| Author |
Message |
    
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1434
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 12:03 am: | 
|
The "war on terrorism" has already cost up to 100,000 lives in Iraq, so it's entirely plausible that George W.M.D. Bush could kill more people that global warming, at least in the short term.
In the long term, though, he's still the loser. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2098
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
Left-wing enviro-Nazis? You mean, like the British government? Or one of the world's largest insurance companies?
It has been pubicly declared by Tony Blair and his Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir David King, as the BBC reports: "The World Health Organisation's Europe Global Change and Health Programme has estimated that more than 25,000 people died in last year's European heat wave. Most mainstream scientists believe that human activity - notably emissions of greenhouse gases - has contributed to a detectable increase in the average surface temperature of the planet. British Prime Minister Tony Blair says addressing climate change is his key priority during the UK's chairing of the G8." article
Reuters reports: "The world's second-largest reinsurer, Swiss Re, warned on Wednesday that the costs of natural disasters, aggravated by global warming, threatened to spiral out of control, forcing the human race into a catastrophe of its own making. In a report revealing how climate change is rising on the corporate agenda, Swiss Re said the economic costs of such disasters threatened to double to $150 billion (82 billion pounds) a year in 10 years, hitting insurers with $30-40 billion in claims, or the equivalent of one World Trade Center attack annually. . . . The report comes as a growing number of policy experts warn that the environment is emerging as the security threat of the 21st century, eclipsing terrorism." article
Here's another recent Reuters article: "Studies looking at the oceans and melting Arctic ice leave no room for doubt that it is getting warmer, people are to blame, and the weather is going to suffer, climate experts have said."
China's issue with the pollutants that cause acid rain does not affect the U.S., so I don't think we are in a position to demand that they do anything. In any case, as I mentioned, I believe they are on the verge of implementing strict controls on much of the pollution caused by the combustion of coal. |
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 1135
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
|
Right. So who cares about China?
I don't know what you do for a living but I think face just might trade environmental pollutants and just might know something about it. There are many articles and sites that portray your point of view but there are just as many that dispute it and claim we are nothing but a blip in time. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2099
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 11:01 am: |
|
No. There are not as many that dispute it. That is simply false. You are free to accept the assertions of those that do think global warming is not happening, or that it is not human-caused. I follow the scientific consensus on this, as do the governments of the majority of nations.
The "blip in time" argument... what exactly is the point? Sure, humanity has only existed for a blip in time compared to the planet, but we are here now, and we have already -- in just a blip -- caused problems that are affecting us now.
Not sure what you were trying to say with the "who cares about China" comment. They've got some major problems, and they appear to be starting to address them. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2100
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
Here's another article where a government official -- this time from Canada -- is explaining that global warming poses a larger long-term threat than terrorism. |
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 1136
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
How can you say there aren't articles that dispute global warming to the degree you claim? Need I go on the internet and search for you? Don't you think you are so passionate about this issue you might have lost objectivity? China has issues with acid rain but it doesn't affect us in any way? Then screw the Chinese right?
We are here now, we won't be here forever, mother nature will once again claim the planet. We should not pollute and we should try to implement free market policies that work and use capitalism as the vehicle. I just get tired of the chicken little rhetoric. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2101
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
Why, look! Here's another one! This from the Asian Journal.
excerpts:
The danger from global warming is the biggest ever threat the earth is facing, scientific, government and industry experts said in sessions at the World Economic Forum the past three days. They said the longer the delay in meaningful action on climate change, the more costly would be its economic and human impact.
Sen. John McCain (Rep., Arizona) said Tuesday he considered the danger to be "the greatest threat to our globe that we've ever experienced."
David King, chief scientific adviser of the Office of Science and Technology of the United Kingdom, said Thursday global warming was the biggest threat of this century, even bigger than terrorism.
"The amount of evidence coming in is remarkable," King said. Every week, he said, about two articles in major scientific journals offer information indicating climate change.
He noted that the world was already suffering the effects of global warming, and cited as an example the heat wave that caused the deaths of 31,000 people in the summer of 2003 in Europe.
[Harvard University's] Holdren said, "The state of science has converged substantially on clear evidence that climate is changing in significant ways and that fossil fuels' contribution is quite clearly the dominant factor."
Jonathan Lash, president of World Resources Institute, USA, mentioned a recent report that the arctic ice sheet had lost nearly 40 meters of its thickness in just six months.
He cited one proof of the impact of rising and warming seas: the start of the collapse of cod fisheries of the North Atlantic. The plankton have moved north to escape the increased water acidity and higher sea temperatures caused by great amounts of carbon dioxide entering the oceans. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2102
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
I'm all for capitalism. But capitalism has rules. Those rules are broken when your business poisons people or ruins other peoples resources.
And your effort to put words into my mouth regarding China is just silly. I would love China to address its pollution problem, and it looks like they are going to do that. How many ways can I express that? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2103
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
Ah, some more sources...
Islam Online: Climate Change Overshadows Terrorism as Security Threat
The Japan Times: Global Warming Remains The Deadliest Foe
This is too easy... |
Strawman
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4574
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 11:55 am: |
|
Notehead,
Get back to work. Does your boss know how much time you've been pissing away this morning? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2105
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Interesting article about how the infinitesimal but steady increase in sea levels is already causing major problems in the nation of Tuvalu.
This year, tides tore into Funafuti. Water covered the main road and drenched houses and churches. Salt water bubbled up through porous coral and turned the leaves of pulaka, a taro-like crop, yellow. Fishing was rendered dangerous to impossible. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 733
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Hmm. If Tuvalu goes under, what will happen to all those cool .tv Internet domains? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2106
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Some scary, but very real, info about one less-discussed consequence of global warming: the spread of diseases. Just in, from Grist:
GLOBAL WARMING -- IT'S INFECTIOUS
Environmental change linked to spread of infectious diseases
If the catastrophic flooding, drought, and weather-related calamities associated with global warming don't kill you, exotic infectious diseases might step up to do the job, a new report released by the U.N. suggests. It found that changes to the environment -- such as deforestation, urban growth, mining, and pollution of coastal waters -- may be aiding the spread of infectious diseases, including ailments never before seen in humans. The report also suggests that global warming could be a major aggravating factor because rising temperatures and altered habitats could allow more diseases and their carriers to flourish. Climate change may also increase the number of environmental refugees moving to new areas and taking germs with them. The researchers noted a rise in the occurrence of dengue fever, found in only nine countries in the 1970s, but now present in more than 100. Other ailments scientists have linked to the environment include tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and cholera.
straight to the source: The Independent, Michael McCarthy, 22 Feb 2005
<http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4391>
straight to the source: VOA News, Cathy Majtenyi, 21 Feb 2005
<http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4392>
straight to the source: Planet Ark, Reuters, C. Bryson Hull, 22 Feb 2005
<http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4393> |
Face
Citizen
Username: Face
Post Number: 517
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:40 pm: |
|
Notehead, I realize that you haven't taken the time to read from the link I provided. Here it is again.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
Here are a few excerpts which may if nothing else provoke thought.
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
And another, which should also be included in a different thread:
"In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% coinfidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.
This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.
In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science….there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.
Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.
As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed."
Or this:
"Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?"
And this gem:
"Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?"
And finally:
"We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.
The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?
Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?
When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.
Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.
Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church. "
You might wish it so, but that doesn't make it truth.
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2109
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
|
Face, I actually did read the entire article. Consensus is not an absolute guarantee of the right decision - I don't deny that. (I hardly need to look any further than the presidential election, where a majority of voters chose the wrong guy.) And it can become quite a political tool, that's also true.
But none of the other subjects Crichton mentions has received even a significant fraction of the scrutiny that global warming has, not even smoking. He also makes no mention whatsoever of the majority of cases when the consensus is right. In fact, his whole manipulation of the concept of consensus is ridiculous. Of course great scientific innovations were made by people who broke ranks with their peers and suggested something different. 99.9% of those people turn out to be WRONG. For the few who are actually correct, their theories are borne out by research, become widely recognized and accepted, and ultimately those theories become the consensus view. This is exactly what has happened with climate research. Some scientists were predicting a forthcoming "mini-Ice Age" and that theory was gaining traction when the theory of "greenhouse gases" was proposed instead. The reason the global warming consensus exists now is because of thousands upon thousands of research projects, involving millions of measurements and incredible amounts of effort and peer review.
In other words, Crichton makes some points that are fine, in abstract, but as some kind of disproof of global warming, it's bull.
Anyway, as many of the articles I have posted explain in detail, the consequences of global warming are already ocurring. It is happening now!
First, they said global warming was nonsense. Then, they said that it might be happening, but it had nothing to do with human activities. Then, they said that it might be related to human activities, but more study was warranted. Then, they said that even though it is due to human activities, it is too expensive to do anything about it. Now -- and ya gotta love this, for pure spunk -- they are saying that, even though there is a clear consensus, we shouldn't trust it for the very reason that there is a consensus on the matter. The amount of effort going into this farcical denial is just amazing. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2180
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal, as reported by Grist...
OIL TOGETHER NOW
Bipartisan coalition presses Bush to get behind oil-use reduction
Lambasting U.S. oil addiction: It's not just for America-hating radical homosexual vegetarian Schiavo-killing eco-terrorists anymore! A growing bipartisan coalition is arguing that U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a serious national security threat. Today, a letter signed by 26 former national-security officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations is winging its way to the White House, bearing a plea for President Bush to kick off "a major new initiative to curtail U.S. consumption." "I don't often find myself in agreement with those at the Natural Resources Defense Council, but ... I do think there is common ground," said neocon Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration official. The letter was organized by the bipartisan Energy Future Coalition, which arose in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to advocate for tighter fuel-economy standards and higher subsidies for alternative fuels. Auto-worker unions, automakers, and farming groups -- traditional foes of environmental groups -- are on board, perhaps more comfortable around the manly men of the national-security apparatus.
straight to the source: The Wall Street Journal, John J. Fialka and Jeffrey Ball, 28 Mar 2005 (access ain't free)
<http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4644>
|
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 9:39 pm: |
|
Notehead,
I really appreciate you effort to bring this very important issue to light. Energy consumption is central to almost everything; the economy, national security and the environment.
What I find so ironic is that so many of the "market mentality" types are so willing to accept the current energy inefficient infrastructure. They'll argue against global warming, they'll argue against mandatory increased fuel efficiency standards, they'll divert to 9/11, they'll argue against scientific peer review data and consensus opinions based on such data.
I stopped posting on MOL because decided it was too unproductive to try to convince folks who place the value of the dollar above all else that there is more to life than a "Market mentality"
I've been trying to get folks in Maplewood interested in starting a biodiesel cooperative. If you or anyone you know is interested let me know.
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel.html
http://www.biodiesel.org/
http://www.biodieselwarehouse.com/index.html |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2204
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
It's come to this?!
Diamonds Are Forever
Swiss glacier to be wrapped up, saved for later
A Swiss ski resort worried about global warming's ill effects on its future is taking matters into its own mittened hands. At the ski season's end in May, the Andermatt resort will cover some 32,200 square feet of the Gurschen glacier with an insulating PVC foam in hopes of keeping its black diamonds from melting into bunny slopes. The foam, which costs some $84,000 and can be stored during winter for reuse, was constructed by Swiss technicians to protect the snow layer from heat, ultraviolet rays, and rain. The country's glaciers have lost about a fifth of their surface area in the last 15 years, according to a Zurich University study linking the loss to global warming, and the ice field above Andermatt is retreating by about 16 feet a year, a resort spokesperson says. If the PVC-foam trial is successful, the resort plans to cover more of the glacier, and other resorts may also get in on the doggy-bagging technique.
straight to the source: The Telegraph, Kate Bretherton, 02 Apr 2005
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 887
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Are you sure it wasn't posted on April 1? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 888
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 4:42 pm: |
|
BTW, Andrew, there was a short piece on AAR the other day saying that the Navy, the largest consumer of diesel in the world, is mandating 20% biodiesel use in non-combat vehicles. A small step in the right direction, it seems. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3394
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 9:12 pm: |
|
What are we to do about this, and how does this affect computer models on climate change?
Never mind. Bury your car and save the world.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7348467/ |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2207
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
No way, I love my car.
But, perhaps we should buy more Selsun Blue. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2254
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 10:06 am: |
|
So, our own Energy Department says that reducing emissions that cause climate change would not be very expensive. Who's been telling you this for years already? ME, that's who.
From the Financial Times...
EU seizes on Washington report to press US on climate change
By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent
Published: April 19 2005 03:00
European officials made another attempt to put the US under pressure on climate change yesterday, as a delegation from the European Union met senior officials in Washington to discuss co-operation on environmental issues. The meeting came as a report from the US Energy Department found that action to curb greenhouse gas emissions would have only a very small effect on the US economy.
Stavros Dimas, the European Union's environment commissioner, said: "Both climate change and sustainable development are top priorities. [It is] important that we achieve sustainable development and provide all the people in the world with decent living conditions."
Mr Dimas was joined by Lucien Lux of Luxembourg, which holds the EU presidency, and Lord Whitty of the UK, which will take over the presidency in July. The meeting, with Paula Dobriansky, undersecretary of state for global affairs, and other senior US officials, took place in the middle of the UN's Sustainable Development Commission annual meeting in New York, which ends on Friday.
Previous talks between the EU and the US have led to little more than bland statements agreeing on the importance of developing new technology to combat global warming. While the EU is one of the strongest proponents of the UN-brokered Kyoto protocol on climate change, the US has explicitly rejected the treaty. But this time, the EU had a new weapon: the report from the US Energy Information Administration, which found that reducing emissions would cost much less than opponents of emissions reduction had said.
The EIA analysed a set of recommendations made by the National Commission on Energy Policy late last year. It found that reducing US greenhouse gas emissions by 4 per cent by 2015 and by 7 per cent by 2025, in accordance with the NCEP's recommendations, would cost 0.15 per cent of gross domestic product.
That would be the equivalent of $78 per year to each US househould by 2025. Electricity prices would rise by less than 5 per cent more by 2025 than they are estimated to rise without the pressure of emissions reductions.
These reductions are somewhat less than the cuts the US would be likely to be required to make in the same period under the Kyoto protocol. But the costs of Kyoto would still be considerably less than 0.5 per cent of GDP using these calculations.
Under the NCEP's recommendations the use of coal would increase 16 per cent by 2020, compared with predictions that if the US implemented Kyoto its use of coal would have to drop 70 per cent. Electricity generators would be expected to invest in coal-burning plants that released fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
Paul Bledsoe, director of communications and strategy at the NCEP, said: "This is the difference between political feasibility and political infeasibility. The US is not going to adopt a plan that would reduce coal use by 70 per cent." |
dougw
Citizen
Username: Dougw
Post Number: 36
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 10:11 am: |
|
I saw a promo for an Alan Alda hosted PBS documentary on global warming. It said that global warming may stop the jet stream which will casue cooler temperatures.
So now if it is a warm day - proof of global warming. If it is a cool day - proof of global warming. Very convienent. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2257
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Depends on where you are, and what time of year it is. Believe it or not, it isn't the same temperature everywhere on the planet at once. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2293
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Why, look! Yet another study - this one led by NASA's top climatologist - indicating that global warming is real, and human activities are to blame. Reported in several major papers, including the SF Gate:
Human Nature, Not Variables in Nature, Cited As Culprit |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page