global warming: 21st century religion

[Marlowe]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513

one of the things that i find very off-putting about the whole burgeoning global warming industry/movement is: it has strong religious overtones, with true believers who insist upon doctrinal purity, and punish dissenters.

this article is one of the more flagrant examples of what i'm talking about. a canadian scientist publicly advocates throwing non-believers into jail for heresy. even scarier, this dude is a member of a "civil liberties" organization! he now claims he wasn't completely serious. but, it doesn't take freud to understand the impulses behind his statements.

i wish it were possible to have dissenting views and look at this issue with reason rather than having an orthodoxy that stones-down anyone who's not ideologically-pure.

to me, this is more of a religion than a science. and that's why i'm really skeptical about any sort of "global action" that these people propose.

[markalot]

Global warming may or may not be real, I tend to thing it is real, or is becoming real. That disclaimer aside....

Global warming is the wet dream excuse environmentalists needed to get people to realize that if we don't stop using fossil fuel we're in deep shit. It IS a religion, partially based on science. It's not as bad as they make it out to be.

As usual the more radical elements are extreme hypocrites, as shown in this article. Everyone is free to believe what I believe in, nothing else.

Again and again I've pointed out how lack of skepticism destroys science and here is another example. This guy has thoroughly discredited himself, and goodness knows how bad a shape the science community will be in if it turns out global warming is much less a problem than they predict.

[the-dude]

and goodness knows how bad a shape the science community will be in if it turns out global warming is much less a problem than they predict.
I don't know if I buy this because they could always spin it as the changes enacted actually working, don't you think?

[the-dude]

Someone on here introduced me to my new favorite blog, Bad Astronomer. I tend to trust what he says as a filter of what is good vs irresponsible science.

Here is some of his global warming take:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/



[skip much of the beginning]

But we do have some facts:

* The Earth is getting warmer.

* We are dumping more CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

* A little greenhouse effect is a good thing (otherwise the average temperature of the Earth would be below the freezing point of water). Too much, however, is Venus.

* Some of this global warming is due to human causes. This is fact. The question is, how much?

* There are political and ideological ramifications of global warming, and a lot of people — politicians, in fact — have a lot at stake and are known to twist science to meet their needs.

With all of these facts lined up, it’s clear that the one thing we need to do is be very, very careful when someone comes in and makes a broad, sweeping statement about global warming’s cause, especially when they have ulterior motives for saying what they do. This may sound like an ad hominem, but we have seen, over and over, how science gets abused these past few years by those in power. A jaundiced eye is critical in science, and a little skepticism — or in this case, a lot — is a good thing.

[DaHood]

Al Gore is GOD

[akip]

it's climate change, not global warming.

you guys are boneheads if you think changing the content of the atmosphere is no problema. :p just 'fess up that you don't really care if more people in africa kill each other and starve 'cause of rapidly shifting weather patterns fucking up crops---'cause they're a mess anyway, right? we americans, in our ingenuity, will ride it out, with a few less trailer trash. ;)

but that lunatic scientist is a bonehead too. typical canadian rant.

[akip]

to my mind, the more sensible way of framing it is this---we have a pretty damn good idea that CO2 emissions aren't so good for the atmosphere, pollution-wise as well as LIKELY (highly likely, i might add) climate impact, causing increased, often catastrophic weather weirdness. we also have an oil supply problem that is causing major headaches in the middle east for america AND escalating energy prices. now that china and india have entered the oil market as major consumers, we are not going to see the cheap oil that fueled our economic progress ever again. it's only going to get more expensive.

so start working on other technologies AND start thinking about how to change lifestyle to reduce oil consumption. instead of grousing about that which cannot be changed, concentrate on what can be changed and which should benefit not only the atmosphere, but future energy supply concerns.

[frizgolf]

My biggest worry is not the earth itself, but the survival of its inhabitants.
Our planet, through the virtue of being placed at just such a distance from the sun to support life as we know it, will survive any chemical attacks on its atmosphere. Numerous craters and the meteorite data we've mined, along with volcanic geological data, show that many times the atmosphere has survived and corrected itself.
No, we won't kill the planet. The planet will kill us when it feels the need to balance the scales.

[akip]

My biggest worry is not the earth itself, but the survival of its inhabitants.
Our planet, through the virtue of being placed at just such a distance from the sun to support life as we know it, will survive any chemical attacks on its atmosphere. Numerous craters and the meteorite data we've mined, along with volcanic geological data, show that many times the atmosphere has survived and corrected itself.
No, we won't kill the planet. The planet will kill us when it feels the need to balance the scales.

It's already happening, but it's the most vulnerable populations that are getting hammered. We live in a more temperate climate, so we're not going to be as affected, except on the fringes---but we already are affected to a larger extent by terrorism, which will cause us to spend a lot of blood and treasure on far flung wars, as well as billions on other forms of national defense. it is no accident that the climactically vulnerable places are the most unstable---and we all know very well now that technology has put some pretty ferocious asymmetrical ammunition into the hands of unemployed, angry young men.

It's going to take a long time for population growth overall to be reversed by nature's backlashes, so I guess our fate is sealed. But it's just this very human reaction to shrug off all the signs (people can't lose weight, even though it's bad for their hearts, let alone radically change lifestyle---or even effectively promote birth control in the third world) that makes me want to argue, however pointlessly. it's not that it isn't happening---it's that it IS so obviously happening right under our noses. though yeah, it's highly unlikely anything will be done about it.

i just think it's better to be honest instead of coming up with some religious or ideological rationale.

[akip]

just to add---this is why i respect john mccain, even though i disagree with many of his other positions. he obviously gets the bigger picture---the relationship between climate change and national security. at the same time, he also, no doubt, knows there's a shit load of oil under the iraqi desert, a lot of it potentially in kurdish hands, should they ever get that mess ironed out. seems a little contradictory, but i think he probably fears iran influencing that supply (perhaps the way we wielded so much influence over saudi arabia), so he figures you have to pursue both goals.

[Marlowe]

it is no accident that the climactically vulnerable places are the most unstable
redundant sentence.

that is a huge stretch to posit that terrorism is caused by global warming. i don't even think al gore has gone that far.

bangladesh is much more ecologically unstable than pakistan and saudi arabia. how many terrorists have you heard of who came from bangladesh? total red herring on your part.

you're usually a lot more rational than to say crazy stuff like this.

[ahart2001]

Hey, if global warming/climate change is responsible for the 60-70 degree days in January/February, then I am all for it.:p

Fuck the cold.

[akip]

redundant sentence.

that is a huge stretch to posit that terrorism is caused by global warming. i don't even think al gore has gone that far.

bangladesh is much more ecologically unstable than pakistan and saudi arabia. how many terrorists have you heard of who came from bangladesh? total red herring on your part.

you're usually a lot more rational than to say crazy stuff like this.

i didn't say it was ONLY caused by global warming (that's your term, btw---i'm talking climate change). however, as i said, it IS no accident that the parts of the globe with major food and water supply issues are also almost always the most volatile (there's always the exception for other reasons---plenty of water in ireland and the IRA still had a pretty good run). climate change accelerates and exacerbates that instability due to the fight for power and resources which fuels tribal, ethnic and religious conflicts. many conservatives realize and study that very clear relationship.

just because bangladesh hasn't YET produced terrorists (for a complex of reasons) doesn't mean that we don't have a situation of major concern in eastern africa, nigeria, etc. but check out an '05 article from jane's:

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr050127_1_n.shtml

bangladesh hasn't hit the news, but we're keeping an eye on it.

[ahart2001]

Terrorism is an extreme human reaction to a perceived threat. Whether that threat is real or not, it is still perceived as a threat. CUrrently the middle east perceives a threat from the western world. It sees our form of democracy as a threat to its religiously based governmental structure and economic systems.

How do you think Americans would respond if they perceived a threat of someone trying to take over their copuntry . . . oh wait, the Cold War (damn commie bastards) . . . and the Confederacy (them northerners are trying to destroy our way of life) . . . i can go on.

Terrorism has been a facet of every civilization in every age of human existance. We will never get rid of it. There will always be the "haves" and the "have nots". Someone, somewhere will always feel threatened by someone/something because it is different than what he/she is used to. Basic human instinct.

We are all kidding ourselves if we think we can fix this problem. Its not necesssarily a problem . . . its a reality. On September 11th, 2001, the U.S. officially just joined (or re-joined, if you look at history) the rest of the world in its reality.

[ahart2001]

And for the record, I blame the 80's for global warming. All the aerosol that was pumped into the atmosphere via Aqua-net hairspray ... yikes.

[Marlowe]

just because bangladesh hasn't YET produced terrorists (for a complex of reasons) doesn't mean that we don't have a situation of major concern in eastern africa, nigeria, etc.
just because bangladesh hasn't produced terrorists doesn't mean we don't have a situation of major concern in eastern africa & nigeria? i don't follow you. where did i say no terrorist in bangladesh = no concern in africa? maybe i've been away from the US for too long, but that doesn't make any sense. you know bangladesh is in the asian sub-continent, right?

[Buzzstein]

She didn't say terrorism was caused by global warming. I think she was saying that certain areas of the world that are already unstable (some of which happen to be breeding grounds for terrorism) are going to be most negatively affected by climate change. More global instability won't be good for us. That doesn't sound all that crazy to me. Or am I missing something?

[Duemellon]

She didn't say terrorism was caused by global warming.
...Or am I missing something?Extremists will look at anything in the extreme first & maybe, possibly, they can relent. It's the nature of being a zealot.

Of course, in this case, I'm not talking about the Islamic fundies taking her statement incorrectly because none of them read & commented on it. I'm talking about another radical fundamental extremists on this board.

[akip]

have to run, but i think there's probably more of an acceleration of climate chaos because of atmospheric changes than the average lay person thinks---scientists are the ones who are aware of it. environmental degradation is already the cause of mass migration from rural areas to cities---any catastrophic storm or shifting weather patterns resulting in flood/drought conditions displaces more people. so you have a rapid movement from the rural village into city slums (urbanization); people turn to religion, slums become breeding ground for disaffected young men. it's a fact, and it's on the upswing.

there are many complex factors at play---climate change is only one, globalization another. but just because there's more than one factor doesn't mean you can forget about the atmosphere. it's not a liberal v. conservative issue.

go talk to any insurance company exec about it----not exactly a bunch of green party freaks.

[on2wheels]

it's climate change, not global warming.

you guys are boneheads if you think changing the content of the atmosphere is no problema. :p just 'fess up that you don't really care if more people in africa kill each other and starve 'cause of rapidly shifting weather patterns fucking up crops---'cause they're a mess anyway, right? we americans, in our ingenuity, will ride it out, with a few less trailer trash. ;)

but that lunatic scientist is a bonehead too. typical canadian rant.

I will certainly 'fess up to the fact that people in Africa have been killing each other in amazing numbers for all kinds of reasons....one of those reasons being simply because someone is from a different tribe (see Iraq)....and yes they are a mess anyway. A slight climate change is not to blame for mass genocide that has gone on for many years. You just had to go the Africa route;)

[Homsar]

Well I think it's IS a bit different when the subject can be proved or disproved, rather than being a religious belief. Problem is, it's not provable yet. Takes awhile, depending on how sure you want to be.

[miami2112]

I will certainly 'fess up to the fact that people in Africa have been killing each other in amazing numbers for all kinds of reasons....one of those reasons being simply because someone is from a different tribe (see Iraq)....and yes they are a mess anyway. A slight climate change is not to blame for mass genocide that has gone on for many years. You just had to go the Africa route;)

check some facts.

the rwanda genocide was fueled by too many people, too few resources.

a slight climate change say, less rain? that's a slight climate change right? perhaps less rain changes the ability of the area to grow crops? that would have a huge impact. and could easily cause an unstable area to explode in violence over the scarce food resources.

way to write off an entire continent.

and do i need to point out that iraq is NOT in africa?

here's a map to help you out:
http://caribousmom.blogharbor.com/africa_map.gif
Problem is, it's not provable yet. Takes awhile, depending on how sure you want to be.

how much data do you require?

[Homsar]

The future! I'm not in denial, but this could always be an aberration. Not that this should prevent any actions. Rather safe than sorry, right?

[miami2112]

The future! I'm not in denial, but this could always be an aberration. Not that this should prevent any actions. Rather safe than sorry, right?

agreed.


__________

[the_birds]

Its really ludicrous at this point how anyone would denounce Climate Change. The real problem is the most vulnerable places, the places where you can see the most effect are not tangible. You aren't in the Alps, at K2, in the Arctic, Greenland, or Patagonia or Antarctica. Glacial retreat is already adversely affecting fresh water supplies.

Since most of the people affected aren't Americans, they don't matter, do they? And even if they were Americans, they would be in Alaska, and that's not affecting real Americans, is it?

When it starts affecting the "48" its going to be too late.

Scientists predict that only a 6 degree rise in Global Mean temperature will melt the Polar ice cap. 8 to 10, Greenland and Antarctica. Dispute what you want, these are well accepted figures. So, these .25 and .5 rises in temperature sound small, but they are very significant.

Besides, man won't save the planet. Its not in his nature. There are still way too many apes out there, who lack the foresight to anticipate and solve problems and too many greedy bastards out there too, to thwart the smart ones.

Sorry for being a pessimist, it just works better. Rather be surprised that we would actually address the problem than, disappointed that we didn't.

[frizgolf]

For a good treatise on geography and climate's effects on advances and demises of civilization's peoples over the millennia, read Guns, Germs & Steel bt Jared Diamond. By no means the end-all reasoning behind what drives geographic migrations and conquests, it sheds light on why certain areas of the planet have and will always be hotbeds of political upheaval. Until a global economy exists where all can cooperate and share resources, waste via wars and greed will continue to feed our ecological demise.

[Duemellon]

Well I think it's IS a bit different when the subject can be proved or disproved, rather than being a religious belief. Problem is, it's not provable yet. Takes awhile, depending on how sure you want to be.What aspects haven't been proven?

One of science's core aspects is being able to repeat the results, therefore allowing for an extrapolation of the pattern. If the results are unable to be repeated when the factors believed to be the cause are present then the factors believed to be the cause were not the only factors.

Oversimplified hypothesis/science:Water freezes in the Winter
Water freezes because it is Winter, it is cold, & the air-pressure (sea level) is proper.
Support: In the Winter, it is cold, & a lot of water is frozen in many places
Disprovers: When it is not Winter, there is water which is frozen in many places
Result: It being "Winter" is not a factorYou can use this disproval method to say that the world's temperature has been proven to be X, while today it is X+1.

Another thing to remember is that our measurement of temperature is arbitrary. The fact that it's only 1 degree over a long period of time doesn't do it justice b/c if we used a different unit (more precise) it could appear the average temperature has changed by 100 degrees. The fact is that it's the average temperature, not just some intermittent spike. It is a trend.

Because it is a trend we can consider it a pattern.

Because it is a pattern that has been demonstrated by previous information we have no informtion saying the pattern will not continue. In fact, all our information points to the trend continuing.

To say we have no "proof" that it is going to continue is to say we can't base the future on existant trends.

I guess it's like this:
We thought the world's temperature was constant. Our shared social truth was that the "normal" behavior of the world was a constant temperature over the span of millinea. We found, however, we've been wrong & that our "shared social truth" was flawed. Now we have resistance from individuals who believe the "shared social truth" was correct & needs to be disproven, when in fact it was never, ever, really proven.

[Homsar]

Over time, temperatures rise, then they fall. Rinse, repeat. Usually, they fall faster than they rise. Unfortunately, it's all very long-term, but humans can't worry about spans of thousands of years. I think that's why people thought of temps as "constant." Any slope of a line on a graph can be extrapolated, and I don't doubt that there is some sort of "substantial" trend going on.

I guess you could call me cautiously pessimistic.

[Duemellon]

Over time, temperatures rise, then they fall. Rinse, repeat. Usually, they fall faster than they rise. Unfortunately, it's all very long-term, but humans can't worry about spans of thousands of years. I think that's why people thought of temps as "constant." Any slope of a line on a graph can be extrapolated, and I don't doubt that there is some sort of "substantial" trend going on.

I guess you could call me cautiously pessimistic.But this is different than the other oscillations & that's where the concern comes in.

We all know (by now) that we are still in an "Ice Age" because there is permanent ice at the poles. Several times during this Earth's life (with life) the poles were actually tropical. Such a change took a long time to take place & the fauna had time to adapt to it.

This temperature change is more dramatic than what is expected. This temperature change, whether or not it's just natural, is still going to effect our cities, livelihood, & such. The oscillations of temperature have been noted but the extreme to which this one is moving & the accelerants humanity is providing, is the concern.

[dannyboy]

This article pretty much sums up how I feel about the issue. (http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3061015&page=1)

[the-dude]

I don't see any negatives to acting as if man made climate change is real just in case. Don't shit yourself over it, but if society attempts to be more energy efficient that has to be a plus overall regardless of climate change. Its so strange, the US is all about efficiency in the business world, but when it comes to energy policy it seems unimportant, but that is changing.

I once heard Christopher Hitchens say something pretty insightful on CSpan about this, believe it or not. Something like, normally in science you can run the test thousands of times on test subjects, but in this case we only have one shot to get it right, so I'd err on the side of caution and act as if there is a problem. I totally agree with that. Especially since our computer climate models are fairly divergent and still somewhat unreliable (but getting better by the year).

[DudeMan]

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

The Sun Also Sets

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.


Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.

In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.

As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.

For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.

[the_birds]

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Quoted for emphasis.

[Duemellon]

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.Focus on the Sun... be sure to. Ignore the mounting data that says that, even though the Sun is essential to all other aspects of climatic temperature, there actually are other factors too.

Did you know that a magician who's gonna make your quarter disappears gets you to focus on their eyes instead of their hands so they can do things with their hand? Didja know? Yah, don't forget, the most important factor is the face... err... Sun.R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."CO2 variations haven't been this great for 20 million years. 20 million years ago the Earth was at a different distance to the Sun, the Sun was burning differently, & the Earth's geolgic makeup was different.Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."Watch my face now as I make your coin disappear!"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."If we had 10 million times the amount of CO2 but no Sun, we'd be frozen. If we had 10 million times less the amount of CO2 but a Sun 10x it's current size, we'd be burnt. Be sure to keep your eyes on my eyes/face, not the hands.

Oh wait, he said: We could be looking at a lot more bad effects than global warming would have had. (I don't think he actually spoke with both his hands up doing the "quote-unquote" finger gesture when he spoke. I do believe that's an editorial decision). So, did he deny global warming exists or is due to C02? Nah, he just said that without the Sun we'd be fucked. Or with a hyper-Sun, we'd be fucked. Duh. Just keep looking him in the face while his hands do the work.In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.That's the end of his statement eh? That's all he had to say & all the data he presented? The astronomer said such? K. How'd this make "not a few" enemies?A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."Wow, talk about taking something out of context to bolster an argument.

So they looked at historical data & said that solar activity & volcanos were historically the main movers & shakers in temperature. When was the last Earth-wide climate impacting volcano?

Mt. Pinatubo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo) which happened at about the same time as other major volcanos. Their combined affect, however, has since waned.

Other volcanic activity around that scale? (Pinatubo was a 6 on the VEI). Well, the last VEI6 was Novarupta 1912, the last few VEI5s were 1991 Mt. Hudson, 1982 El' Chicon, Mt. St. Helens in 1980. Yep, a 5 is on the same scale as Mt. St. Helens. So what about a 7 or 8? Well, the last one for either of those was 1815 Mt. Tambora. Then we have 180A.D. for Taupo.

Remember, this guy was talking about the impact of volcanos? He was studying the Sun & volcanos? The ones that really did major climatic changes were before the industrialization of the planet. So how could he possibly find situations where the industrial waste outperformed the volcanos in changing the climate? So, like "duh" he's gonna say:"try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.David Copperfield's op-ed's conclusion.

[purple_octopus]

This article pretty much sums up how I feel about the issue. (http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3061015&page=1)

Excellent article. Thank you for posting it.

[DaHood]

Excellent article. Thank you for posting it.Excellent avatar. Thanks for posting it.

[on2wheels]

[QUOTE=miami2112;1296661]check some facts.

the rwanda genocide was fueled by too many people, too few resources.

a slight climate change say, less rain? that's a slight climate change right? perhaps less rain changes the ability of the area to grow crops? that would have a huge impact. and could easily cause an unstable area to explode in violence over the scarce food resources.

way to write off an entire continent.

and do i need to point out that iraq is NOT in africa?

here's a map to help you out:
http://caribousmom.blogharbor.com/africa_map.gif

Thanks jackass, I am aware that Iraq is not in Africa. However, they do kill each other for some similar reasons, and those reasons aren't just resources. That was my point in mentioning them. How was I writing off an entire continent?! I am not saying they deserved what they got. I was just making a point. Wait.....now you're gonna mention Darfur, right? Take care, and try not to freek out so much.

[george]

February 8, 2008
Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.

Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.

“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. “Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”

These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But even that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions — for refining and transport, for example.

The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said Joseph Fargione, lead author of the second paper, and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy. “So for the next 93 years you’re making climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions.”

The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change has said that the world has to reverse the increase of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to avert disastrous environment consequences.

In the wake of the new studies, a group of 10 of the United States’s most eminent ecologists and environmental biologists today sent a letter to President Bush and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, urging a reform of biofuels policies. “We write to call your attention to recent research indicating that many anticipated biofuels will actually exacerbate global warming,” the letter said.

The European Union and a number of European countries have recently tried to address the land use issue with proposals stipulating that imported biofuels cannot come from land that was previously rain forest.

But even with such restrictions in place, Dr. Searchinger’s study shows, the purchase of biofuels in Europe and the United States leads indirectly to the destruction of natural habitats far afield.

For instance, if vegetable oil prices go up globally, as they have because of increased demand for biofuel crops, more new land is inevitably cleared as farmers in developing countries try to get in on the profits. So crops from old plantations go to Europe for biofuels, while new fields are cleared to feed people at home.

Likewise, Dr. Fargione said that the dedication of so much cropland in the United States to growing corn for bioethanol had caused indirect land use changes far away. Previously, Midwestern farmers had alternated corn with soy in their fields, one year to the next. Now many grow only corn, meaning that soy has to be grown elsewhere.

Increasingly, that elsewhere, Dr. Fargione said, is Brazil, on land that was previously forest or savanna. “Brazilian farmers are planting more of the world’s soybeans — and they’re deforesting the Amazon to do it,” he said.

International environmental groups, including the United Nations, responded cautiously to the studies, saying that biofuels could still be useful. “We don’t want a total public backlash that would prevent us from getting the potential benefits,” said Nicholas Nuttall, spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, who said the United Nations had recently created a new panel to study the evidence.

“There was an unfortunate effort to dress up biofuels as the silver bullet of climate change,” he said. “We fully believe that if biofuels are to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, there urgently needs to be better sustainability criterion.”

The European Union has set a target that countries use 5.75 percent biofuel for transport by the end of 2008. Proposals in the United States energy package would require that 15 percent of all transport fuels be made from biofuel by 2022. To reach these goals, biofuels production is heavily subsidized at many levels on both continents, supporting a burgeoning global industry.

Syngenta, the Swiss agricultural giant, announced Thursday that its annual profits had risen 75 percent in the last year, in part because of rising demand for biofuels.

Industry groups, like the Renewable Fuels Association, immediately attacked the new studies as “simplistic,” failing “to put the issue into context.”

“While it is important to analyze the climate change consequences of differing energy strategies, we must all remember where we are today, how world demand for liquid fuels is growing, and what the realistic alternatives are to meet those growing demands,” said Bob Dineen, the group’s director, in a statement following the Science reports’ release.

“Biofuels like ethanol are the only tool readily available that can begin to address the challenges of energy security and environmental protection,” he said.

The European Biodiesel Board says that biodiesel reduces greenhouse gasses by 50 to 95 percent compared to conventional fuel, and has other advantages as well, like providing new income for farmers and energy security for Europe in the face of rising global oil prices and shrinking supply.

But the papers published Thursday suggested that, if land use is taken into account, biofuels may not provide all the benefits once anticipated.

Dr. Searchinger said the only possible exception he could see for now was sugar cane grown in Brazil, which take relatively little energy to grow and is readily refined into fuel. He added that governments should quickly turn their attention to developing biofuels that did not require cropping, such as those from agricultural waste products.

“This land use problem is not just a secondary effect — it was often just a footnote in prior papers,”. “It is major. The comparison with fossil fuels is going to be adverse for virtually all biofuels on cropland.”

[Buzzstein]

Yeah, growing biofuel is very wasteful. The biofuel industry needs to be stopped before they gain too much momentum. We really don't need another industry that it's as bad or worse as the oil industry. I cringe when I hear politicians talking about biofuels.

[Shlep]

check some facts.

the rwanda genocide was fueled by too many people, too few resources.

Check some facts, Capt. Irony.

The Rwandan genocide was caused by a number of things, chiefly among them:

a) age-old tribal snits, quarrels, and hatreds of the sort which have been a catalyst for much of what ails that continent-- especially in the past 50 or so years-- and most of the truly revolting things that have happened there in that time period.

b) European colonialism prior to that timeframe.

Rwanda was one of the parts of Africa on the business end of European empire-building as the age of European empire-building was reaching its nadir. The Germans had it as one of their holdings in the late 19th century, and when they did, they made a point of treating the Tutsis as being superior to the Hutus in every way.

While quite similar-- even interchangable, to an extent-- in culture, language, and customs, the Tutsis tended to be taller, fairer, and finer-featured than the Hutus; thanks to the vicissitudes of Rwandan history, they also tended to be more educationally advanced and militarily superior to the Hutus, who excelled at agriculture and herding. Hence, it was both palatable and politically expedient for the Germans to assume the Tutsis were the natural superiors to the Hutus and make a big deal out of it; the Tutsis, naturally, were cool with this since it meant they were on top. Tutsis tended to rank higher, hold political and civil service posts of consequence, collected the taxes, and ran the judicial system.

After WWI, the Germans lost Rwanda as they did many other colonial holdings. However, as was the case in many other places, a country that backed the right horse scooped up Rwanda; that country was Belgium. Where the Germans tended to play up ethnic/tribal differences, the Belgians were positively obnoxious about it to the point of issuing ID cards to the citizens that spelled out their tribal affiliation...with the Tutsis still on top.

When Belgiums' empire wheezed its last in the 1960s, the Hutus were understandably sore and started grabbing a lot of what was denied them. The Tutsis-- outnumbered and no longer enjoying the support of a well-armed European country, saw the writing on the wall and beat feet for the exits in large numbers for neighboring countries such as Burundi. In their absence, the Hutus began to consolidate greater power and-- having been piss-ants under a succession of foreign empires-- started blaming the Tutsis for everything bad that happened as they grew in power and influence.

The Tutsis spent about 20 years, mostly between 1973-1993, engaged in a series of largely half-stepping efforts to try and regain some of their prior real estate while a standard, "Big Man" dictatorship brought about via coup ruled the country during this same period. While hardly a bastion of civil liberties, Rwanda was stable and relatively prosperous by the standards of the region. This prosperity, incidnetally, favored the Hutus.

In 1993, Rwanda was beset by droughts, a collapse in coffee prices (coffee being a major export) and a serious drop in foreign aid disbursements; things for the ruling government went from bad to worse when the Rwandan Patriotic Front-- an armed group made mostly of expat Tutsis-- seemed poised to swoop in from Burundi and capitalize on the instability. While the Rwandan leadership tried bartering peace with them, influential Hutus-- not looking to just give up what they'd gained to the Tutsis-- began organizing militias and arming the hell out of them with two things which never seem to be in short supply in Africa: AK-47s and machetes. When a plane carrying the Rwandan head of state was "mysteriously" shot down by what seemed to have been shoulder-fired SAMs, the Hutu militias-- as if on cue, probably because they were-- began slaughtering Tutsis and moderate Hutus besides.

The rest is, as they say, history.


way to write off an entire continent.

The continent of Rwanda?

and do i need to point out that iraq is NOT in africa?

Do I need to point out that he's OBVIOUSLY referring to the sectarian and tribal issues which are at least as much, if not more, to blame than the US occupation for much of the bloodshed going in Iraq as long-standing resentment between the formerly-powerful Sunni minority and Shi'ite majority?

Or perhaps you could act just a tiny bit less like a condescending prima-donna and think about what is said before replying? Just a suggestion.

[DudeMan]

the englsh were far & away the best imperialists. the portuguese, the spanish, the french, the belgians, etc., were 100% interested in getting resources, and left little in the way of improvements and positive legacy. the english left behind education systems, architecture, modern rule of law, and transportation networks.

say what you will about imperialism, and i won't argue about any of the negatives that resulted from it. but, a country like india is today significantly better off today for having had english ties & influence in its history. former belgian colonies like rwanda and french colonies like algeria, not so much.

[on2wheels]

Check some facts, Capt. Irony.

The Rwandan genocide was caused by a number of things, chiefly among them:

a) age-old tribal snits, quarrels, and hatreds of the sort which have been a catalyst for much of what ails that continent-- especially in the past 50 or so years-- and most of the truly revolting things that have happened there in that time period.

b) European colonialism prior to that timeframe.

Rwanda was one of the parts of Africa on the business end of European empire-building as the age of European empire-building was reaching its nadir. The Germans had it as one of their holdings in the late 19th century, and when they did, they made a point of treating the Tutsis as being superior to the Hutus in every way.

While quite similar-- even interchangable, to an extent-- in culture, language, and customs, the Tutsis tended to be taller, fairer, and finer-featured than the Hutus; thanks to the vicissitudes of Rwandan history, they also tended to be more educationally advanced and militarily superior to the Hutus, who excelled at agriculture and herding. Hence, it was both palatable and politically expedient for the Germans to assume the Tutsis were the natural superiors to the Hutus and make a big deal out of it; the Tutsis, naturally, were cool with this since it meant they were on top. Tutsis tended to rank higher, hold political and civil service posts of consequence, collected the taxes, and ran the judicial system.

After WWI, the Germans lost Rwanda as they did many other colonial holdings. However, as was the case in many other places, a country that backed the right horse scooped up Rwanda; that country was Belgium. Where the Germans tended to play up ethnic/tribal differences, the Belgians were positively obnoxious about it to the point of issuing ID cards to the citizens that spelled out their tribal affiliation...with the Tutsis still on top.

When Belgiums' empire wheezed its last in the 1960s, the Hutus were understandably sore and started grabbing a lot of what was denied them. The Tutsis-- outnumbered and no longer enjoying the support of a well-armed European country, saw the writing on the wall and beat feet for the exits in large numbers for neighboring countries such as Burundi. In their absence, the Hutus began to consolidate greater power and-- having been piss-ants under a succession of foreign empires-- started blaming the Tutsis for everything bad that happened as they grew in power and influence.

The Tutsis spent about 20 years, mostly between 1973-1993, engaged in a series of largely half-stepping efforts to try and regain some of their prior real estate while a standard, "Big Man" dictatorship brought about via coup ruled the country during this same period. While hardly a bastion of civil liberties, Rwanda was stable and relatively prosperous by the standards of the region. This prosperity, incidnetally, favored the Hutus.

In 1993, Rwanda was beset by droughts, a collapse in coffee prices (coffee being a major export) and a serious drop in foreign aid disbursements; things for the ruling government went from bad to worse when the Rwandan Patriotic Front-- an armed group made mostly of expat Tutsis-- seemed poised to swoop in from Burundi and capitalize on the instability. While the Rwandan leadership tried bartering peace with them, influential Hutus-- not looking to just give up what they'd gained to the Tutsis-- began organizing militias and arming the hell out of them with two things which never seem to be in short supply in Africa: AK-47s and machetes. When a plane carrying the Rwandan head of state was "mysteriously" shot down by what seemed to have been shoulder-fired SAMs, the Hutu militias-- as if on cue, probably because they were-- began slaughtering Tutsis and moderate Hutus besides.

The rest is, as they say, history.




The continent of Rwanda?



Do I need to point out that he's OBVIOUSLY referring to the sectarian and tribal issues which are at least as much, if not more, to blame than the US occupation for much of the bloodshed going in Iraq as long-standing resentment between the formerly-powerful Sunni minority and Shi'ite majority?

Or perhaps you could act just a tiny bit less like a condescending prima-donna and think about what is said before replying? Just a suggestion.


Ya, what Schlep said....damn it

[Duemellon]

The most effecient & best source for biofuel is sugar cane. After all, we go through a lot to convert the corn, rice, or whatever else to be sugar.

[markalot]

And look how well that sugar plant is burning, still.

[justa bill]

HERETICS ---> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/science/19carb.html

[Buzzstein]

Cool. I was wondering just the other day if they could come up with a way to suck the carbon dioxide out of the air. Sounds promising.

[the happy prole]

I don't know that Myanmar or the Sudan are doing so hot right about now, so I'm not so sure about the whole British imperialism thing. Have to think about that.

The thing people need to understand about anthro global warming is that we will probably are not able to prove it at a scientifically acceptable level of certainty and will probably not be able to do so in the near future. AND IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Because we're talking about policy here and not science. Scientific proof is based on high level of certainty and not cost/benefit. Policy and business decisions are the opposite. In science, you need 95% certainty or don't bother. In business a 10% chance of a 50% profit is just fine and dandy. We are not trying to "prove" we are right, we're simply hedging our bets and playing the odds.

The other thing people need to understand about global warming is that you don't have the fucking slightest clue what you're talking about... either about the scientific facts, or what you presume happens in the climatologist community. Most of us probably couldn't pass a freshman-level Earth Science class and yet we all somehow feel qualified to comment on this shit.

Really, it blows my mind. Discovery Channel will air some report like "These whacky scientists are postulating that the entire universe is made up of tiny, tiny strings of infinite length that vibrate and thus create all the matter and space we see. There is pretty much ZERO empirical proof of this; it's just some fancy math equations based on current and very much unsubstantiated assumptions." And people are like "Wow. That's nutty. Science is cool. I wish I were smart enough to really understand that stuff."

But Discovery Channel airs some report on global warming and suddenly we're all experts even though half of us still probably think toilets flush in reverse directions in the Southern Hemisphere.

[markalot]

Prole,

you seem to be one of those that assumes only the scientists can understand the data. See, in my experience, that's not always true. Matter of fact is hardly ever true (quantum physics, huge exception). Sometimes scientists get lost in data. The other problem I have with that statement is it's one of those 'you aren't qualified to talk about' lines. Would you have preferred to live in previous times where knowledge was bottled up amongst the privileged? Sometimes that is exactly what academia seems to crave. Apparently they think explaining themselves and answering direct questions is beneath them.

I have yet to see a rational (actually any) explanation for urban heat islands effecting temperature measurements. I've see people counter with the fact that many parts of the US have gotten cooler, which is interesting, but without the urban heat island effect wouldn't they have gotten even cooler than measured. What's so difficult about this issue?

As far as policy goes, policy should be set on what we know. We know we will run out of oil someday, it is a fact. Same can be said of all raw materials. We also know that burning fossil fuels creates pollution and we should know that pollution kills. Good enough reasons for me to look for alternative energy sources.

[Duemellon]

Prole,

you seem to be one of those that assumes only the scientists can understand the data.At this point you are using the defender of "mysterious ways/uknown detail". The point about scientists is they should have data to back up their obseravation (not a claim, an "observation" or "theory"). If needed, if sued, if it becomes critical, their data can be explained by them or even by a peer. It is even possible for a peer to reconstruct the data gathering process & verify aspects through controlled modifications to compare results.

So, yah, there are some people who intuitively know numbers & catch on really quick. Those people can be really aloof or jerks (or seem like such) because to them the method/process was "soooooo obvious!" However, there isn't a lot of money to be made doing the translation of the process to a more common language. Sorry, just not.

So the media doesn't bother asking the details how the scientists got from A to B, they just tell you it's B & "scientists" (including shaking magic hands) said so.

The scientists aren't hiding anything. The media, the education process, & the public's relationship with "data" is to blame.

[the happy prole]

you seem to be one of those that assumes only the scientists can understand the data. See, in my experience, that's not always true. Matter of fact is hardly ever true (quantum physics, huge exception). Sometimes scientists get lost in data. The other problem I have with that statement is it's one of those 'you aren't qualified to talk about' lines. Would you have preferred to live in previous times where knowledge was bottled up amongst the privileged? Sometimes that is exactly what academia seems to crave. Apparently they think explaining themselves and answering direct questions is beneath them.

No, I agree with what you're saying to a large extent. What would be great is if everyone put out some basic meteorological equipment and then a bunch of people shared that basic data over the web. Or people started bouncing ideas off each other and then started looking over NASA public weather info or whatever and tested their hypotheses.

Or, if you have no Earth Science skills see if you can finagle a pass to a climatology convention and listen to the speeches. Or do some investigative journalism and talk to various people. Get a whole cross section of people with expertise and/or personal experience and see if you think it's good science or more like a cult.

There are things you can do to educate yourself about this issue, same as anything else. If I have a beef about the scientific community, it's that scientists are no longer challenged. For all we know it may as well be a bunch of priests telling us that "Yes, it rains because God is crying." I've posted about that before.

And still, most people kind of suck at science and they don't really even like it that much. They are content to let the scientists do the thinking, even though you run the risk that scientists can be wrong.

Except for whatever reason, everyone's an expert on global warming. Why? What's special about global warming? What particular insight does the average person have about global warming than they do over say, why hurricanes occur? Pretty much none.

If you don't like agree with something, study it yourself and prove them wrong. Don't just sit on your ass and decide science sucks because you happen to be conservative or liberal and your party has taken a particular stance on global warming.

The issue really ends up being more an assault on science than an assault on scientists.