the place, taking vacations, going to Disney World with a bunch of snot nosed kids, travelling all over the world for crass, commercial purposes, or worse, just for fun.

Those precious carbon emmissions should be reserved for truly important purposes, such as international seminars and UN conferences on GW, rallies to support further stringent action, award ceremonies for those who develop the most draconian measures for everyone to follow---and I mean follow, or else---and, of course, the eventual show trials of those who continue to deny, or offend, the consensus agreeing that everyone who really matters thinks this is the way to proceed.

When we all have to climb into the lifeboats, then this personal, individual liberty stuff will just have to go, and everyone will have to cooperate by doing what they're told, no matter what sacrifices are demanded.

After all, it's for the children, and grandchildren, ad infinitum---what could be more precious than that?

It's just you selfish, individualist types who can't see what needs to be done, and that those in the know must enforce the doing. I mean, it's all for the common good.

Isn't that enough justification for anything our betters might decide we need to do? Didn't you get the memo?"

incidentals vs. body of evidence

What is the body of evidence? Where's the smoking gun? Correlation does not imply causation.

Since the 1950s CO2 levels and crime levels have increased sharply. Therefore, atmospheric CO2 causes crime.

Well, listen...From what I've read, the best, most awesomest solar power cells are 20% efficient...Helpful for residential homes, but for commercial power demands, Solar is impractical. Wind farms are more efficient (again, I'm no scientist, but that is my understanding), but are we willing to give up what little fucking wide open spaces we have left to generate the power needed for, say, Manhattan? The number and size of those turbines would have to take up all of Mt. Washington!!

Nuclear power, while not perfect, does seem to be the best bet to me. The problem is, there hasn't been a new reactor built in the US since Three Mile Island, which means all of our plants are at least thirty years old. We could be building safer, more efficient plants and shutting down the older ones if there wasn't such a knee jerk anti-nuclear movement in this country. France is getting a ton of cheap energy vis the nukes, and, last I checked, they have had ZERO problems (waste, accidents, etc.)

well, the vast majority of the scientific community believes it, for one.

it is intuitive to assume that a substantial increase in co2 pollution is directly related to a substantial increase in human industrialization.

and things like deep ice core analysis have demonstrated that there is more c02 in the atmosphere today than at few points previous.

also - the pollution of a city like NYC (i.e.) is easily "experienced" and it is again a simple matter of intuition to assume that the more and more we pump pollutants into the atmosphere the worse it is for the environment.

This sentence makes no sense.

? I think it makes sense just fine. what's your problem with it?

Those three forms of power "generation" do not pack nearly the same punch and are not nearly as reliable as fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels allow for a much faster transfer of energy into a useful form, allow for a much larger percentage of power transfer, and allow for that transfer to me made with a smaller amount of containment equipment. The costs associated with the conversion of a relatively small amount of energy garnered from solar and wind sources vs. the minimal output vs. fossil fuels simply are not cost effect enough or productive enough to be a viable form until the point where fossil fuels are too expensive.

Even houses that are covered with solar panels only use them to garner a minimal cost savings vs fossil fuels and can not rely on them even 20-30% of the time let alone use them as a viable complete alternative.

Hydro power is almost a viable alternative. It is cost effective but the amount of fuel needed to cover the distances gas and diesel powered vehicles is prohibitive. The amount of power generated is much lower vs other fossil fuels. Keep in mind you have to transport the fuel and its container. That in itself consumes a portion of the energy and saps some of the ability to transform it into a useful transportation form. If you notice these cars currently are much smaller and made of very light materials. As it stands now you can't travel nearly as far on one tank of hydro as you can with the more powerful gas and diesel.

OK, let's take everything you've just said as absolute fact - still, the only truly unlimited energy is that which derives from a natural element. I swear I'm not actually a hippie. Solar, wind and water leave no waste and won't run out, period.

Fossil fuels work. We all know this, but it doesn't change the fact that we'll run out. At what point do we switch to a system that will provide us with fuel without, to put it bluntly, fucking everything up? Nuclear may be safER than it was 30 years ago, but it's still pretty far from safe considering that one slip earns you a Chernobyl or, as was mentioned, Three Mile Island. I think we'd all love it if nuclear power was safe. But it ain't, and I don't think you can justify irradiating thousands of square miles of people and land, no matter how much power you're producing.

Right?

So what then?

we all know that poseidon rules the oceans with his big pointy fork...



so it doesn't matter what mankind does - like when all the cod disappeared...it was the big pointy fork that stabbed them all, duh!

A shitload more people have been killed by fossil fuels than nuclear power.

Of course these people are killed one or two at a time by pulmonary disease or the occasional mining accident as opposed to in bunches when something like Chernobyl happens. Your argument is analogous to saying flying is more dangerous than driving, because when people are killed in flying they are killed in bunches and it is newsworthy, whereas a simple auto accident isn't worth reporting beyond the locality in which it occurred.

I am guessing it takes multiple concurrent and/or consecutive slips to earn you a Chernobyl, especially for a first world power plant.

I read in a book about economic productivity that it is possible by the time global warming becomes a real in your face issue instead of a future scenario that the world's economy will have grown enough to deal with it. I'm not sure I want to put all of my trust in this theory however.

Why would anyone believe some right wing blowhard who's taking money from oil companies over scientists, who stand to make no more money and will lose their credibility (and thus their livelihoods) if they're wrong?

Where did I clam that exactly?

Ya, this year global warming has presented itself a tremendous increase in the size of wildfires. Nice try though.

Peer recognition and keeping the grant spigot open is a major component of being a research scientist. While there are many good upstanding citizens who want to simply advance science there are a large chunk who bend their grant applications to earn the money they need to do their research. There are more than few whose prestige and status among their peers comes from keeping certian hot theories advancing. To do so they publish enough of what the grant donors want to hear while carrying on with their real work or they are so hell bent on proving the theory that their ability to be objective is tainted. My wife spent 10 years working in grant management. She said half the grants she wrote and submitted were just to get the money and not to advance the goals of the granter. It was a game.

The fact is if you do not carry out work that concurs with the conventional wisdom some atmospheric scientists fear losing their credibility and thus their livelihods.

Prove it. How much of it was changes in brush clearing policies and over development? How much of it was just another historic year for Santa Ana winds which flare up cyclically and have reached these levels a century ago long beore the consumption of fossil fuels?

oh ya..ps..since Gore's movie came out, the artic cap has shrunk 25%..there's another one.

I heard this!

Out of curiosity, because I've always wondered about this, what do you think the reason would be for over 90% of the scientific community to "make this up". What's the gain for that side? People who try to raise awareness about global warming are doing so in hopes that people will conserve more and be more accountable for their actions in hopes that things don't reach a level that isn't fixable...the people who attempt to disprove the overwhelming majority of those who believe in this have serious monetary gains to lose. So who's motive's seem more trustworthy?

That 90% is shrinking. Nobody is making anything up. Many if not most are well intentioned. They also may be right. However just as you know not to trust every cop, not every scientist is well intentioned. The fact is there is a long history of "proven bedrock science" that over time has been proven to be flat out wrong. Even within the large segment of well meaning scientists there is pressure to stay with the herd. Self preservation and prestige is a major part of many scientists psyche.

they hate freedom. duh.

BUT BUT BUT ... mhaverty ...seriously ...don't YOU, sentient being that you are, don't YOU think that it is very reasonable to suggest that an increase in already proliferated pollutants is very bad for the environment and therefore very bad for us humans??

For me all ittakes is being in a urban "heat island" ...or driving through north jersey ... our atmosphere, whatever it's other properties, is a finite and sealed "thing" ...and the more pollutants that are emitted into this limited space the worse it is ...add logical compounding aspects and it only makes sense that we should seriously reign in pollution EVEN AT THE COST OF ECONOMIC GROWTH.

We have a fantastic standard of living, to me slower growth is worth a cleaner future.

We of course should continue the quest for better more efficient and cleaner energy. Where does one make the leap from me calling global warming alarmists into question to me not caring about the environment?

well we humans are slow on the uptake ...it takes us getting smacked by something before we recognize it as harmful ... and something like "climate change" is so substantial that you can't just draft some laws and eploy the national guard to account for the problems it will cause.

without the "alarmists" people would never even pay attention to it. we need people like this to make "average joe on the street" care about it so the politicians care about it.

by contrast, would you say people that talk up Iran's Nuke Program alarmists? Because Iran is nowhere near having any nuclear warfare capabilities. You would likely say "No, they're not alarmists because Iran is clearly on pace to eventually HAVE those nuclear capabilities."

And I would agree. And I would say the same is true about the pace we're on re: the environment and what THOSE "alarmists" have to say.

You didn't read my earlier post did you? Here's part of it...

"There is global warming, but we don't know the cause, if it is a problem or if it will get worse. There are scientists who say it will increase the world's capacity to grow food. Dr Gray says it is a matter of ocean salinity and that the current trend will reverse itself in the next couple of decades. The science is far from conclusive.

We do know that the largest contributor to greenhouses gases is third world agriculture. We do know that Al Gore's house consumes 30Xs the energy of the average american house. We do know that both Dianne Feinstein and Al Gore fly around the country/world in Gulfstream IV private jets that on a single coast to coast flight discharge more carbon into the atmosphere than the average american family discharges in a year.

HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART: We do know that almost all the environmental grant money ($100s of millions ) is being thrown at scientists whose work supports the concept of manmade global warming. "

The science is corrupted by money, plain and simple. You want/need a grant to keep your lab, you appease the people handing out the money.

You advocate spending billions and rearranging the lives of hundreds of millions of people based on faulty science and intuition. I think you're wrong.

I wouldn't disagree. But just as you're comparing hundreds of millions of cars on the road each day to mere thousands of flights, you're also talking about over a century of fossil fuel power versus a relatively short time with nuclear, and far less nuclear power plants than traditional energy generators. So it's analogous in more than one way. The thought of the entire nation switching to nuclear should at least worry, if not terrify. That's an awful lot of plants requiring incredibly careful maintenance.

So things like recycling, cutting down on waste, developing more fuel-efficient vehicles and working on alternative energy sources for the future, even though it's 100% guaranteed, with no debate, to improve the quality of the air, water and land you live in is just too much effort - regardless of whether it could maybe, just possibly, if all these hippie crackpots are right, save the goddamn planet? Who cares if he's wrong, your argument is asinine. We're already spending billions and rearranging the lives of hundreds of millions of people to "liberate" the Middle East from itself, why not spend a fraction of that money to improve our own way of life?

The first commercial nuclear plant went online in 1954, so it's been around for half as long (roughly) as fossil fuel power...I agree, that there is no perfect solution, and I am generally a left leaning guy, but I immediately recoil and start looking elsewhere once I realize I've been lied to. Which is what has happened with me and the whole global warming issue. Being lied to for my own good is what soured me on the republican party, and it is what makes me not believe a word of what Al Gore has to say.

Fossil fuels are dirty and limited in supply. Solar, wind and hydro are impractical. Until they work up some kind of Fusion power, the safest and cheapest we have going is Fission.

Nuclear power is responsible worldwide for about 1,000 deaths per year (including the deaths that resulted from Chernobyl). That seems like a lot, until you compare it to the Clean Air Task Force report, which attributes 24,000 deaths IN THE US ALONE to air pollution from fossil fuel emmissions. Look at the science, and realize that, yes, there are those interests who benefit from keeping Oil as our primary fuel source. Aren't the same motivations in place to demonize Nuclear power as there are to demonize conservation?

OK, but my point is that there are a lot more fossil fuel generators than nuclear generators, yes? So if we switch to nuclear, we have a lot more nuclear plants, right?

Just at a guess, I'm thinking that if we attempt to generate all the power we're getting from fossil fuels (which, I remind you, I'm not a fan of) with nuclear, it would require so many more plants that we'd see that 1,000 multiply year after year. And if we get up to 24,000 deaths in the US from nuclear power accidents, you can bet your non-irradiated ass that your ass will be irradiated.

Actually, I looked it up (because I fully realize that I am half talking out of my ass, here) and the US gets just under 20% of it's power, currently, from nuclear plants and 49% from coal fired plants (we can ignore natural gas and oil, to keep it simple). If we increase the Nuclear portion to 100%, we'd need five time the number of plants (again, to keep it simple we can ignore the increased output and efficiency that engineering has brought since a nuclear plant was last built in the US - thirty years ago). Increasing the number of Nuclear fatalities worldwide by five still brings us to 5,000 deaths per year worldwide vs. 24,000 deaths in the US alone, based solely on air pollution (that figure does not include mining accidents, power plant fires, etc.).

Here's a pie chart from the department of energy:





Basically, I'm depending on my kids to be better at not fucking things up than my parents were. I'm doing my part to not wreck the place before they get a shot at it.

why is it the righties always bring up al gore's house when talking about global warming? to me that is evidence of how little they have to work with.

i think you can have a prefectly reasonable discussion on global warming without ever mentioning al gore. he didn't invent the push to understand it and mitigate it.

He was too busy inventing the internet.

I'm on board with everything you just posted (with the chart and all) and wholeheartedly agree that 5,000, while still shitty, is a lot better than 24,000. The only remaining issue I have is with waste and radiation. How are those things being dealt with?

The Noise Board: Your Source For Scientific Research By Those Less Busy At Work Than Yourself.

Heh! Too true.

The waste issue I don't quite have licked, yet, but with all the bosses mysteruiously out of the office for the next few hours, I'll see what I can come up with.

re: COAL

they can make coal a much cleaner source of energy. watch me not describe how, - because i don't know - but they can. I've read and heard about this a lot.

the point there is similar to the strip mining practices that get at the coal. back under nixon and then ford the coal mining co's of appalachia were just destroying the environment with absurdly destructive practices ... and remember NIXON started the EPA ... so he wasn't ANTI-environment ... but all the big coal oeprators told him that to do things differently would put them all out of business... then Jimmy Carter FORCED them to stop using certain chemicals in extracting the coal and to start replanting the lareas they stripped .... they again said it would kill them, but it didn't, they adapted to the new realityy and in the end it was a win/win.

Point being: LEGISLATION ==drives==> INNOVATION

The following statements,

“One which includes NO ICE on the polar caps just a short 3000 years ago. Long before the industrial age.”

“The fact is that just 3000 years ago there wasn't one scintilla of ice on the poles.”

are news to me and I couldn’t find any substantiation looking through the usual research sites. Can someone please provide a link to any reputable site that confirms what is stated above?

What I find most puzzling is that I have read several reports of ice cores being taken to study the amount of CO2 in the air and they were drilling down to reach ice formed 10 to 12 thousand years ago. Now, this could have all been alpine ice located in the Alps, not at the poles (thats one explanation that would fit with the above statements...). But I'd really like to see some clear confimation that there was NO ICE at EITHER pole as recently as 3k years ago. seems hard to believe considering how recently that was. (unless you believe that the earth is only 6k years old, in which case 3k years ago is half the existence of our planet.)

No but he is the focal point of most of the exageratting, lying, and flat out being a hypocrite about what we need to do in order to prevent what he claims is going to happen. If he was really that concerned he would take action himself. He is a fraud. A phony. A douche.

"Global Warming Nuts"

Sounds like a kind of snack food brand.

you'd be hard pressed to catch me defending / touting al gore ... but there is a lot to consider on the subject well outside of anything he has done.

I think he jumped on this as a venue for his sociopathic weirdness ... but even good causes need self-important jerks.

Thank you.

I've been studying this issue for fifteen-plus years, and know a lot about it. Perhaps that accounts for the concision.

Some of my lengthier posts may be a result of unformed thoughts working themselves out before youtr veryu eyes.

Absolutely agree with you 100 percent. But when key figures spout off about global warming being a direct cause of more hurricanes while touting forecasts as proof it hurts the cause far more than it helps especially when each subsequent season is less active than the predecessor. That is my whole point in all of this. I also get the added benefit of reading self righteous asses make shit up about what my intentions are and do more disservice to the act of paraphrasing than any Rupert Murdoch enterprise.

The sad reality is that it is the cost of energy that is driving the search for cleaner more efficient fuel. All the elks in the world getting up on their high horse isn't going to change that one iota.

still looking for any source / link / reference regarding those statements about there not being a single ice cube on either pole as recently as 3000 years ago. Having looked into it a bit further, I'm gonna say that I believe that the south pole was happily resting under a few thousand feet of ice at that time, but I'm open to PROOF to the contrary...

blow my nuts.

You are not serious about this, are you?

Saving earth can become as much as an industry as anything else, much worse, it can becme a religion of sorts.

Think about all you hate about the Oil conglomerates, add shame/regret, and cut any other alternatives to what's considered "green"; And you get an idea what this can become

See, you folks start to make sense and then you pull something like this out of your ass.

"Blah blah, I'm making sense, blah blah good argument, OH AND BY THE WAY, FOX NEWS IS HARMLESS AND AWESOME blah blah..."

I'm totally serious! You are faced with two crazy people: One compulsively dismisses anything that forces them to stop counting their money, and the other compulsively nags you to pick up your trash. Come on.

you will be sued if you don't pick up your trash--bingo the two monsters are one

See:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/