Global Warming seems to be in the main stream media every day now. Despite the threats of melting ice shelves resulting in mass flooding, and temperatures that will destroy the earth environment as we know it, the BBC reports that we have had 10 years of cooling. Despite this, the debate rages. No one can dispute that Global Warming has produced a worldwide market for scientists and apologists that will lose a lot of money if Global Warming is found to not be true; the question is: is Global Warming Real or is it a myth being perpetuated by supporters of money swallowing policies such as the Kyoto Protocol and media giants?
Is Global Warming Real and Is It Caused by Man?
My answer is that we have not had sufficient time to truly gauge whether we are in a warming period. It was not so many years ago that the MSM and Scientists were warning us of an up and coming ice age – now we are spending a LOT of money every year for people who claim we are in fact heating our planet. The biggest concern to me is that so many people now rely on global warming to keep their jobs, that they may be too biased to give us an honest view. I predict that in 10 years, Global Warming will be laughed at as a fad of the 2000s.
Remember: treat everyone with respect, and no ad hominems!
As if we could have such a broad effect on the planet. There simply aren’t enough people, and certainly not enough industrialized nations; there never could be.
srichards – Jackass the movie? I’m a jackass? Randall’s a jackass? Al Gore’s a jackass? The Weather Channel dude’s a jackass? Happy Gilmore’s a jackass? What? Which? Who?
I’m touched that some people want me in on this discussion. But my patience is thin when it comes to this topic—especially with knee-jerk conservatives and their like who wantonly and disingenuously ignore the data because they don’t want to relinquish some cherished bad habits–habits which do harm to the environment–and because they fear “the economy” will be ruined utterly if we stop treating the planet like a rubbish heap.
YES OF COURSE global warming is real, and OF COURSE we are contributing mightily to it. All the data is there, and VERY FEW *reputable* scientists challenge it. In fact, the number of these has declined *steeply* over the last few years.
And bucslim, don’t toss freakin’ TV meteorologists our way when we’re talking SCIENCE. The consensus of geologists, climatologists, biologists, oceanographers and physicists (among others) is that this is REAL and that we’re causing it. The guy who founded the Weather Channel doesn’t stand up in the face of that. Come off it.
Now…I am busy this week. The end of the semester looms. And my free time is otherwise devoted to entertaining my charming and beloved children and preparing the sailboat for its annual Spring launch.
All the right wing cranks can commence to toss all their vitriol out about this… I frankly don’t care. Lies and distortions don’t change the facts.
And Mom–the methane thing–it’s a serious concern, but the likelihood of it happening is entirely unknown as far as I’m aware. I’d worry more about the more immediate concerns attached to global warming–how it affects crop growth, sea levels, and the health of coral reefs and the fish populations around the world.
Randall – Fine, you don’t believe a guy who’s been doing weather forecasts and has completely immersed himself in the debate. John Coleman does stand up in the debate, and has been invited to speak about the subject all over the world. No problem, there are other sources.
“There is no global temperature. The reasons lie in the properties of the equation of state
governing local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the implications cannot be avoided by sub-
stituting statistics for physics. Since temperature is an intensive variable, the total temperature is meaningless in terms of the system being measured, and hence any one simple average has no necessary meaning.
Neither does temperature have a constant proportional relationship with energy or other
extensive thermodynamic properties. Averages of the Earth’s temperature field are thus devoid of a physical context which would indicate how they are to be interpreted, or what meaning can be attached to changes
in their levels, up or down. Statistics cannot stand in as a replacement for the missing physics
because data alone are context-free. Assuming a context only leads to paradoxes such as
simultaneous warming and cooling in the same system based on arbitrary choice in some
free parameter. Considering even a restrictive class of admissible coordinate transformations
yields families of averaging rules that likewise generate opposite trends in the same data,
and by implication indicating contradictory rankings of years in terms of warmth.
The physics provides no guidance as to which interpretation of the data is warranted.
Since arbitrary indexes are being used to measure a physically non-existent quantity, it is
not surprising that different formulae yield different results with no apparent way to select among them.
The purpose of this paper was to explain the fundamental meaninglessness of so-called
global temperature data. The problem can be (and has been) happily ignored in the name of
the empirical study of climate. But nature is not obliged to respect our statistical conventions
and conceptual shortcuts. Debates over the levels and trends in so-called global temperatures
will continue interminably, as will disputes over the significance of these things for the human
experience of climate, until some physical basis is established for the meaningful measurement
of climate variables, if indeed that is even possible. It may happen that one particular average will one day prove to stand out with some special physical significance. However, that is not so today. The burden rests with those
who calculate these statistics to prove their logic and value in terms of the governing dy-
namical equations, let alone the wider, less technical, contexts in which they are commonly
encountered.”
Taken from “Does Global Temperature Exist.” Es*****, McKitrick and Andreesen – 2006 Journal of Thermodynamics
And you were alive back in the 70′s when *reputable* scientists were predicting another ice age.
-weather forecasts for 50 years that is.
Global warming has nothing to do with humans. The earth goes through different processes naturally and there’s nothing we can do about it.
Anyone who thinks humans are capable of destroying this planet (with the except of with a nuclear bomb or something) is just plain ignorant. Sure, we’re breaking down *our* natural resources and making the air more dangerous for *us* to breathe, but who really thinks the planet itself won’t be here long after humans have died out?
Listen everyone: Forget whether it’s hot outside or cold, snowing or sunny. Global warming is based on the average temp worldwide on an annual basis, and you may be shocked at how steady this measure is from year to year and how the slightest change can have profound effects.
1 degree–just 1 degree change in this number is enough to change habitats and weather systems worldwide. A few more is enough to melt vast ice caps.
Alot of people didn’t realize that “Manbearpig” in the “Manbearpig” episode of South Park was supposed to be global warming. “You guuuuys! He’s totally real! I’m serial, so so serial, why won’t anyone listen to me!!”
Bucslim – based on the quote you pasted, there is no practical way to determine the temperature of a large body at all…in effect you couldn’t even compare the temperature of the Sun to that of the Earth.
chersey – No one is arguing that humanity is destroying the actual planet – the problem is what you yourself mention, whether we are making it unable to sustain us.
And as for global warming not having to do with us – again, no one is arguing that the planet doesn’t have temperature cycles – the problem is that it looks like the rise that we are currently experiencing is accelerating faster than the previous cycles.
If you wish to argue against human caused global warming, this is where you should do it, folks. Don’t argue that it isn’t happening or that human’s can’t possible affect the planet – those are old and easily refuted arguments that just make you look stooooooopid.
Pay attention to details, not soundbites, people.
bucslim:
NO. I do not take the word of some guy just because he’s been “doing weather forecasts,” nor do I take it just because he’s “immersed himself in the debate.” Neither of these makes him a qualified scientist–nor is either of them a reason to take his *word* over that of qualified scientists. Why don’t YOU take the words of scientists about this—the thousands who agree it is a REAL phenomenon and that WE are contributing to it? Why do you *prefer* to take the word of a *tiny* minority instead?
Why? Because you don’t want to hear the truth. You’re clinging, again, to your outmoded and discredited politics from 20+ years ago. Again–ostrich with his head in the sand.
What about all the science that agrees this is real? The scientists who support it? They’re all wrong, I suppose. And only touting global warming because they’re “liberals,” right? Who are out to destroy our way of life?
PLEASE. Enough of the bull*****.
BASIC RULE OF LIFE: Actual peer-reviewed scientific data always trumps anecdotal or “gut feeling” or even “some guy said” evidence. There simply is no comparison. Deal with it.
Keep liberal and conservatives out of this. You guys acted like there aren’t Liberals and Moderates that are skeptics of Global Warming. I’m one.
Randall — “consensus of geologists, climatologists, biologists, oceanographers and physicists (among others) is that this is REAL and that we’re causing it.”
I can’t speak for the other softer sciences, but physicists (and yes, I am a physicist) think the “science” behind global warming is a bunch of crap. There isn’t a single, strong argument for significant man-made global warming out there of which I am aware. Indeed, applying statistical mechanics to the earth-sun system indicates that somewhere between 60%-100% of the recent warming is due to the sun. And except for a few rare exceptions, geologists, climatologists, biologists, or oceanographers don’t understand or won’t touch statistics or stat mech given the less rigorous nature of their work. So no, I don’t care what all those other scientists say; the facts will speak for themselves, and right now the facts behind global warming aren’t there. I’m willing to be convinced, but you’ll have to make a solid case.
That isn’t to say that we’re not causing warming, we certainly are. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere guarantees we’re warming the earth. The big question which no person on earth knows the answer to is the magnitude of the temperature increase the CO2 will cause. If it’s 1/1000th of a degree/CO2 double, there’s no need to worry. If it’s 1*C/CO2 doubling, then there’s some worry and we need to make some changes, but it’s not the end of the world, either.
Randall, I just posted the WORD of THREE scientists, you ass. You didn’t want to believe the word of a guy who certainly knows more about the subject than you do, so I found some scientists to back it up. You’re the one braying it up with the sheep believing every damn word the media puts out. What’s worse is you’re completely deaf to anyone who has a different opinion than yours – on every subject I might add. And I wasn’t the one to bring up liberal or conservative. What the ***** does that matter when there is debatable scientific data out there?
I liked you better when you made sense.
bucslim: Wow…THREE scientists! I’m sure I could track down 3 historians who deny the holcaust took place. This however does not make it true.
bucslim:
Don’t call me an ass… not when YOU’RE the one denying global warming… IN THE FACE OF AN OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS WHO SAY IT’S REAL.
Matt made the perfect point about this. You cough up three global warming-deniers… we could cough up three holocaust deniers just as easily (excellently played and put, Matt). Would that convince you of anything?
I remind you that I ALWAYS MAKE SENSE, bucslim… so far I’ve seen one occasion after another where you FAIL to, however.
And no, I repeat… I WILL NOT take the word of some TV weatherman over the word of accredited and qualified and world-known scientists, who have published finding after finding supporting the theory that humankind is contributing to global warming.
What the hell is your problem with this? Clearly it’s politically motivated… you don’t want the “liberals” telling you that you can’t drive your gas-guzzling car or SUV anymore, or telling you that you can’t have your big house with its enormous carbon footprint… or whatever the hell your problem is. Again—something you’ve evinced on this site TIME AND TIME AGAIN—you evidently don’t give a damn about the rest of humanity or the earth itself—like all knee-jerk conservatives, you don’t want to take responsibility for these things, you just want to live your goddamned selfish life. I’ve heard you talk like this again and again here, so don’t deny it. You can say you were joking–but humor gives people away, man.
It’s a very simple thing, bucslim. There is a great deal of carbon in the earth. Fortunately for us, up to now the bulk of it has resides IN the earth and the seas, NOT in the atmosphere. Over time it leeches into the atmosphere anyway—but we are ONLY making things worse by relying as we do on fossil fuels without a care for reigning the usage in as much as possible, and replacing them with energy systems that do not dump carbon into the atmosphere, or don’t dump anywhere near as much: Nuclear, solar, wind and hydroelectric.
BUT NO… GOD FORBID we do *anything* to endanger the economy–because all that’s important is that overweight, self-centered, provincial *****s living in gated communities of 10,000 sq. foot houses with SUVs they don’t need can go on with their selfish, bourgeois, suburban lives, chewing up resources like there’s no tomorrow.
I HAVE TOLD YOU BEFORE… my opinions on global warming are NOT driven by the media… my opinions on it, rather, are INFORMED by scientists that I KNOW PERSONALLY and others whose work I’m acquainted with. They are *overwhelmingly* in the majority on this question.
So don’t prattle on to ME about “sheep” and believing “every damn word the media puts out.” That’s a sad and transparent attack and it won’t wash, pal.
I still like you man, but Jesus effin’ Christ—get over this. Even if global warming isn’t the doom and gloom some people make it out to be, it does NO service to us or our children or THEIR children to continue on as we have. Why take the bloody RISK? The evidence is there, the science is there. Even if it ended up only being modestly as bad as some say—what the hell good does it do ANY of us to keep pushing it?
hmm… is it safe to say that
A) Humans are undeniably contributing to Global Warming
B) The Sun, and other natural planetary phenomenon is also a cause of Global Warming
C) A lot of the information revolving around this topic is exaggerated
D) Pie is good
Louis:
With all due respect, I work at a MAJOR Northeastern University… and know several physicists who totally agree with the consensus of their colleagues in the other sciences (and I don’t consider biology or geology to be “soft” sciences, dude. That’s typical physicist snobbery. *Economics* is a soft science. Anthropology is a soft science. MAYBE you can make a case for climatology–though don’t tell *them* that. But geology? Please.)
I never said global warming was the end of the world—I’m no doomsayer. But the fact is–and as you say–we ARE contributing CO2 to the atmosphere. This can only make things worse. Why go on with it when we can do things to reign it in? Why take the risk, gambling with something that we KNOW to be potentially dangerous? YOU don’t know what the risks might prove to be if the temperature spikes to this or that point—it isn’t just OUR well-being we’re talking about here, but that of countless other species on the planet.
But biology is just a “soft” science, right? Life doesn’t fit well into the equations of some physicists.
Leave the god damn liberal and conservative out of this, Jesus H. Christ.
You have it ALL WRONG. Don’t be foolish; climate change is occurring but forget about our contribution cos our contribution is no more that a glass of water tipped into a lake. Humans lately have been averaging 26 gigatonnes of carbon emissions each year. That sounds like a lot but really inst when at first compared to the 70 gigatonnes emitted from the oceans and then the 440 gigatonnes form plants.
Global climate change will do what ever it so desires and there isn’t a thing we can do about it. what we need to do is teach the third world about birth control and teeach them to save themselves.
I’m all for preservation of rain forest, clean fuel, clean air, clean water, electric car, solar energy, but that doesn’t mean I have to just blindly accept Global Warming. Reduction of CO2 and other pollutants are good in my opinion, but only because for the reduction of acid rain, and other health problem, etc.
O yes of course im not saying lets go rape the place for resources. cleaning the air of pollutants will get rid of smog. replanting the rain forest will ensure the survival of many endangered species. Lets stop buying bottles of water aye! do you know how much plastic get dumped every year?
In my previous comment i was trying to take the ‘we are destroying the earth in an irreversible way’ out of the picture. Prepare the world pop for climate change is what we should be focusing on.
Randall,
Ah, yes, obscure the issue with emotions with a little jab at the end. I obviously can’t evaluate the opinions of other fields, I’m just to narrow minded since I demand evidence. How’s that working out?
I’m working at an Ivy, myself. And yes, sure, biology/geology is certainly harder than econ., but biology/geology is much, much softer than physics. There can be little doubt about that; and this is an important point when it comes to evaluating climate models or statistcally couple complex systems. I certainly trust bio/geo/climatologist people outside this range, but I’ve learned that, in general, they are very poor at properly evaluating models/stats. In general, their experiments have had too little data or too little accuracy to demand they they devolop these skills. That is certainly quite relevant to any discussion about the merits of their arguements. That isn’t to say that what they do isn’t all well and good; I know I’d be a crappy biologist, but one does need to recognize the limitations of their knowledge.
Oh, sure, reigning in CO2 is just fine, but it’s all about how high of a cost you’re willing to pay to reign in the CO2 emissions. (Just making up some numbers), maybe you can cut the first 10% of emissions at $1/ton, and it’s worth doing that given an assessment of the risk. Maybe the next 10% costs $5/ton, and the next 10% $15/ton. At some point, given the risks involved, it doesn’t make sense to reduce CO2. At this point, however, the risks are so small that other issues (smog, for instance) are a more compelling argument to reduce fossil fuel usage than manmade global warming.
Or we could cut most in one feel swoop by developing new cheap and green energy sources. I think it’s a better investment
Bucslim;
I don’t need Randall to think for me, or form my opinions. See where my comments are? I also commented on global warming over on the Scientific frauds and hoaxes list during a conversation with Slick.
I do appreciate someone with an academic background who can either confirm my opinion with proper sources or dash it to little pieces. I have been too busy living my blue collar life to take the time to make notes. Unless demanded I never cite sources or look it up on Wikipedia. I know stuff because I am interested, not because I have to write a paper on it.
Funny thing eh? My husband is an auto worker suffering an unfair tax burden, I come from a military family, NCO (not an officer for those of you not in the know), and my world view is closer to Randall’s than to yours.
Global warming is not a liberal cause to undermine the American Way, it is a global cause to better the earth. The figure I’ve seen tossed about is 25%. A twenty-five percent increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the industrial era. That is a significant number. The oceans and our remaining forested/green areas can only lock up so much carbon. It was in balance for a billion years or so. I personally don’t want to find out how much is too much. By then it is too late. It is up to the industrialized west to pave the way. Like it or not, we can afford it. Tax incentives, tax penalties,proper enforcement of current environmental laws, more money for research, that sort of thing. Sure it may affect my standard of living; most worthwhile things require some sacrifice. But I really don’t want to give up my ’88 5.0 litre Mustang.
Randall – and overwhelming number of reputable scientists said back in the 70′s that we are headed for another ice age. You still haven’t addressed that. There’s plenty of published papers about that.
My problem with all of this is the very people who are demanding change in the face of our alleged doom are usually the biggest hypocrites. It is inescapable, unless you are living in a shack in Sheep *****, Idaho riding a horse to work, growing your own food, making your own furniture and heating your own house with a wood fire and not eating off your own pottery, you are contributing to global warming (allegedly) Just about everything you use comes from fossil fuel – your clothes, your car, the keyboard you use to flame me, the food you eat is delivered by big-ass trucks that burn diesel with rubber tires on asphalt roads. On top of that the number one product of your intake of oxygen is good ole’ CO2. And then you turn around and tell me that my lifestyle is is causing global warming? That’s what *****es me off the most Randall, when douchebags like Al Gore try to somehow shame the rest of us into thinking that we’re the problem, while he burns more jet fuel than scores of Americans as he puddle jumps around the globe with his silly message of certain doom. I don’t buy it, it’s another scam to set policy.
P.S. Randall, I don’t drive an SUV, I drive a Toyota Dorkmobile that gets 30mpg in town. And drop this crap about me being a selfish knee-jerk conservative. Dude, you don’t even know me. You don’t know anything about the charitable things I’ve done.
And thanks Matt for pointing out that I presented just three scientists. No one else here has presented anything like that, they’ve just spewed out the same tired crap that they heard on CNN. Never mind the fact that there is data that is debatable. And I presented it. I backed up my claim with some fact. But I’m sure you didn’t even read what they said, you just pointed to some stupid ***** about the holocaust. That makes your point? Why not contribute something about what they actually said?
Mom – I don’t mind the difference of opinion. Everyone’s entitled to it. I appreciate your viewpoint. I’m just not swallowing this one. I’ve heard plenty of stuff from reputable people who say the data is debatable.
bucslim: You might wanna check out this link…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/does-a-global-temperature-exist/
Got any more “facts” you’d like to share with us?
Wow, does EVERYTHING have to be a liberal vs conservative debate??? FOR THE LOVE!!! I know plenty of conservatives who are very earth conscience and plenty of liberals who drive big gas guzzling SUVs.
No one is going to be swayed by name calling and stereotyping.
I think it is wholly understandable that there are many who feel skeptical about global warming. Neither the scientific community nor the politicians have covered themselves in glory over all of this.
The scientists :
The singlemost piece of information that shapes the public’s perception of “global warming” is arguably the “hockey-stick” (or “j-curve”) graph used by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth. This graph has been central to the whole global warming debate, and was central to the original report published by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) which gave the global warming “movement” its major impetus.
This report – the j-curve in particular – has since been largely undermined, not least by a study commissioned by the US Senate, which deemed the j-curve invalid, having studied its assumptions. For one thing, the IPCC model produced a j-curve even when fed random white noise data. There were also relevant segments of data not input into the model which would apparently have presented a much different picture.
There is other bad science in this report; the IPCC used computer models to determine heat-energy factors with respect to global warming when they could have simply calculated these by using a law of physics (Stefan-Boltzman Law); and guess what? Their own calculation of this factor exaggerated the warming effect of greenhouse gases by 600% as compared to the result that the Boltzman law would have easily provided had they chosen to use it.
It also seems that when it comes to the “warming” bit, there is no reliable and consistent “measure” being applied. eg. what, exactly, is the “global mean temperature” (or similar description that is applied)? How is it measured ? etc. Our scientists are even arguing over this fairly fundamental factor.
On a more general note, I am sure that the public recalls being unduly scared or misled to varying degrees by “experts” over issues such as DDT being cancerous, the Y2K bug’s ability to rip the face off of your network, Atkins is bad, Atkins is good, recommended daily salt allowance, drink a gazillion liters of water a day; the list goes on.
The politicians :
In the UK it seems that anything remotely concerned with CO2 or “climate change” attracts a tax or a social stigma. We have a Congestion Charge in London designed to – as it says on the tin – reduce traffic congestion in London. And it seemed to work for a time. Now the same scheme is radically increasing its daily tariff and extending its zonal reach and will be charging on vehicle carbon emission levels to up to $50 per day – to drive though my own city!!??
But how exactly are these funds (and previous money raised in the name of climate change) being used to fight global warming ? or pollution ? Nobody seems to know.
Britain’s climate-change taxes hit all forms of electricity generation, even if they don’t emit CO2 !! Which is all the more bizarre given that the UK produces less than 2% of global CO2 emissions, amounting to a global climatic effect that is measured in thousandths of a degree.
Also…the European Union rules allow for more emissions to be traded than are being emitted !!??
Insanity!
My own take on all of this (aside from my cynicism towards the politicians) is possibly akin to that of the physicist Freeman Dyson : I have no problem in accepting that global climate is changing, but I have a healthy skepticism towards the models used to extrapolate the extent of the outcome.
From personal experience in designing complex financial risk models I am well aware of the sensitivities of such models or algorithms to changes in underlying assumptions.
In my own industry (banking/finance), for example, I also recall the inglorious demise of the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund in the late 1990′s. LTCM not only had 2 Nobel Prize winners amongst its directors, one of them was a leading developer of the financial model that wholly re-write the book on risk management (Myron Scholes). And guess what – for all his acknowledged expertise, the adage was proven that just because you can measure the risk, it doesn’t mean that you understand it or predict its outcome.
On the whole I am pleased scientists such as Louis are looking for reliable proof or data – I would expect nothing less. And whilst basic common sense tells us that it has to be beneficial, in any case, to reduce carbon emissions and pollution, nothing material is going to be achieved unless developing nations buy into the program. China, for example, is building 2 new *coal fired* power stations every week on average! And who are we to deny their people basic essentials of life such as reliable electricity supplies ? Unless they become part of the solution, everything else is of marginal influence at best.
Matt
Information on that realclimate website is not necessarily without its biases. I mention the reliability of the famous “hockey stick” chart popularised by Al Gore in my post above.
The guys who came up with that chart and apparently continue to try and justify it are behind realclimate.com
I’m not saying they are junk scientists or that their information is to be disregarded…only that one should (as you will know) be wary of the “motivation” behind any site propounding science.
“I work at a MAJOR Northeastern University” (Randall)
“I’m working at an Ivy, myself” (Louis)
Gotta love a *****ing contest
Randall – Louis has confessed to being a physicist; what is your field? I’m guessing it’s not in a *soft* science
Actually, your talk of “soft” versus “hard” science reminds me of my fellow NZ’er Ernest Rutherford who famously quipped : “In science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting.”
Where it gets even more ironic is that Rutherford had a distain for Chemists. But he didn’t let this stand in the way when he accepted his Nobel Prize in 1908 for….Chemistry !
Kiwiboi; What no earmarking of carbon tax revenue for research? Taxing clean energy producers? Sounds much more like a grab for revenue than a sound environmental policy. No wonder Jeremy Clarkson calls them enviro”mental”ists in Britain. I actually wouldn’t mind paying extra to drive my fast car, if the funds were used to find a clean way to provide all that horsepower.
You are correct about requiring global participation, but we must start somewhere. The fact that China and other countries are not participating, does not mean we should use it as an excuse to continue our crappy practices. Personally I would love to see a shake up of the status quo. Big oil is big business, and they intrude upon my life all the time. I swear to god American Public policy is a direct result of this. You’re an economist, don’t you agree? Social and environmental concerns always take a back seat to profit and maintaining the power structure.
And no, I didn’t get on the Y2K bandwagon, and I know over-use of DDT caused a concentration down the food chain. I’m not so sure about the cancer causing, I think there is anecdotal evidence (maybe because of poor safety regulations at the time, ie; no respirators.) that those applying it have higher incidences of cancer. But the general public? I haven’t seen any evidence of that.
Why is it people no longer believe in moderation? It appears to be all but extinct in western society. I hear (often academics) people sneer at common-sense, but applied to day to day living, it would do more for the environment than all the Al Gore movies you could watch. Don’t buy what you don’t need, recycle what you can, repair rather than replace. Walk to the corner store, avail yourself of public transportation, do your best to get off the consumer band wagon. Who the hell needs a new car every two years? And don’t tell me about emissions being lower in a new car. The energy cost to produce the new car more than eats up the emission savings.
Moderation in all things.
“You’re an economist”
Mom – as I have said a couple of times in other postings…I am NOT an economist (God forbid!) And I hope I don’t sound like one !!
The point about DDT was a little different than how you are interpreting it. DDT was banned on the basis of flawed science; it is relatively harmless to humans.
“The fact that China and other countries are not participating, does not mean we should use it as an excuse to continue our crappy practices.”
But without their buy-in our efforts will likely have minimal impact on a global scale. Which makes it all seem like a pointless exercise to me…
Global warming is a lie. Its big governments newest ploy to diminish your rights and seperate you from your money. Carbon credits? paid to whom and who made them the arbitor?
Al Gore and his little clan of inbreds ought to be imprisoned for this whole fiasco. Im still recovering from Global cooling, the ozone hole, acid rain, ALAR, killer bees, etc etc.
Oh my gosh. I just had a conversation with someone who I thought was very smart on Sunday. Sadly, that conversation proved me wrong. She told me she thinks that the environment is FINE. It all came about because I was explaining what self sufficient living is and why I am interested in doing it. My main reason is it is SOOOO much cheaper than anything else. But, she latched on to the environment part and just kept telling me it’s all democrats saying that and they are just making it up. I honestly wanted to smack her. Unfortunately we were in church and… it just didn’t seem right. I can’t stand close minded people!
“I honestly wanted to smack her. Unfortunately we were in church and… it just didn’t seem right.”
ROFLMAO
I’m a conservative, and I think global warming is real. Global cooling is also real. To anyone who says global warming isn’t real, tell me how, exactly, earth got out of the Ice Age? Where’d the woolly mammoths go? And it’s clear that humans have contributed to global warming, seeing as everything that is based in carbon gives off a “carbon footprint.” But the extent of human contribution? I’m not too sure on that front. I do know that saving energy = less money paid out = better for you and me!
Biofuels or global hunger:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/14/ccview114.xml
The only cause of ‘Global Warming’ is the sun. Face it boys and girls, we live on a planet that orbits a variable star. To further define the source of the hysteria, follow the money. Who gets rich selling ‘polution credits’?
Jim
kiwiboi; I thought (geez another misconception bites the dust) DDT was banned because of its tendency to concentrate down the food chain. I thought I learned since then that it was the indiscriminate use of it that caused the problem. Not using it judiciously. What exactly was the junk science? By the way isn’t the stuff they use now for mosquitoes bad too? We have a creek in our back yard, we border on a military base, they turn the water disgusting yellow every year to combat the critters.
bucslim: Honestly, we could use a global famine. Thin the herds a bit. Natural selection at its finest.
Mom – I was referring to the fact that DDT was banned on grounds of danger to humans. In fact it is not especially harmful to us; you can – within reason, of course – eat it! And the consequences of this have been extraordinary in terms of avoidable human deaths.
Let me paste my comment from the 10 Books that Changed America list (talking about Silent Spring) :
…notwithstanding that Carson (nor anybody else) was ever able to present any substantive negative link between DDT and human mortality (arguably, animal mortality too, if you want to really press the point), the fact remains that her book is certainly a contender for this list.
I read an interesting article some time ago (written, if I remember correctly by one of Carson’s colleagues) that reasoned that her motivation was animal/wildlife welfare – she worked for the US Animal/Fisheries dept – but she realised that leveraging human self-interest would achieve more if she were able to make a case that DDT was harmful to humans. That is to say..people would be much more likely to react if the threat was against themselves than against animals etc.
One can only hope that Carson was, at least, well-intentioned…
“I read an interesting article some time ago (written, if I remember correctly by one of Carson’s colleagues) that reasoned that her motivation was animal/wildlife welfare – she worked for the US Animal/Fisheries dept – but she realised that leveraging human self-interest would achieve more if she were able to make a case that DDT was harmful to humans. That is to say..people would be much more likely to react if the threat was against themselves than against animals etc.”
kiwiboi: I agree with you about Silent Spring. That comment in particular was the topic of an intense discussion at a conference in the philosophy of science dept. at my school that I recently attended.
Slick – yes. A sad story indeed.
kiwiboi: In addition, something I’m sure you probably already mentioned, but the banning of DDT ended up being more of a curse than a blessing. Deaths related to malaria – a disease carried by the mosquitos DDT was meant to wipe out – increased dramatically worldwide after it was banned. We’re talking in the millions here. Given how (relatively) harmless DDT actually turned out to be, I’d say it did far more damage than good.
Very true Slick. I, too, have seen estimates of avoidable deaths amounting to millions due to the DDT ban. Even if the “true” figure is a fraction of this, it is a tragedy.
Will you two just get a room and leave us out of the details? Thanks.
MplsBrad: I find that funny since you were the one who propositioned me in the first place. What’s wrong? Can’t handle the rejection?
I don’t think either of those options is correct.
Global Warming is happening, duh, it’s natural,
but whether we are to blame for speeding it up and all,
well, I don’t think we know nearly enough about the environment, the earth, or nature to do anything about it!
We should shut up about global warming, but try to be more Co2/environmentally friendly, because that’s just a nice thing to do!
Come on guys. Let’s think. Can we really have an effect on the weather? If the Earth really is getting warmer, which i have a hard time believing, there isn’t a thing we can do about it. So yes, don’t litter. Be respectful to this Earth that God has given us to take care of. And you people that are so worried about over population, don’t question God’s plan. He’s in control, and he knows what’s best. Have a little trust people
Oh, great. Now you are bringing an Imaginary Friend In The Sky into the debate. Haven’t we outgrown religion as a species? Why are we always decades behind the Europeans in things (universal healthcare, atheism)? OF COURSE WE CAN AFFECT THE WEATHER!!! Do you remember the fluorocarbon problem back in the 70′s? We determined that man was destroying the ozone, we banned the cause, and all is good. We need a manmade solution to an obviously manmade problem. And we need it SOON.
MplsBrad: actually – you raise a good point – Ozone Depletion was the 70s and 80s version of Global Warming. It is now the general scientific consensus that it is naturally occurring – primarily due to solar activity. It is a very good example of science telling us one thing (and causing a lot of hysteria) and later realizing it was not true. Ozone depletion mythology is still around, but the harbingers of doom that forced us to change our lifestyles for it are no longer talking about it – just as those who deicize global warming will do with the current hysteria passes – they will just find something else to fear and to try to force the rest of us to fear. I would not be surprised if many of the older global warming propagandists were also ozone-depletion propagandists.
I think it’s Sean Connery’s character from that *****ty Avengers movie who’s causing all the problems. Or maybe it’s Arnold Schwartzenegger’s character from that *****ty Batman movie.
Oh, wait, they were making it freeze. Hows come *****ty villains from *****ty movies who can control the weather is always making it colder?
Don’t forget Montgomery Burns putting up the big umbrella to block the sun from warming Springfield!
No, global warming is not real.
When EPA acted against DDT there were no fewer than four court decisions that determined DDT was an inherent danger — two of them from the D.C. Circuit with EPA as a defendant. In those two cases, the judges ordered EPA to speed up its action, since there was no question scientifically about the dangers of DDT. EPA’s task was to weigh the dangers against the benefits.
Against the benefits of DDT, EPA weighed the considerably harms that resulted when DDT killed all the predators of disease vectors. Mosquitoes will spring right back after a DDT spraying, but populations of their predators are much slower to recover. Consequently, dosing with DDT frequently saw a temporary reduction in mosquitoes (and malaria, for example), but a rebound of the mosquitoes and the diseases they carried that propelled the disease rates much higher than they would have gone otherwise.
DDT was determined to be a deadly toxin to all but the larger mammals, human sized and above; it is a mammal carcinogen, and a “probable” human carcinogen (don’t take my word for it — check the CDC listing, or the American Cancer Society, or World Health Organization).
But it was not banned because of its effects on humans. It was banned because of its effects on wildlife.
Check out the DDT articles on Bug Girl’s Blog, or on Deltoid (at the Seed Magazine science blogs site), or at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, or at Some Are Boojums.
DDT was banned because it’s a deadly toxin in the environment. While not acutely toxic to humans, it is acutely toxic to almost everything else. In humans it just causes nerve disorders, shrunken male ***** organs, swollen mammaries in males, premature puberty in girls, and cancers in the offspring of exposed women. Plus it nearly killed off bald eagles, osprey, peregrine falcons, and brown pelicans (all predators — DDT is roughest on bird predators).
Ironically, in the past decade, several nations have adopted Rachel Carson’s plan of integrated pest management, cutting malaria rates in half. Had we adopted her program when she proposed it in 1962, millions of lives could have been saved.
No study has ever found error or incorrect conclusions in Carson’s book, nor in any of the studies she cited (there are 53 pages of footnotes in the back). However, as Discover magazine noted last November, more than 1,000 studies have been done that confirm Carson’s conclusions about the harms of DDT, especially to birds.
Carson was correctly named one of the 100 most influential scientists of the 20th century by Time magazine, and her book remains a classic in careful research and environmental reporting — plus it is beautifully written.
Do I detect that few others have actually read it?
Ed Darrell – I have, indeed, read the book and stand by every word I wrote.
Silent Spring is junk science. As far as being “a classic in careful research and environmental reporting” that is pure nonsense.
Whilst I hesitate to use Fox as a reference, they have some salient points all in one place on their site :
“Carson predicted a cancer epidemic that could hit “practically 100 percent” of the human population. This prediction never materialized, no doubt because it was based on a 1961 epidemic of liver cancer in middle-aged rainbow trout – an outbreak later attributed to aflatoxin, a toxic by-product of certain fungi.”
“After seven months and 9,000 pages of testimony, the (EPA) judge concluded “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man… DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man… The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.”
Despite the exculpatory ruling, then-EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT anyway. Ruckelshaus never attended the hearings, didn’t read the transcript and refused to release the materials used to make his decision. He even rebuffed a U.S. Department of Agriculture effort to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming they were just “internal memos.”
This wasn’t surprising given Ruckleshaus’ bias.”
“Rachel Carson has been canonized by environmental activists. Ruckleshaus has had a successful business career and advised presidential candidate George W. Bush. The EDF and National Audubon Society raise millions of dollars annually.
They built their “success” on junk science and the bodies of third world children.”
jfrater: You are completely full of it and obviously incapable of telling fact from fiction.
“Ozone Depletion was the 70s and 80s version of Global Warming. It is now the general scientific consensus that it is naturally occurring – primarily due to solar activity.”
This statement is just plain wrong. Ozone depletion is caused by the CFC’s that we’d been pumping into the atmosphere, hence why their use has been phased out. Global warming is caused by the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused by human activity since the start of the industrial revolution. Both these ideas have scientific consenus. The only debate amongst scientists regarding global warming is the effects it will have in the future, ie. how much hotter will it get, how high will sea levels rise, etc.
You and bucslim obviously get your information from the same sources. No doubt from one of these free market think tanks such as the George C. Marshall Institute. These institutes specialise in casting doubt over the science of such things as global warming, the harmful effects of second-hand smoking and ozone depletion. Why do they do this? To put doubt into the minds of the public. If the public aren’t convinced of the science behind these ideas the less supportive they’ll be of government regulations, such as the Kyoto protocol. And why don’t they like regulation? Because it goes against the free market idealogy that they prescibe to.
Oh and guess where the George C. Marshall Institute gets some of its funding from? ExxonMobil. Funny that.
So thanks to a few peoples blind faith in the invisble hand of the market, we the public are being feed a load of bull*****. I for one don’t like being bul*****ted.
Dig deeper people. The truth is out there.