Global Warming Just Happened

[Wing_Z]

The Global Warming argument usually consists of two steps:
1. There is/is no global warming
2. Global Warming can/not be caused by human activity.

Sadly, we have just lost the first part of the discussion, so hopefully there will be only half as much BS as before.
"The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its British counterpart, the Met Office have released a report today that confirmed the existence of global warming."
Source:
http://www.providingnews.com/noaa-and-met-office-report-confirms-global-warming.html#ixzz0v7vZ6MbD

The next part of the discussion might focus more on exactly how we are going to wean ourselves from fossil fuel dependency, rather than "if"...

[GT182]

Wing, stand around you and look at all the asphault (blacktop to us heathens up here) roads and parking lots, especially in the big cities. What does black do..... draws and holds heat.

There's yer Global Warming. It's the one thing these global warming baboons intentionally fail to mention.... think about it for a bit. ;)

It's not all that "might" cause it but I bet it's a big a part of it, IF there is global warming. The rest is just their BS.... spawned by Al "Nobody No More" Gore. LOL

[jhefner]

You also took a big leap of faith. In your mind, it may prove #1; but it does not prove #2.

[Wing_Z]

As I said, time to stick to Part II of the discussion... ;)

[PeteHam]

I didn't read anything in the article to back up their claims.

As to who do we believe, here's what Burt Rutan has to say about 'Global warming' .....


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/rutan_observations.png?w=510&h=428 (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/rutan_observations.png)

More info and Burt's Power Point Presentation here ....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/16/burt-rutan-engineer-aviationspace-pioneer-and-climate-skeptic/



Pete.

[Wing_Z]

I would respectfully submit that, on planet earth, there are no more "expert" experts in this matter than the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its British counterpart, the Met Office.

There is no "belief" required here, it is fait accompli.

So to Part II...
Here's the thing: CO2 lasts 100 years and more, so just reducing the amount you pump into the atmosphere is only somewhat delaying the day that the CO2 bucket is full, and we become Venus. There's no argument about the effect of greenhouse gas either, it is a well-described phenomenon.
Put enough into the air, and you can grow tropical flowers under it.
Put too much in, and it gets really hot.
Unfortunately, a degree or so temperature increase on earth has really BIG effects.

SO: you can choose...screw down your GHG emissions to just about nothing immediately, or face Cold Turkey (=No emissions) at some point in the not to distant future.
It's not even an option to "reduce" these to "pre-1990 levels" or some arbitrary amount...when the bucket is full, it is full, and it is Too Late.

[mrogers]

Its interesting that I read in the old testament of my bible,that there were huge world famines that happened in those times, which was more than 2000-3000 years ago. Sounds like global warming to me in those days!!

[Wing_Z]

Yes, the earth did warm (and then cool again) and times were indeed very hard for humankind.

The BIG difference is that 2000-3000 years ago, there were not 6 billion+ of us, industriously helping the show along with an increasingly dense blanket of GHG.

[luckydog]

I would respectfully submit that, on planet earth, there are no more "expert" experts in this matter than the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its British counterpart, the Met Office.

There is no "belief" required here, it is fait accompli.

So to Part II...
Here's the thing: CO2 lasts 100 years and more, so just reducing the amount you pump into the atmosphere is only somewhat delaying the day that the CO2 bucket is full, and we become Venus. There's no argument about the effect of greenhouse gas either, it is a well-described phenomenon.
Put enough into the air, and you can grow tropical flowers under it.
Put too much in, and it gets really hot.
Unfortunately, a degree or so temperature increase on earth has really BIG effects.

SO: you can choose...screw down your GHG emissions to just about nothing immediately, or face Cold Turkey (=No emissions) at some point in the not to distant future.
It's not even an option to "reduce" these to "pre-1990 levels" or some arbitrary amount...when the bucket is full, it is full, and it is Too Late.


Sorry, Wing.........

NOAA and the Met are total jokes when it comes to accuracy.
They have been caught time and time again posting fictional or erroneous data.
The most recent, I think was last October when NOAA claimed it to be the hottest October in history...........
turns out they carried over Sept. temps for northern Russia and Siberia. And you trust these people ??!?

Interesting too, is the dwindling number of weather stations that NOAA and the Met rely on.
Back in 1988, there were over 5,000 stations world wide. Now there are less than 1500.
Which stations disappeared ?? The ones at higher latitudes and higher altitudes.
Jeez !! I wonder why !!

[Wiens]

Not worried about solar warming of the earth......the rapture will resolve the issue for some.

K

[luckydog]

Yes, the earth did warm (and then cool again) and times were indeed very hard for humankind.

The BIG difference is that 2000-3000 years ago, there were not 6 billion+ of us, industriously helping the show along with an increasingly dense blanket of GHG.

"Increasingly dense blanket".........is so misleading...

Let's look at the atmosphere : (all approx.) 78% Nitrogen
21% Oxygen
1% Argon
GHGs don't even rate because they are TRACE gasses...........
but let's be generous and give them 1%.

95% of that is water vapor, 3.6% ( of that 1%) is CO2, and the rest is methane, ozone,etc.

So, let's look at that teeny-tiny amount of C02 : 95 - 97 % is naturally produced.............
leaving .......... you do the math.......to mankind.

Dense blanket indeed !!

[Willy]

Don't forget that we're coming out of an Ice Age.

[Wing_Z]

...And you trust these people ??!?
In this instance, yes.
They've had to go back and check through the whole "Climategate" thing, and have unilaterally put out this statement.
They know they will be under a microscope, and they've checked the science.
It is solid.

End of discussion, we're talking here about Part II.

[Wing_Z]

...Dense blanket indeed !!...
A relative term.
I remember a neighbour of mine years ago pooh-poohing the fact of DDT being found in South Pole penguins on much the same basis: so small, so remote, couldn't possibly be..etc etc.
The science is good, and it projects that if we keep on doing what we are doing, we have a serious problem, and it doesn't matter that

...we're coming out of an Ice Age..
...it's where the projection takes us that's important..

Anyway, the science as I said above is solid, no argument anymore.

Argument Part II says that we should pro-actively plan, before it is planned for us.
What's the best path ahead, then?

[luckydog]

The science is not solid...............my spaghetti drainer does a better job.........and I hate to disappoint you but there is still a HUGE argument.

[Wing_Z]

The science is not solid...............my spaghetti drainer does a better job.........and I hate to disappoint you but there is still a HUGE argument.

OK you obviously have an unshakable faith in the uselessness of climate science, and no argument will shake that, fair enough.
But that thought rightly belongs in the other SOH thread (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=39973)where the quotes are so long my internet connection hangs.

This thread is about Part II.

[PRB]

The geologic record suggests the climate changes drastically over time. And like Willy said, we're still warming from the last ice age. Maybe... Either way, it's unlikely we will have much to say about the matter, one way or the other. We'd just better be ready to adapt... Best we can tell the major swings in climate happen quickly, meaning a couple centuries, more or less. That is probably enough time for us to adjust. Maybe...

[Wing_Z]

Because we are accelerating the effect, this time it is going to happen rather more quickly.
2050 is a date that makes a good target by most estimates.
It allows us 20 years (=No time at all) to put together the necessary energy technologies, and 20 more (=also No time at all) to implement them.

I am intrigued as to why Germany is hedging its bets on a flaky energy source like wind power.

[luckydog]

Don't forget that we're coming out of an Ice Age.

..............and about to go into the next.

Do you believe in ghosts, Wing ??

More people believe in ghosts than man-made global warming.

[Wing_Z]

...More people believe in ghosts than man-made global warming.

You...Sit!
Stay!
Now...lie down. :d

[luckydog]

Laying down.........

and loudly emitting methane that will be the end of us all.....

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

***** has it right. The science is solid.

I said earlier that you need to look at the "big picture" "weight of evidence". See page S26 in this document for trends in 11 different indicators of global warming.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2009/bams-sotc-2009-chapter2-global-climate-lo-rez.pdf

This is from the report State of the Climate in 2009 released about 24 hours ago. Here is the source.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009.php

Among the more important indicators suggesting that CO2 is the cause is the downward trend in stratospheric temperature because if the sun were causing global warming this indicator would increase as well.

-Ed-

Where are those stars coming from? I typed ***** - Wing Z

[crashaz]

____

[Wing_Z]

I'm hoping someone from Germany will chime in before (their) breakfast to cast some light on the renewables there...

[Cratermaker]

"The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its British counterpart, the Met Office have released a report today that confirmed the existence of global warming."
Source:
http://www.providingnews.com/noaa-and-met-office-report-confirms-global-warming.html#ixzz0v7vZ6MbD
A nice oversimplification of the report. You do know that www. providingnews.com is a site where anyone can send in "news" articles, correct?

What, exactly, suddenly confirmed global warming? This is the third report? 50 years of instrumental data? Why not a single year? Or a hundred?

[jmig]

I am currently (I have morphed more than once in my life) an environmental engineer. I make a nice living consulting and providing emissions reduction equipment to companies who are forced to buy it by the EPA.

So, all you Global Warming naysayers, HUSH. I don't want you to mess up my little gold mine.

Seriously, as I tell people at conferences where I sometimes speak, whether or not global warming is real or not doesn't matter. Our governments thinks it is true. That means it will cost each of us.

Expect me, of course. :d

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Wing_Z, you have said earlier that there are two institutes that agree on the existence of global warming. I want to add to that that they are way more actually. The old German Max Planck Institute (that is where Einstein comes from, for those who don't know) says the same, the NASA does, several British and French institutes and other European institutes and universities do. In Japan you'll find many too. If you sum it up, over 90% of al scientists world wide agree that global warming is happening.

It's also interesting to look further than climate scientists. Zoologists, Biologists, Oceanographists, or other people who can tell you about the change in natural respones in nature. NASA has actually summarized such a study out of 29,500 data sets and concluded that 90% of the observed changes point "in the direction expected as response to warming".

Another interesting thing to look into is the private commercial sector. One of the biggest world wide reinsurance companies, the Münchner Rück, concluded after a study of several years to be used as the basis for world trend analyses in natural disasters, that disasters related to weather extremes are increasing rapidly world wide.
If we look at the broad picture we are really presented with a picture from all sorts of corners that indicates that something is going on.

I also want to say something about the "urban heat island" myth that has been mentioned earlier on in this thread. Basically it goes like this: The asphalt, parking lots and buildings of all those cities warm up the cities and eventually warm up the atmosphere. This is one of the most famous arguments you will hear from the anti AGW crowd. The problem is, it is disproven.
The problem of the argumentation the denialists can't really explain away is that the warming zones of the earth during all measurements taken during the last decades never match the urban zones of the earth. Never, not even once. Just overlay a map of the global warming zones over a map of urban zones, and you'll notice that they don't match at all. Following the "urban heat island" myth you would expect those urban concentrations, Europe, the American east cost, west coast, etc to show up as red or orange zones don't you? Well they don't. There is simply no correlation between the two.
Do you really think, all scientific institutes, like NASA, NOOA, and other worldwide research institutes would have been so foolish not to look into the effects of urbanization? Of course not. For those interested, you can read more here: Urban Heat Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island). For those who want to read further there are also some papers from NASA about this if I remember well.

[Cratermaker]

Ah yes, the old "we accounted for that, we tweaked for that, we adjusted for that" mantra, somehow without EVER introducing error bars. :rolleyes:

[cheezyflier]

Laying down.........

and loudly emitting methane that will be the end of us all.....


hey mr! that's infringing on my territory! don't make me file a grievance with the local union of gas emitters! :icon_lol:

[jhefner]

But that thought rightly belongs in the other SOH thread (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=39973)where the quotes are so long my internet connection hangs.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Your'e right, far be it from me to try to present reasonable facts rather than wide eyed speculation. I will be sure not to do that again.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

Best we can tell the major swings in climate happen quickly, meaning a couple centuries, more or less. That is probably enough time for us to adjust. Maybe...<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I was thinking about this on the long drive home last night. What could have caused such a dramatic increase in temperatures so recently? Unchecked forest fires were around long before man came along; steam engines have been here since the 1700s; factories, mills and electric plants since the 1800s; cars and planes since the 1900s. And I clearly and distinctly remember the cries of a coming global cooling event during the 1960s and 1970s. Why the sudden cry and supposed evidence for global warming in the past decade?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Then, it hit me like a ton of pig iron. There has been a major change in the past few decades, but not in nature -- after all we know it is steady state and never changes. No, it has to be with mankind, and I have found it. And, it needs to be address immediately.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Back in the 1960s and 1970s; coal fired steam engines were still to be found. While steam locomotives disappeared from North America at the beginning of that time, they were still found elsewhere in the world. Steam powered pumping stations and other industrial facilities were still common, and old coal and oil fired power plants had not yet been retired by a wave of new nuclear power plants.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Now, steam engines are external combustion engines. That means they burn fuel slowly in a boiler, rather than quickly in a cylinder or combustion chamber. The end result is they produce low oxides of oxygen and nitrogen; but since they were capable of burning heavy fuels, they produced particulate matter in addition to steam.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Now steam is not a problem; because we have been assured that water vapor is neutral as a greenhouse gas. Particulates were considered a problem because of issues like smog and acid rain; so in addition to the installation of emission control equipment on coal fired power plants, the world's remaining steam engines have rapidly been retired.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
China tried to get rid of all the remaining steam locomotives on China Railways to clean up the air for the Beijing Olympics; and number of working steam locomotives and steam powered sugar mills in Cuba and Indonesia has been in sharp decline in the past decade. Also, with the rise in fuel and scrap metal prices, the world's remaining steamships have likewise been in sharp decline in the past decade; only a tiny handful are left.
<o:p></o:p>
And yet, in the same decade, global temperatures are shooting through the roof! What is happening! The answer is very simple – all those steam engines were acting like miniature volcanoes. They were producing enough particulate matter to keep global temperatures down, like we have seen with volcanoes in the past. We took them away; and without the “volcano effect,” temperatures are soaring.
<o:p></o:p>
So, I am proposing an immediate resumption of the production of coal fired steam locomotives and ships. Since we cannot produce them fast enough, I am proposing that steam locomotives currently in parks be restored to operational status immediately, and all steamships currently sidelined be returned to full service.
<o:p></o:p>
Part two of my initiative is to halt the immediate production of plastic toys, and replace them with cast iron toys and steam pop-pop boats. Although small, they will help us reverse this dreadful crisis.
<o:p></o:p>
While all of this coal fired power will result in a resumption of acid rain and smoke; this is a small price to pay to save the planet. And any lives lost due to respiratory problems will help the problem with greedy, selfish, short-sighted two legged parasites taking over the planet.
<o:p></o:p>
Now, little people, I must be going so I can prepare my private steam train and steam yacht for my worldwide speaking tour. But, be not alarmed; the millions I make from my speaking engagements will be invested in building factories for coal scoops and boiler plate; which will help us with this crisis. (Though I will also set up my headquarters in a restored mansion once owned by one of the industrial robber bandits.)
<o:p></o:p>
-J Hefner
Formerly of the Surviving World Steam Project;
Now CEO of the World Steam Revival Project<o:p></o:p>

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Jhefner,

I think your post is tongue in cheek, so I won't respond to it. But you mentioned again the '70s ice age prediction", as some other have in the two threads, and I would like to pick that up to inform the readers here about that one. The "70's ice age" myth is one of things that just seem impossible to be corrected. It's one of the most well known crocks out there, and is unfortunately repeated over and over again to the public. It goes mainly back to the popular media back in the time, picking up a then ongoing scientific debate, mainly two press articles, one in Time magazine 1974, and one in Newsweek 1975. It's foremost the latter one which is quoted, or better said, misquoted and misused today by the organized denial machine. Already back in the time, the articles got picked up and spread around by a sensationalist press and media, and important parts were left out, for example that is was stated that only a small fraction, a minority, of the scientists believed global cooling was possible, and probably not in the next 40,000 years, and that already then the major part of scientists actually believed warming was much more likely than cooling. Of course, those parts of the texts have been forgotten, or not mentioned with intent. That are the parts you will never hear from the denialists -- instead you will hear "that scientists predicted a new ice age", so those dam scientists just can't get their facts right, correct? Newsweek published a correction some 4-5 years back, and some of the scientists that thought cooling was a possibility "somewhere in the next 40,000 years" apologized publicly for their mistake, which has to be put into the context of a climate science which was in it's infancy back then and the lack of data sets and analysis we have today. What was misquoted and distorted back then maybe out of laziness or journalistic commercial reasons, is picked up today by a lobby that wants to misinform the American public.

[Wing_Z]

So: accepting that Part I is done with, as we have, because you would be posting in the other thread if you didn't... :d

What's the best way to deal with the issue?
Could it be that the profit model is not the best possible solution?
Vested interest companies would prefer a growing crisis scenario, where energy gets more and more expensive, (and profits get better and better).

At the point where the fossil fuels effectively run out, or become too expensive for comfort, they will make the jump into alternative energy sources.

But we'll be paying heavily along the way!

Might it not be smarter to spend money developing those sources instead, before crunch time?

[jhefner]

Jhefner,

I think your post is tongue in cheek, so I won't respond to it. But you mentioned again the '70s ice age prediction", as some other have in the two threads, and I would like to pick that up to inform the readers here about that one. The "70's ice age" myth is one of things that just seem impossible to be corrected. It's one of the most well known crocks out there, and is unfortunately repeated over and over again to the public. It goes mainly back to the popular media back in the time, picking up a then ongoing scientific debate, mainly two press articles, one in Time magazine 1974, and one in Newsweek 1975. It's foremost the latter one which is quoted, or better said, misquoted and misused today by the organized denial machine. Already back in the time, the articles got picked up and spread around by a sensationalist press and media, and important parts were left out, for example that is was stated that only a small fraction, a minority, of the scientists believed global cooling was possible, and probably not in the next 40,000 years, and that already then the major part of scientists actually believed warming was much more likely than cooling. Of course, those parts of the texts have been forgotten, or not mentioned with intent. That are the parts you will never hear from the denialists -- instead you will hear "that scientists predicted a new ice age", so those dam scientists just can't get their facts right, correct? Newsweek published a correction some 4-5 years back, and some of the scientists that thought cooling was a possibility "somewhere in the next 40,000 years" apologized publicly for their mistake, which has to be put into the context of a climate science which was in it's infancy back then and the lack of data sets and analysis we have today. What was misquoted and distorted back then maybe out of laziness or journalistic commercial reasons, is picked up today by a lobby that wants to misinform the American public.

Sorry; but I remember those days, and it was more than Time and Newsweek. I had a poster from the National Geographic on the wall of my bedroom, which illustrated the various forms of land, water, and air pollution, and how the smoke from burning solid wastes and other sources could cause global cooling. The only debate was would smoke and particulates would cause global cooling more than CO2 would cause global warming; and like water vapor, it is not the sealed up matter you claim it to be.

[jhefner]

While my posting was tongue in cheek; the fact is that what I wrote could just as easily be true as anything else I have read to date. The fact of the matter is, even if you consider the global warming data to be correct (and I would argue that point, though I know it is to no avail); you still haven't prove it was caused by man's burning fossil fuel; nor can you explain why suddenly after roughly 300 years of man's activity, the world is suddenly warming up (acording to the data you believe.)

As others have pointed out, while tons of CO2 sounds impressive, it is still a tiny, tiny percentage of the atmosphere. While you can dismiss other factors in your mind with a wave of your hand; you don't have the scientific evidence for doing so. So, point one may be true for a very, very short period of time, and you have a long way to go before you can even begin to discuss point two with any seriousness. After all the hijinks pulled by the U.N. Climate Council and others, and given what we know about the earth and future trends; you have zero chance of proving man-made global warming at this time.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Sorry; but I remember those days, and it was more than Time and Newsweek. I had a poster from the National Geographic on the wall of my bedroom, which illustrated the various forms of land, water, and air pollution, and how the smoke from burning solid wastes and other sources could cause global cooling. The only debate was would smoke and particulates would cause global cooling more than CO2 would cause global warming; and like water vapor, it is not the sealed up matter you claim it to be.

It is true that a debate was ongoing in science at the time. But of all science articles published about the issue between 1965 and 1975, only 4 predicted global cooling, 44 predicted already then global warming. For some reason, and that is probably because the 70's were a cool decade, the minority or the "cooling" scientists got media coverage, especially in popular mass media. It is however totally false to claim that "the majority of the scientists in the 60-70's" predicted global cooling. Today, it's the Newsweek article that is misquoted the most often.

[Wing_Z]

OK listen up:
Accept the planet is warming for a moment, alright?
This will be relatively painless...see, did that hurt?

Now, would you recommend that as a species, we pump a significant amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere? No?
I didn't think so.

You know, we had the same kind of issue with CFC's and the ozone layer.
The aerosol and refrigerant guys just went away and invented a better substitute.
What's the difference here?

[KOM.Nausicaa]

The fact of the matter is, even if you consider the global warming data to be correct (and I would argue that point, though I know it is to no avail);

The data is sufficiently correct. And it doesn't come "from approx 1,200" measurements stations like some want you to believe. An absurd number, since we have already some tens of thousand stations in Germany alone. But that on a side note, even if some data is incorrect it would only concern a fraction in the whole data set which is negligible. Something deniers rarely tell you is that much comes from military sources too. Just the American military for example has contributed with countless data sets on the polar ice sheets. I find it hard to believe that some can still claim the data is certainly so incorrect that global warming must be questioned. That would mean at least minimum 20-30% of the data, if not more, has to be outright wrong. Laughable, if you consider data is collected in all parts of the world, by hundreds of international scientific institutes, universities, big players like NASA, the military, NOOA, private corporations and many others.



you still haven't prove it was caused by man's burning fossil fuel;

The indications are overwhelming. And it can very well be proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That has already been done in the 19th century. Any physics teacher in a normally equipped high school classroom can repeat those experiments. To dismiss the significance of billions and billions and tons of C02 mankind has put into the atmosphere, while we have so many experiments that prove the effects of CO2, is in my eyes something i can hardly understand.


nor can you explain why suddenly after roughly 300 years of man's activity, the world is suddenly warming up

Of course I can. That is simply because we haven't put much greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in the last 300 years, but mainly in the last 100, especially in the last 50-60 years.


As others have pointed out, while tons of CO2 sounds impressive, it is still a tiny, tiny percentage of the atmosphere.

No. We can for example see the effects of volcanoes in the last 100 years clearly as "bumps" in the climate curve. Not even the deniers deny that one. They even use them, deceitfully of course, for their propaganda. But we emit 8000 times more CO2 then all volcanoes globally combined. Still, the deniers insist that this cannot be of importance. Do you not think that there is something wrong here ?


While you can dismiss other factors in your mind with a wave of your hand; you don't have the scientific evidence for doing so.

That is a wrong understanding of science. If I throw a rock at your head, and you scream in pain, you will no doubt claim that gravitation has been proven. You will be very upset, while you hold your head in pain, to hear that your "proof" will be dismissed by the scientific community. You have to reformulate the question: Do we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming? Yes. Do we have put it into the atmosphere in great quantities? Yes. Is the earth warming globally? Yes. Do we have disrupted weather patterns, and weather extremes? Yes. Does nature change it's natural responses because warm and cool periods change ? Yes. Do we have global and detailed measurements and data sets ? Yes we do. Are science predictions and understanding ever more precise? Yes they are.
It comes down to risk management. When you drive a car and you see a wall approaching, you will pull the steering wheel quickly, because you know the chance that wall is a fata morgana caused by heat from the asphalt is only very small, too small to trust your life in it. That is were we are now. We cannot afford to gamble on a imaginary possible "natural cause" while all possible natural causes, like the sun, and so on have been ruled out a long time ago. The possibility of a natural cause has even less proof than the man made one. It would be pure foolishness to bet your life on it.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

What's the difference here?

If you want a philosophical or sociological point of view: I have come to the understanding, or call it interpretation, that is so difficult to accept for some, especially in the American public, because it questions the deep American belief in a way of life of endless resources. The American land, lifestyle, and great spaces favors that belief.

[Wing_Z]

It may be that America is at that particular point in its history, but it's by no means an American thing.

In the 19th century Africa had great herds of antelope - vast migrations that would take days to pass.
The colonists from Europe saw it as a place of infinite abundance, and killed them in enormous numbers.
Eventually the great herds were depleted, and with it the realisation that in fact the resource was not unlimited.
Nowadays we treat those resources as things to be managed and nurtured.

If the climate battle is to be won, it must be led by North America, simply because it will have the best effect.
There are encouraging signs already - the companies that built gas guzzler behemoths have learned the hard way, that there is no longer a future in that mindset.
Hopefully the smarter outfits will read the signs, and move early.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

If the climate battle is to be won, it must be led by North America, simply because it will have the best effect.

Yes, and that is the reason why the denialist machine targets massively the American public and American ruling elite. You must always remember; every year of delay of action is money in the pocket of the fossil energy industry.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

There are encouraging signs already - the companies that built gas guzzler behemoths have learned the hard way, that there is no longer a future in that mindset.
Hopefully the smarter outfits will read the signs, and move early.

Yes there are encouraging signs -- but not much in America. I don't know about NZ or Australia, but the European Union has done a series of actions, like completely banning the classic lightbulbs in favor of a new energy efficient model (up to 60 times less consumption for 300 million people, thats not to be dismissed) and a whole series of other measures. Sarcastically enough, all studies show they actually have produced jobs. So much for the nay sayers who claim green energy destroys jobs. Some, including in this forum, claim America has gone green. Nothing is further from the truth. Ok, its greener than in the past, that is true, and some states, like California, are greener than others. But the big picture is grim: Energy efficient cars: don't start looking. Energy efficient housing and construction: almost inexistent. Energy efficient consumer electronics, like timed leds for example: zero. Air conditioning: turned on day and night, regardless if someone is at home or not. Same goes for lighting in office buildings: switched on day and night. Timer for the night? Not really. Recycling? Sparse at best. Public transport? Thin on the ground. The list goes on and on really.

[Wing_Z]

... all studies show they actually have produced jobs. So much for the nay sayers who claim green energy destroys jobs...

Yes we had the lightbulb thing. This was actually some horsetrading with the Green Party who felt they needed some appreciation for supporting other legislation.
Alas the stuff that was rammed down our collective throat proved to have limited life, quite poor lighting qualities, and enough mercury to poison all the landfills for a century.
This illustrates why you should not be going Green on emotional grounds!
Things are being rectified now, though, as a result of exactly the kind of discussion we are having here.
Improved products are on the shelves which better fit consumer requirements.

One excellent source of jobs here is subsidised home insulation.
Given home heating can be half the energy bill, a 30% reduction there is hugely meaningful.
And doesn't hurt a bit.
There are plenty of other examples.

This kind of discussion is also valuable, even somewhere as random as a flightsim forum.
If it were not happening on a large scale everywhere you go, how would that seed of thought be planted?
Mercifully we do not have to believe that Luckies will make you cough less, (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=39973&page=4)any longer...

[Piglet]

Let's ban volcanos! Heck, Al Gore inverted the Internet, he's gotta be able to outlaw volcanos!
Just don't get BP to try to cap them off!
P.S. If we were able to plug up all the volcanos, would the planet bloat and :pop4:, like a giant zit?!?

[luckydog]

You guys ( sheeples :sheep: ) really crack me up...........
After this thread, lets get into some real FANTASY........like Dungeons and Dragons.

[Wing_Z]

Let's ban volcanos! Heck, Al Gore inverted the Internet, he's gotta be able to outlaw volcanos!
Just don't get BP to try to cap them off! P.S. If we were able to plug up all the volcanos, would the planet bloat and :pop4:, like a giant zit?!?

Nah, volcanos are Good.
Without them, the planet would bloat and :pop4:, like a giant zit :d


You guys ( sheeples :sheep: ) really crack me up...........
After this thread, lets get into some real FANTASY........like Dungeons and Dragons.

Didn't I say Stay! and here you are again...so start D&D and I'll give you hell in there...

[TeaSea]

I believe Wing Z that the challenge to addressing any concern on global warming is not the science (although despite the assertions, is in doubt), but the perception of how the science is used, what's the underlying agenda to the research, and how any such mitigation measures would be implemented.

The environmental movement and environmental sciences, rightly or wrongly, have lost most of their credibility over the past 20 years and has allowed itself to be transformed (co-opted) by political implementation into a means of extending governmental control. I personally believe this to be the result of a core concept of environmentalism which is that human beings are some sort of blight on the environment rather than a part of it.

If you re-read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" I think you will see that theme running from chapter to chapter. Carson's disdain for people who would like to have a little something for themselves (a home, a decent living) is clear between the lines to anyone who pays attention and is a result of the intellectual elitism evident throughout the mid to late 50's to the mid 60's in both the U.S. and Europe. Rachel's pretty clear that the biggest problem with the environment isn't human activity, it's humans period. Rachel Carson is the mother of the modern environmental movement and whether she intended it or not, she passed that outlook on to her environmental grandchildren.

Don't get me wrong, much good has come from this moment, but it has a sinister side to it as well, and as long as environmentalists ignore basic humanity along the Carson lines, then they will suffer in their aims and when they are successful, humanity will suffer as the general trend towards freedom is crushed under the boot of environmental "right" thinking. The idea that all must be done that can be done in the name of the "common good" is an essentially fascist concept. One cannot step away from that. I think environmentalists would argue that's not their intent....but its an easy leap from "don't send raw sewage into the river" (good common sense) to "no more private use of private property" (hey, what happened!)....if you think I'm dealing in hyperbole with that last assertion, then you haven't been paying attention to what the EPA has done with inland lakes and streams here in the states.

The example I use here points back to the problem with the underlying agenda of the global warming debate. Like it or not, when you start to talk about "solutions" to a problem you may not have, or you may not be able to influence either way, you start to talk about politics and economies and the rule of unintended consequences -- and here is where everything breaks down. I have to FORCE you to act the way I want. If the environment is indeed all inter-related (except for mankind...who's the blight, remember Rachel?) then the political execution of environmental policy means that government will extort money from you, restrict you in your personal actions, limit your economic rights, make you a pariah for trying to interfere with the "common good", teach your children "the right way" of thinking (as defined by others), and continue to exercise control over every part of your life and the lives of everyone around you. And that will be the "fix" for global warming....except of course that it probably won't be.

By then it will not matter in that "we the people" will have no ability to affect the discussion either way. Such decisions will be reserved for the deserving elite. Environmentalists will be happy for a bit, until those governments and world bodies we've handed control to, no longer held accountable, decide that maybe global warming wasn't such a big concern after all, and move onto something else.

So, my contention is that if there's such a thing man-made climate change, a "crises" if you will (note the recent "right thinking" change in terminology), then there is also absolutely no fix that would be:

a) acceptable to environmentalists
b) acceptable to a free peoples

nor perhaps, should there be.

[safn1949]

and some states, like California, are greener than others. But the big picture is grim: Energy efficient cars: don't start looking. Energy efficient housing and construction: almost inexistent. Energy efficient consumer electronics, like timed leds for example: zero. Air conditioning: turned on day and night, regardless if someone is at home or not. Same goes for lighting in office buildings: switched on day and night. Timer for the night? Not really. Recycling? Sparse at best. Public transport? Thin on the ground. The list goes on and on really.
Ah yes,California.Over 3000 people a week are fleeing because of the high taxes imposed by the nitwits there,as far as public transportation I go back to scale.This is a huge country and the type of rail system they had in Germany when I was there in the 70's won't work here.

Why? People don't want to use it,and the infrastructure needed would bankrupt any country.There is a tremendous amount of recycling here,I have worked in a plastics factory and we reused all of the scrap,that was my only job to make sure it was sorted correctly.....tons of it.I drive a truck and haul waste paper and cardboard to be recycled all the time.Aluminum is worth a good piece of change here so people gather it up and recycle it all the time.

I hate to be impolite but you are full of crap,as you are so fond of stating to us in the US you don't live here and sorry to say you have no real idea what goes on here.We also make the choice of how we live,we don't care to have government or anyone try to cram their ideas down our throat.

Walk through some Wal Marts where they have the lights on motion sensors in the isles and the freezers to save energy.Turn the A/C off in the house during the day? Kinda silly as it will run full blast for hours to try and cool the house back down saving nothing.I'm all for energy efficient homes,it got to -29 F last winter here with a wing chill of -45 F.If you don't do something you will go broke trying to heat your home here.

But it's our choice as to what we do.....not some pinhead bureaucrat or environmentalist.And a lot of people hate that,the fact that there are millions of us who won't just get in line and shut up.And to those who don't like that or don't agree...tough.:jump:


Excellent post TeaSea,spot on.

[cheezyflier]

We also make the choice of how we live,we don't care to have government or anyone try to cram their ideas down our throat.


while there are many examples i could list to show that there are plenty of unpopular ideas getting crammed down our throats, i don't think it's really neccessary. i only call attention to them because i think wether we like it or not, the gov't will use the environment as tool to further control people, just as they have with the threat of terrorism.
but the bottom line is:

this discussion is alot like discussing religion.

both sides of the argument firmly believe they are correct, and hold the only solution to save mankind.

neither side can produce the type of evidence that will satisfy the other sides need for irrefutable proof.

both sides get really frustrated at the other side's inability to be convinced by what they see as a water tight argument.
that this thread hasn't degenerated into the stabbings and shootings that occurred over the FSX vs. FS9 debates truly amazes me.

[jmig]

...
The environmental movement and environmental sciences, rightly or wrongly, have lost most of their credibility over the past 20 years and has allowed itself to be transformed (co-opted) by political implementation into a means of extending governmental control. I personally believe this to be the result of a core concept of environmentalism which is that human beings are some sort of blight on the environment rather than a part of it.

...
By then it will not matter in that "we the people" will have no ability to affect the discussion either way. Such decisions will be reserved for the deserving elite. Environmentalists will be happy for a bit, until those governments and world bodies we've handed control to, no longer held accountable, decide that maybe global warming wasn't such a big concern after all, and move onto something else.

So, my contention is that if there's such a thing man-made climate change, a "crises" if you will (note the recent "right thinking" change in terminology), then there is also absolutely no fix that would be:

a) acceptable to environmentalists
b) acceptable to a free peoples

nor perhaps, should there be.

I find this to be one of the most prophetic and dead on posts I have read in this entire thread. Excellent thoughts and excellent presentation.

Easy Ed and KOM.Nausicaa you two also presented your views in an excellent manner. You obviously believe in what you write and your passion shows. I would be happy to sit and discuss this and other issues with either of you. It would be an enlightening evening, I am sure.

On this issue, I have does a fair amount of studying and reading. As a consultant to companies who depend on my information to be accurate, I find being up on the latest climate and environment news to be important to my business.

I have found in my sixty plus years of life that elitism fosters arrogance. With this arrogance you feel that only you know the truth and only you can save the ignorant fools from their well deserved fate. Mr. Al Gore is probably the most obvious example of this elitism in the environmental movement. He has also make a lot of money from it, while not practicing what he preaches. Which, says sometime about his character to me, none of it good.

In reading through all of these posts I noticed a pattern. It seemed that every argument brought up by the "denialists" against the scientific method used by the environmentalist scientists was proven to be a "myth". While at the same time, any argument for the "denialists" was already proven to be untrue.

This strikes me as rather arrogant in it self. Am I to believe that ALL arguments against climate change are false and ALL arguments for the "denialists" are myths? My readings on the matter do not show this to be true. I would say there is plenty of "unknowns" and plenty of "subjectivity" when it comes to climate prediction and control.

Mankind is the most powerful creature on earth. We are also the most arrogant, to think we can control mother nature. When have we stopped one major flood, earthquake or hurricane?

Now, you are telling me we can control the entire global temperature. Somehow, I doubt it.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

I hate to be impolite but you are full of crap,as you are so fond of stating to us in the US you don't live here and sorry to say you have no real idea what goes on here.We also make the choice of how we live,we don't care to have government or anyone try to cram their ideas down our throat.

Walk through some Wal Marts where they have the lights on motion sensors in the isles and the freezers to save energy.Turn the A/C off in the house during the day? Kinda silly as it will run full blast for hours to try and cool the house back down saving nothing.I'm all for energy efficient homes,it got to -29 F last winter here with a wing chill of -45 F.If you don't do something you will go broke trying to heat your home here.

But it's our choice as to what we do.....not some pinhead bureaucrat or environmentalist.And a lot of people hate that,the fact that there are millions of us who won't just get in line and shut up.And to those who don't like that or don't agree...tough.:jump:


Excellent post TeaSea,spot on.



I'll skip the insults and thank you for your information Safn. That there is some recycling is good news. Still, in energy efficiency, the USA is a long way behind. I have been there, the spilling I observed on all levels of the society was remarkable to say the least. That is just personal observation, but there are tons of studies and written books that back it up. I am not inventing this out of the blue. As for trains, the European Union in it's present state is almost as big as the USA and successfully linked throughout the Union with high speed trains with competitive ticket prices that make the travel in many cases cheaper than by car. To say it won't work in the US is really a lot of nonsense. It's really a question of ideology and has no foundation whatsoever on a geographic or economic level.

I am neither a particularly left person or ecological person. I am just reading up honestly on issues, and there is only one thing I can't stand: distorting facts for ideological reasons, your own, or the "group" you think you belong to. There is nothing I hate more in life. I would not vote green for any green party I know of in Europe, but that doesn't stop me from coming to the conclusion to think that global warming is happening. Again, the USA does what they want, I don't care if there is a high speed train or a energy efficient car industry. But I also know that the economic problems the USA is struggling with are not linked to that or that President, but to the core of the people who are stuck in the loop of a "way of life" which is every year more antagonistic compared to the rest of the world. They are home made. That is the reason the car industry broke down, and the reason nobody here buys American products (except computers like Mac, or Coca Cola, or cultural exports like the movie industry to put it simply), because they have nothing to offer to a society which steams full speed ahead into a competitive green energy future. That and intelligent political decisions, is why we have a economic upwind in Europe, especially in Germany where we have an outright economic boom. I don't even know of a American product in any shop here I could buy or which would be competitive in that area. That is a sad thing, if you compare it to the past, in which American products were desired quality products everybody wanted to have.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

both sides of the argument firmly believe they are correct, and hold the only solution to save mankind.

neither side can produce the type of evidence that will satisfy the other sides need for irrefutable proof..

Just to comment: I don't believe mankind can be saved, or minimum, the world as we know it. Reading up on the matter since years, with real investment, not only forum talks and blogosphere, I have come to the conclusion we won't make it this time around. The comprehension of this complex matter is too slow, the lobby of the fossil industry too strong, and the time too short.

About the evidence: There is overwhelming indication that AGW is happening backed up by thousands of data an observations as I have tried to explain, but most are too lazy to really read up on it because it takes a lot of time (and money), and the matter is complex. Add to that, some sadly only look for proof of what they already believe for ideological or religious reasons, fired up by the ever present denial propaganda. Humans are apes, we had a lot of luck in the past, but luck is running out.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

I find this to be one of the most prophetic and dead on posts I have read in this entire thread. Excellent thoughts and excellent presentation.

Easy Ed and KOM.Nausicaa you two also presented your views in an excellent manner. You obviously believe in what you write and your passion shows. I would be happy to sit and discuss this and other issues with either of you. It would be an enlightening evening, I am sure.


Well thanks for the compliments. I also think that personal knowledge of each others would be interesting and mutually beneficial.

About Teaseas post: I can't really see what you read in there. I read there that ecological concerned people are basically dangerous guys who have to be observed before they become eco fascists or eco terrorists about to destroy your society, which as I know, is a very wide spread view in America. If I have missed something please tell me.

[safn1949]

No insult intended I can assure you,simply my way of stating things.I have never felt the need to make personal attacks because I disagree with someone.I am simply saying that you have no more idea what goes on over here then I have about what happens there.

The media distorts most of what they report so it all has to be taken with a grain of salt.:jump:

[Cratermaker]

But I also know that the economic problems the USA is struggling with are not linked to that or that President, but to the core of the people who are stuck in the loop of a "way of life" which is every year more antagonistic compared to the rest of the world. They are home made. That is the reason the car industry broke down, and the reason nobody here buys American products (except computers like Mac, or Coca Cola, or cultural exports like the movie industry to put it simply), because they have nothing to offer to a society which steams full speed ahead into a competitive green energy future. That and intelligent political decisions, is why we have a economic upwind in Europe, especially in Germany where we have an outright economic boom. I don't even know of a American product in any shop here I could buy or which would be competitive in that area. That is a sad thing, if you compare it to the past, in which American products were desired quality products everybody wanted to have.
I was thinking of all sorts of nasty retorts this, but I think I'll just leave it with the roll eyes smiley.

:rolleyes:

You REALLY want to start something, don't you?

[KOM.Nausicaa]

I was thinking of all sorts of nasty retorts this, but I think I'll just leave it with the roll eyes smiley.

:rolleyes:

You REALLY want to start something, don't you?

No, I am just saying what I am thinking.

[mississippi]

Play nice guy's . :wavey:

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

In 1963 or 1964 I was staying at my Aunt and Uncle's farm. As was common the buildings were of course located on a highly erosive (during high water spring runoff events) flood plain. To protect the buildings my Uncle would bulldoze the creek into the channel he wanted it to take through his and my Aunt's bought and paid for property. He also liked to use old car bodies to stabilize the banks as best he could. Now that creek was and is an irrigation source, a drinking water source for towns downstream and a blue ribbon trout fishing stream. Now one day that summer of 63 or 64 when I was 8 or 9 Montana Fish and Game came to the gate to talk to my Uncle about driving his bulldozer in the creek, putting old cars in it and rearranging it in ways that affected people downstream and fisheries values. My Uncle met them at the gate with a 30-30 a big dog and me and told them to get the Hull off his land. I have never forgot that day.

Now my question to you is simple - was my Uncle in the right or in the wrong?

Over the years since I have come to the realization that 25 years earlier about 1940 or so he would have been absolutely in the right while about 25 years later he would have been absolutely in the wrong.

Why? That creek was and is a shared resource that a lot of people depend on. When the population was low along that creek what one guy did with a bulldozer didn't matter much but as the population grew along that creek what one guy does does matter. Because he was there first and claims the right to do as he dam well pleases with his property doesn't matter other people moved in and since they too became dependent upon that stream and they voted in the laws that said so and my Uncle's freedom to do as he pleased became more restricted.

This is the lesson that American agriculture has had to learn over the last 50 years and quite frankly there are a lot of farmers who still don't want to accept this although they generally have. To them that fundamental freedom to do with their property matters more than the welfare of the public. It gripes some of them even more that much of this environmental improvement has clearly been socialist - the expenditure of their tax money for a public good. Of course some of them also gripe about all the other socialism in America like public highways, public schools, social security, etc.

In 1963/1964 the population of the earth was around 3 billion. It is now near 7 billion and will reach 9 billion in another 20 odd years. The environmental impact of that many people is huge just as the increasing numbers of people on that creek in Montana was having ever increasing impacts.

The atmosphere of planet earth is no different that that stream my uncle lived on. It is a shared resource upon which we all depend. It is a shared responsibility to take responsible care of that resource. Climate change due to anthropogenic activities potentially threatens the fundamental "health" of that resource just as CFCs did earlier. It will require global action to deal with the problem. But first we'll have to get by this "head in the sand" due to socialist implications and increased restrictions on freedom attitude. Make no mistake about it - there will be more restrictions on freedom to pollute and more socialism (investment in public good) if for no reason other than unending population growth.

It is irresponsible to future generations for a conservative to draw a line in the sand basically saying - my freedom to pollute and do what I want with my property matters more. This is the lesson that the conservative right in America has to continue to learn and learn it they will - even if they get it learned to them by China and India - the rising powers on this earth. The question is how painful will the lesson be? The other option is to step up and lead.

At the end of the day the issue is simple. You cannot have all the freedoms that you think were envisioned by the founders of America when you have far more people than land. It simply isn't practical and does a disservice to your neighbors and future generations. The best you can do is to preserve the core freedoms that the founders of America created in the Constitution of the United States of America. You will note that none of those core freedoms gives you any right to do harm to the environment, your neighbor or future generations - the Founders of America understood that - their wisdom continues to amaze me.

I grew up more redneck conservative that 99.99% of the people on this site but I came to realize that many of those core beliefs only work in a certain kind of world - to put it simply - an uncrowded world where the impacts of people - both negative and positive - are relatively easily absorbed by the earth. I know that is not the world we live in anymore and is not the world of the future on earth. I saw some of that world and saw the beginning of it vanishing in 1963 or 1964 on a farm in Montana. My Uncle rests peacefully in a grave in a cemetery in Roberts Montana no longer an anachronism from another time.

-Ed-

PS We can get back to discussing the reality of GW anytime.

[TeaSea]

Mississippi is going to make us get out of the Pool!!

Kom.Nausicaa, I do think you miss the point of my post...however I doubt I'd be adroit enough to convince you of that. That's okay. I've learned that in debates like these few people's minds are going to be changed either way, but it is a good thing to at least hear the other person's way of thinking on an issue. Also, please be assured, I have nothing against the concept of the environmental movement...but I do have much against the way that concept is implemented, and I question the ultimate goal and yes, the basic underpinnings of the movement. When you want to figure out where you are, go back to where you started.

Let me add that this debate on "Climate Change" is sort of like a conspiracy theory. If you deny the conspiracy, then clearly you're a part of it. If you first question the data that's led us to believe we are experience dramatic climate change...then you're somehow you're not intelligent enough to understand the problem. Then, if you dare question that this issue is related to human activity, well, you are even dumber than we thought and the product of some sort of warped upbringing....I'm being factious here obviously, but the point is that there has been no tolerance for dissent in any way shape or form in any climate change discussion. Clearly a violation of the scientific method, which draws largely on healthy skepticism. Usually our use of the scientific method churns right along, but occasionally it gets thrown off track, normally by politics and economics.

I would go back to Rachel Carson here for an example. Recall that "Silent Spring" was written specifically about the use of pesticides and in particular DDT. Ms. Carson condemned DDT as causing cancer in humans and called for a worldwide ban. She was not the only one to do so. The U.S. Government was also concerned over the use of DDT, especially since it's use worldwide had grown by leaps and bounds. There were other governments concerned as well. There were some who tried to say that DDT was not a cancer causing agent, and that any potential risks far outweighed the benefits. Very quickly that position became untenable as any dissent was crushed. The banning of DDT was pushed by the West (U.S. in particular) and the use of DDT was halted. Let me add that while there was much discussion on DDT being a potential carcinogen, there was no direct data the said that it was. All was conjecture, hearsay, and anecdote. However, to get funding for your lab, you would not hesitate to state your intense concern over the use of DDT, and that you needed funding to test for that.

DDT was used primarily to spray for mosquito's in malarial areas. These would be areas not in Europe or the U.S. but rather Africa and South East Asia. Malaria is one of the top killers of human beings in the world (competing with pneumonia, dysentary, and in the case of some developing countries, HIV/AIDS). Up to a million people a year die from malaria (most of those are brown people, not the white people who made the DDT decisions). Since the banning of DDT over 50 million people have died from the disease. There are those who believe Carson is progenitor of the greatest genocide ever inflicted on the human race. I am not one of those who believe that contention. I strongly suspect that constant warfare in some of these areas, economic deprivation, and absolute poverty have more to do with it than the loss of DDT, but having DDT as a weapon in the anti-malarial fight certainly would have helped since nothing as effective has yet to come along.

Oddly enough, it was ultimately determined that DDT is not a carcinogen. Ironically Ms. Carson died of breast cancer in 1964 -- obviously not from DDT exposure.

I use this as an example of why a fair degree of healthy skepticism is called for when these "trust us, we know better" calls for action come in. Particularly regarding this issue, where so much governmental funding depends upon having the "right" outlook.

We've been down this road before.

[Ken Stallings]

The next part of the discussion might focus more on exactly how we are going to wean ourselves from fossil fuel dependency, rather than "if"...

I will try to give a very succinct answer ...

We will never accomplish this goal, nor do I think the goal is even meritable.

It's not merely for fuel that we use petroleum. The bigger impact is on petro-chemicals, and the largest portion of that use is plastics. They have revolutionized human life in ways hard to appreciate. About the only way is to ask you to look around in whatever room you are now in reading these words and consider how much of what you see are plastics or other petro-chemical products.

It is easy to say, "I want something." It is far harder to accurately say, "I will achieve something." Achievement requires not only a plan and a desire, but also a rational method.

Petroleum will no longer be used for fuels when something better is found. Better means not only equally effective, but also equally affordable and available. In terms of petro-chemical applications, I think it is very accurate to say it will never be truly replaced and most certainly not in the lifetimes of any human over the next century or two.

Ken

[Ken Stallings]

Brilliant post, TeaSea. Let me add that I also recall that recently DDT has been used in some of these infested areas as the need has overriden any previous concerns.

Unfortunately, as often happens with insects, their sheer numbers and reproduction rates mean that even a sliver population immune to the pesticide will rapidly produce swarms of resistent insects. That appears to have happened with DDT in some areas.

But you are right, nothing better has been developed. And many people have died because it was prematurely banned from use.

Ken

[Ken Stallings]

Just to comment: I don't believe mankind can be saved, or minimum, the world as we know it. Reading up on the matter since years, with real investment, not only forum talks and blogosphere, I have come to the conclusion we won't make it this time around. The comprehension of this complex matter is too slow, the lobby of the fossil industry too strong, and the time too short.

Sorry, Naus, but as you further reveal your innermost thoughts, I have no choice but to conclude you are becoming extreme in your thought process.

As a matter of semantics, to say, "we wont' make it this time ..." leads me to wonder what thought process produced that observation? There is not another time. This is not a parallel universe of humanity with do-overs and make up games!

Perhaps the reason why the world won't achieve things at the pace and level you vehemently demand of it is that folks have concluded there is just one humanity and we exist merely once. If we screw this up either by misprioritizing our economies on the desire of meeting a theory, or denude our landscapes and poison our environments, then the outcome is likely to be no different.

I don't share your pessimism. No doubt you conclude therefore that I "don't get it," but instead, I think I "do get it." I think that again you fail to realize and appreciate just how far the US as a nation has come since the days of even the 1970's. Take a trip to Pittsburgh or New York City. The areas there are clean and beautiful. They were not always that way four decades ago, but a lot was done to clean things up.

We in America have spent a lot of treasure and effort to improve our environment. I think we deserve a lot of credit for that. But, most of those improvements were the result of individual enterprise based on individual conclusions. America may not represent the vast government orchestrated efforts it appears you would like to see.

But, I believe the combined efforts of millions of free-minded and freedom-empowered people can achieve great things. So, I don't share your gloomy assessment. The only thing that really concerns me is the results once more of the contrived efforts are revealed to paint a singular picture on global warming. I am concerned that amid the righteous responses, we might also get an overreaction as people discount the value of the rational choices and methods that would yeild good results.

Environmentalism doesn't need scare tactics to perpetuate its wisdom. And left to the rational choices on the rational timelines, improvements will be realized in their own time and with lasting positive results people can count on.

Ken

[mississippi]

Mississippi is going to make us get out of the Pool!!



How dede you no . :salute: :wavey:

[Gramps]

Since there are some on here that don't know how to play nice, looks like this one has gone down the drain too.