The psychology of climate change
This is a good read for both sides of the climate change debate. It starts like this:
If I can be classified it would be as a left-leaning environmentalist, with a history of environmental concerns dating back to my pre-teen years in the 1960s. I was one of the founders of the Alberta Greens political party in 1990 based on support for a federal Green candidate in 1988, and was the party’s president until 2004 and then CFO until a right-wing takeover in late 2008.
[quote]PARIS (AFP) – Man’s best friend could be one of the environment’s worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.[/quote]
I gotta admit, my dog’s emissions are occasionally pretty devastating, but he still sleeps in the house.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Comment: The left is waking up to the fact that global warming is a monopoly men billionaire industrialist scam.
In the early 1970s the UN spearheaded the progressive notion of a new world economic order, one that would try to level the playing field between the First World and the Third. The neoliberal onslaughts gathering strength from the mid-1970s on destroyed that project. Eventually the UN, desperate to reassert some semblance of moral leadership, regrouped behind the supposed crisis of climate change as concocted by the AGW lobby, behind which lurk huge corporate interests such as the nuclear power companies. Radicals from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, putting forward proposals for upping the Third World ’s income from its primary commodities, were displaced by climate shills in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the IPCC. The end consequence, as represented by Copenhagen ’s money-grubbing power plays over “carbon mitigation” funding, has been a hideous travesty of that earlier vision of a global redistribution of resources.
Such is the downward swoop of our neoliberal era. In Oslo Obama went one better than Carter who, you may recall , proclaimed in 1977 that his crusade for energy conservation was “the moral equivalent of war.” Obama trumped this with his claim that war is the moral equivalent of peace. As he was proffering this absurdity, Copenhagen was hosting its global warming jamboree, surely the most outlandish foray into intellectual fantasizing since the fourth-century Christian bishops assembled for the Council of Nicaea in 325AD to debate whether God the father was supreme or had to share equal status in the pecking order of eternity with his Son and with the Holy Ghost.
Shortly before the Copenhagen summit the proponents of anthropogenic – human-caused – global warming (AGW) were embarrassed by a whistleblower who put on the web over a thousand emails either sent from or received at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia headed by Dr Phil Jones, who has since stepped down from his post – whether temporarily or permanently remains to be seen. The CRU was founded in 1971 with funding from sources including Shell and British Petroleum. At that time the supposed menace to the planet and to mankind was global cooling, a source of interest to oil companies for obvious reasons.
Coolers transmuted into warmers in the early 80s and the CRU became one of the climate modeling grant mills supplying the tainted data from which the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC ) has concocted its reports which have been since their inception – particularly the executive summaries — carefully contrived political initiatives disguised as objective science. Soon persuaded of the potential of AGW theories for their bottom line, the energy giants effortlessly recalibrated their stance, and as of 2008 the CRU included among its financial supporters Shell and BP, also the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex Ltd, a company in the nuclear waste business.
After some initial dismay at what has been called, somewhat unoriginally, “Climategate” the reaction amid progressive circles – 99 per cent inhabited by True Believers in anthropogenic global warming – has been to take up defensive positions around the proposition that deceitful manipulation of data, concealment or straightforward destruction of inconvenient evidence, vindictive conspiracies to silence critics, are par for the course in all scientific debate and, although embarrassing, the CRU emails in no way compromise the core pretensions of their cause.
Scientific research is indeed saturated with exactly this sort of chicanery. But the CRU emails graphically undermine the claim of the Warmers – always absurd to those who have studied the debate in any detail – that they commanded the moral high ground. It has been a standard ploy of the Warmers to revile the skeptics as intellectual whores of the energy industry, swaddled in munificent grants and with large personal stakes in discrediting AGW. Actually, the precise opposite is true. Billions in funding and research grants sluice into the big climate modeling enterprises. There’s now a vast archipelago of research departments and “institutes of climate change” across academia, with a huge vested interest in defending the AGW model. It’s where the money is. Skepticism, particularly for a young climatologist or atmospheric physicist, can be a career breaker.
By the same token magazines and newspapers, reeling amidst the deadly challenge of the internet to their circulation and advertising base have seen proselytizing for the menace of man-made global warming, as a circulation enhancer – a vital ingredient in alluring a younger audience. Hence the abandoned advocacy of AGW by Scientific American, the New Scientist, Nature, Science, not to mention the New York Times (whose lead reporter on this topic has been Andrew Revkin, who has a personal literary investment in the AGW thesis, as a glance at his publications on Amazon will attest.)
Many of the landmines in the CRU emails tend to buttress long-standing charges by skeptics that statistical chicanery by Prof Michael Mann and others occluded the highly inconvenient Medieval Warm Period, running from 800 to 1300 AD, with temperatures in excess of the highest we saw in the twentieth century, a historical fact which made nonsense of the thesis that global warming could be attributed to the auto-industrial civilization of the twentieth century. Here’s Keith Briffa, of the CRU, letting his hair down in an email written on September 22, 1999: “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple…I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.”
Now, in the fall of 1999 the IPCC was squaring up to its all-important “Summary for Policy-Makers” – essentially a press release – one that eventually featured the notorious graph flatlining into non-existence the Medieval Warm Period and displaying a terrifying, supposedly unprecedented surge in twentieth century temperatures. Briffa’s reconstruction of temperature changes, one showing a mid- to late-twentieth-century decline, was regarded by Mann, in a September 22, 1999, e-mail to the CRU, as a “problem and a potential distraction/detraction.” So Mann, a lead author on this chapter of the IPCC report, simply deleted the embarrassing post-1960 portion of Briffa’s reconstruction. The CRU’s Jones happily applauded Mann’s deceptions in an e-mail in which he crowed over “Mike’s Nature trick.” Like politicians trying to recover from a racist outburst, AGW apologists say the “trick” was taken out of context. It wasn’t.
Other landmines include particularly telling emails from Kenneth Trenberth, a senior scientist and the head of the climate analysis section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder , Colo. On October 14, 2009, he wrote to the CRU’s Tom: “How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”
In other words, only a few weeks before the Copenhagen summit, here is a scientist in the inner AGW circle disclosing that “we are not close to knowing” whether the supposedly proven AGW model of the earth’s climate actually works, and that therefore “geo-engineering” – global carbon-mitigation, for example — is “hopeless”.
This admission edges close to acknowledgement of a huge core problem – that “greenhouse” theory and the vaunted greenhouse models violate the second law of thermodynamics which says that a cooler body cannot warm a hotter body XX. Greenhouse gasses in the cold upper atmosphere, even when warmed a bit by absorbed infrared, cannot possibly transfer heat to the warmer earth, and in fact radiate their absorbed heat into outer space. Readers interested in the science can read mathematical physicist Gerhard Gerlich’s and Ralf Tscheuchner’s detailed paper published in The International Journal of Modern Physics, updated in January , 2009, “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”.
“For the last eleven years,” as Paul Hudson, climate correspondent of the BBC said on October 9, “we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.” In fact recent data from many monitors including the CRU, available on climate4you.com show that the average temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans near the surface of the earth has decreased significantly for the last 8 years or so. CO2 is a benign gas essential to life, occurring in past eras, long before the advent of manmade emissions, at five times present levels. Changes in atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with those emissions of CO2, the latter being entirely trivial in the global balance of carbon.
As for the nightmare of vanishing ice caps and inundating seas, the average Arctic ice coverage has essentially remained unchanged for the last 20 years, and has actually increased slightly over the last 3 years. The rate of rise of sea level has declined significantly over the last 3 years, and its average rate of rise for the last 20 years is about the same as it has been for the last 15,000 years, that is, since the last glacial cooling ended and the earth, without help from mankind, entered the current interglacial warming period. The sea rise of that still on-going interglacial warm spell, among other things, flooded the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska to form the Bering Straits—without which we might be a province of Russia today. So much for the terrors of sea rise.
The battles in Nicaea in 325 were faith-based, with no relation to science or reason. seventeen centuries later, so were the premises of the Copenhagen summit, that the planet faces catastrophe warming caused by a man-made CO2 build-up and that human intervention – geo-engineering– could avert the coming disaster. Properly speaking, the Copenhagen dogmata are a farce. In terms of distraction from cleaning up the pollutants that are actually killing people, they are a terrible tragedy.
Comment: The left is waking up to the fact that global warming is a monopoly men billionaire industrialist scam.
How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles
By Lawrence Solomon
The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm.
The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.
The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
An interesting take on China at the Climate Talks.
How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room
As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed
Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.
All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as “a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”.
Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.
Here’s what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.
What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world’s most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his “superiors”.
Shifting the blame
To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. “Why can’t we even mention our own targets?” demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil’s representative too pointed out the illogicality of China’s position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord’s lack of ambition.
China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak “as soon as possible”. The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.
So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn’t need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: “The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans.” On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.
Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China’s negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity (“equal rights to the atmosphere”) in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.
With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. “How can you ask my country to go extinct?” demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.
All this raises the question: what is China’s game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, “not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?” The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now “in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years’ time”.
This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.
Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away
December 26, 2009 · 116 comments
guest article by John O’Sullivan
For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.” Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.
In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.
The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:
1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.
2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi.
Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper. The German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.
The paper’s introduction states it neatly:
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
This thorough debunking of the theory of man made warming disproves that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal “forcing” effect on the warmer surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the excess heat, it escapes upward into space.Thus we may conclude that the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean, the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.
Some tipoffs that the article you’re reading might be BS is comments such as:
[quote]Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).[/quote]
A study that completely refutes the basic underlying science of AGW? Really? Who says Gerlich is respected? Bogus theory? There is a lot of fundamental sound science supporting that theory. Gerlich in one paper is going to refute all of it?
[quote]Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.[/quote]
Junk science? Who says? John O’Sullivan – Who the hell is he? Scientific credentials? Turns out he’s an “editor at large” for National Review, a blatantly and openly political journal.
He apparently has no scientific credentials and proudly touts a right wing ideology.
We’ll ignore the clearly ill informed comment on tree ring proxies, as it is irrelevant to the point of the article.
[quote]violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics.[/quote]
Does Gerlich really think that the hundreds and probably thousands of scientists who have contributed in one way or another to the IPCC reports are unaware of or are intentionally ignoring these fundamental laws of physics? Credibility is now gushing out of the article.
[quote]The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.[/quote]
Key words here “latest version.” True, it is the latest version of a paper that has been roundly refuted in the past.
[quote]The results presented here are not new. However the form of presentation is designed to clearly and accurately respond to recent claims (Gerhard and Tscheuschner paper) standard presentation in climatology textbooks detail certain points that seem to have been cause for confusion. First presented are the definitions of basic terms and the relevant equations for the flow of energy. The situation for a planet with no infrared-absorbing atmosphere is then examined, and a constraint on average temperature is proved. Several specific models of planets with no infrared-absorbing atmospehere are then solved, including one presented by Gerlich and Tscheuschner. A simple infrared-absorbing atmospheric layer is added to these models, and it is proved that the temperature constraint is easily violated, as is shown by the observational data for Earth. 1 that a physics-based analysis can “falsify” the atmospheric greenhouse effect. In fact, the2 is accurate in all material respects. The following explores in more1, and it is verified that all satisfy this constraint.[/quote]
Although I am not familiar with the International Journal of Modern Physics, it is apparently a real scientific
[quote]journal that publishes articles about condensed matter, high temperature superconductors, and statistical and applied physics[/quote]
not a climate science journal. That doesn’t make the article wrong, but certainly should raise some red flags.
[quote]The work is full of polemics, which should not be found in a scientific publication. In that regard, large sections appear not to be a scientific contribution, but a political comment with technical background. That should also be a warning sign that it is a work without scientific value trying to imitate a journal article. One is driven to presume that the paper is so long to convey the appearance of scientific competence through overcomplicated discussions of irrelevant problems where actual technical expertise is lacking.[/quote]
True, Rabett Run has a decided bias, but the author does a good job of dismantling the Gerhard and Tscheuschner article from a knowledgeable scientific perspective. Among his points is that the supposedly scientific article contains a lot of political polemics, clearly inappropriate by any measure.
Since I have no more time to devote to this bit of denial, I’ll simply quote the conclusion of the Rabett article:
In summary, enormous time is taken to contradict what no one believes. G&T never attack the greenhouse effect which they don’t understand and don’t want to understand
What appears to be a scientific contribution hides a political polemic. Such things should not be published in any journal that wants to be recognized as serious. Something like this should not be published by anyone who wants to be accepted as a scientist. But unfortunately it has happened.[/quote]
A couple years ago James Hansen of NASA had an article in WORLDWATCH regarding how information was being distorted by deniers. In this article he made a point that stuck with me about models and the difficulty of being on the money when it came to matching them to what is actually happening on our planet from year to year. Each model includes a long list of factors. Each of these fractors is fluid. About the best they can do is create a high, medium and low expectation. Frequently deniers select which ever model suits their position and then tout it with out reference to the other models and the flux that naturally exists in the list of factors.
An example is volcano erruptions. When volcanos errupt they put particulate matter in the atmosphere at high elevations. A single large but still medium size in the realm of potential erruptions can materially modifiy outcomes for several years. The net effect will be global cooling from the particals reflecting the suns rays back into space. Volcanos do not errupt on a regular predictable schedule. Between 1912 and 1963 there were no meaningful erruptions. That is half a century. We have enjoyed a cooling effect from several erruptions in the last 40 years. Since that covers most of our adult life times that becomes the standard which we begin to assume is the way it always is.
When we run into another long dry spell on volcanic erruptions there will be little to cover out tracks on the CO2 we are cranking out. A spell of even 25 years will excellerate the planets warming dramatically. If you watched the TED program posted earlier of fantastic footage of glacial melting and then start multiplying that by a factor of 2, 4, 8 or 16 you can see just how rapidly Greenland and other glacer deposits can change sea levels. Much of China and India are living on glacial melt that is not being renewed.
During the Bush years NASA developed a system to very accurately measure the total mass of Greeenlands ice cap and to be able to accurately show how it was shrinking. Bush’s response – pull the funding since they did not like the scientific facts. Obama is little better since the facts just are not popular with 2/3rd of the voters.
With all the facts now in place I find it so hard to understand how 2/3rds of Americans are non belivers that humans are impacting the climate. I consider the Hannity program on Gore to be pure crap. I do not doubt in any way that the reporting was accurate. I do see through it as shoot the messenger rather than any equally accurate rebuttal of the facts the messenger is bringing. Reaching all the way back to Gore’s run for president for “facts” to support how poorly he has personally performed is a stretch. No recognition that you can’t run for president in a competitive information market place if you can’t keep up with the competition who Hannity admits very briefly were all doing the same thing.
Before one presents global foot print info on another they should first be open and frank about their own. How many times has Hannity been in a private jet? How big is his home, and vacation home? What is is eco foot print? How many “Fair and Balanced” reports does Fox run on the facts regarding what we are doing to our environment? Seems all self serving to their predetermined agenda!
I voted for Bush both times, and his father twice although at 66 the only vote I regret is not voting for Gore. I am conservative in bias, but see both the liberal and conservative press as distorting the truth. Still, I fail to understand how any thinking person could say we are FOR SURE not impacting the environment based simply on the ramp up of CO2, massive species extinction, and rain forest destruction occouring on our watch. Two weeks before Christmas a trip to Salt Lake City, Utah yielded the reality that pollution was so bad that you could not see the State Capitol Building (which is larger than most capitol buildings) from 8 blocks away. The same pollution had thickly spread 140 miles across the Great Salt Lake Desert to White Horse Pass in Nevada. Snow is melting early on the mountains around SLC because of the particles being deposited with and on the snow.
Chris uses the “buckets” system for decision making. The environment is one of those issues that choosing to do nothing can be lethal to most living things on this planet. Scientific evidence shows that major shifts in the environment have occured in a decade or less. Far to short of a time frame for us to respond and for that response to filter through our vast planetary environmental system.
There was a comment about scientists putting pressure on other scientist to go along with global warming. This might be. However, it is a double edge sword. Those who bravely brought their scientific study forward during the last Bush Administration had their funding cut. My family owns a few thousand acres of forest land in the Ozarks of Missouri. A forester with a Master’s degree is used to advise. We use the Missouri State Department of Conservation were possible. It is a fact that the approximately 20 million acres of hardwood forests oinMissouri and Arkansas are experiencing “oak decline”. Translation: oak trees are dieing about 10 years earlier than they use to. The foresters with the State are forbidden to express an opinion that pollution from St Louis, Kansas City, Tulsa, Oklahoma City and Dallas-Ft Worth is the likely cause. Privately they are 90% certain that this is the cause but there is political pressure from the powers to be to stiffle that opinion.
Oak trees in this region grow about 1″ in diameter every 4.5 years on average once they achieve dominance. So when trees die 10 years early the land owner looses about 2.22″ of potential tree diameter. Say 17″ instead of 19″ in average diameter. That is a lot less wood to sell. If you go through little county museums and observe all the everyday items that were made from wood in say 1910 instead of metal and plastic you begin to get the idea of what we must do when the oil and metals run out. There were a lot less people in America then. All the wood we grow has a market now! So I guess you will be grinding your grain on a mano and matate like the Native Americans did. By then we will be down to 14″ stumpage due to politically correct “oak decline”.
One last comment is that the real big changes that are impacting us are not so highly visable to people who live at our latitude. You have to go to the far North to see the real extent of global warming which is occouring due to “some cause”. The warming is much more pronounced at the arctic circle. It is not just glacer melt we have to worry about. There is vast methane stored under the tundra in a frozen state. Warming will release this green house gas in really vast quantities. It is so vast that it is hard to comprehend. Obama is offering no clarity!
Our economic situation is really minor to our environmental situation in my opinion. However, the coming bust will be beneficial to the environment which leads me to say bring it on.