Al Gore and Global Warming!

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

Pretty Interesting...

Very interesting Darrin. Unfortunately, not very surprising though. The sense of entitlement among so many of the rich & famous in all areas, not just environmental policy, seems to know no bounds. In their eyes, what's good for the goose has nothing to do with what's good for the gander.

A "red flag" waved in my mind when I read the first line of the website offered by Darrin.Not surprising that there is a personal attack on Al Gore upon his receiving an award for a documentary that focuses our attention on Global Warming. Without even touching upon ones approval or rejection of Al Gore as a person, I am offended by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research representing itself as a "independent, non-partisan" think tank for the following reasons.

This is a classic example of a so-called independent propaganda machine that is not interested in truth so much as it is blatantly focused on undermining the message by undermining the messenger. How do I come to that conclusion? Let me explain.

I know exactly what my wife and I spent on utilities last year, less than $900 for electricity and propane gas combined, that for a YEAR! We live at the opposite end of the spectrum from the Gores... extremely remotely located with only a very occasional visitor. If we were to visit their home, I expect we would find that it functions as far more than a abode for a small family... I would expect an endless appearance of guests, extended family, and a huge amount of business related activity. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the Gore's home is far more than the average American family's abode in the manner that it functions. So to compare it to the average is immediately a warning to me that the propagators of such an unfair condemnation of the Gores have an ulterior objective and it is not the "truth." But truth or not, it is extremely effective to feed the sheep who fearfully hate change and need to follow all these dishonest think tank messages. If it were possible to follow the money that produces these think tanks, it would be possible to see that they are funded by those who fear forced change to their high profit, earth harming activities.

Terry - honestly, the fearful one here seems to be you. Why shouldn't Gore, or any messenger for any cause be held accountable? Rationalize as you may, there still seems to be a large disconnect between the attitudes of the those who "know what's best for the rest of us poor ignorant souls" and themselves.

I have witnessed this very much first hand. I have a client and friend, an attorney, who is quite wealthy and is well connected with Gore, Kennedy (River Keeper, not Ted), et al. He can be a very nice man, very personable, and is very active in environmental issues (as long as there is a political agenda attached). I have personally witnessed him destroy another local environmentalist because the other person wouldn't give in to his wishes and do things his way. They were fighting for the same cause, but ended up fighting each other. The issue between them wasn't science related or anything, it was because the other person criticized his "methods", such as hosting an environmental fundraiser aboard his 120' yatch. Unfortunately, my friend isn't truly interested in the environment anywhere near as much as he is for the contacts and personal gain that comes from the movement. Like it or not, that's the true, and it's not just the truth for him, but for many of the social elite, both in conservative and liberal quarters.

The "electric bill" story was headline news here on a local Nasville News broadcast this morning. Nothing wrong with living "high on the hog", mind you, just don't do it and preach conservationism at the same time if you expect to be taken seriously.

He has a hard time convincing Tennesseans about much of anything. We know him better than most folks do and he couldn't even carry Tennessee in his bid for the Presidency.

I do, however, appreciate one of his success stories a lot...the internet.

Bill, thanks for addressing me personally, I've been wondering if you were going to. Perhaps you're right about me being fearful, because I definietly fear a planet so polluted that you can't breathe the air; and all wild places and wild things have been lost to the greedy hand of big business as usual.

Now, in regards to your story of your client friend, I think this is probably a pretty good example of a lot of what is wrong in the world regardless if you lean "left" or "right." Sometimes it seems that its all about personal power. I am not supporting Gore, I am attacking the manipulation by conservative think tanks.

There is a long list of examples of how effectively these conservative people operate. And you have to look no farther than what takes place prior to a major election in this country. My reference to the fearful sheep that follow is how they tend to believe think tank propaganda at the expense of the real issues. Why do I say fearful? People hate change; and conservative propaganda mills exploit this to further their agendas... which is business as usual. For balance, I must state that over-the-top zealots on the environmental side, have overstated gloom and doom, distracting from truth, as well. So what do you believe? I prefer to lean to smaller profits for the filthy rich and more safe guards for a healthy planet. Right now, greed rules!

Reminds me of Cheryl David, the wife of Larry David, and her rants against big SUVs. At the same time, they live in a "gas guzzling" house like the Gores. Like Mike said, it's impossible to take any of these clowns seriously. The real shame, as Terry has alluded to, is that the important messages of energy conservation, global warming, etc. take on a "hollywood atmosphere" because of "celebrity hypocrites" like Al Gore and Cheryl David. I hold Hollywood in the same regard as most politicians.

And there is more than enough propoganda coming from both sides. Living in the metro NY area, we get our daily bombardment from the liberal left (where people like "Ozone Al" and "Hil" are the local media sweethearts), just as people in other parts of the country get it from the conservative right. The truth is out there, it's just a matter of sifting through all of the hyperbole to find it.

The reason that I put this link on here was to show the relationship between what our "politians" and others who are gaining either votes or compensation from the general public and what they are "really" doing when the rubber hits the road. I could care less if Al Gore was a Democrate, Republican, or Communist, what I care about is what people like him do when they gain office or a position in the private sector that can influence what the general public feels about the current situation in our country or since we live in a global economy now...the world.

Now I am not a Democrate or a Republican, or for that matter an Independent. I am an American, and I feel that it is time that those of us who want "MY" vote need to start telling me the truth! Not just say what they think that I need to hear on tv just so that I will vote them into an office. I can honestly say that I do NOT trust anything that I hear from anyone, on either side. An election is a choice for the lesser of two evils anymore! I thought this was just another example!

Darrin, amen!

I don't really have any vested interest in Al Gore personally. I just hope this will not impact people's interest and desire to address this grave issue. This is not an Al Gore issue, it's one scientists are practically unanimous about.

Bill to what degree do you hold the messenger accountable and to what degree do their actions reflect on the validity of their cause?

Before you answer, consider the following:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" / Thomas Jefferson (slave owner)

Should we consider the US Constitution tainted?

"Concern for man and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors." / Albert Einstein (who prompted president Roosevelt to study nuclear fission for military purposes)

etc.

Many other great thinkers were also guilty of philandering, plagiarism, racism, alcoholism, drug abuse etc?

All humans are flawed. This should not distract from the veracity of any particular goal they happen to promote.

Sure, I'd like to see Gore held up to his own words. I'd like to see the same for any number of others as well. Still, let the witch hunt not distract from the fact that we may be facing one of the most significant threats to life as we know it.

Guy

Terry, I share your fears concerning pollution and global warming, but I don't necessarily see the "conservative think tanks" as being the problem. They're no different than the "liberal think tanks". Both are agenda driven, and are totally corrupted by money and ideology. Neither wants the issues to be solved because they would then be out of jobs - it's that simple. Two real problems exist - ordinary people don't know what to believe because of all the conflicting BS that's strewn about by the special interests, and most don't REALLY care enough to get involved. They figure that's what they elected other people to handle, even though they know the elected aren't going to do anything truly constructive.

I don't necessarily agree with the "greed rules" analysis though. Most companies only do what the public demands of them. As long as the public demands the cheapest possible price, companies will do what's necessary to provide that, and the environment will suffer. When we the consumers demand that companies be more responsible, and pony up the extra cost that entails, then corporations with respond in that fashion. It's too easy to just blame greedly corporations, we're all the part of the problem.

Guy, I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that we're facing a very significant threat; therefore I think the messenger should be held even more accountable because the stakes are so high. If you don't have trust in the messenger, it's hard for many people to trust the message, especially with so many conflicting opinions being thrown about. Therefore, a politician may not the most favorable spokesman for any particular cause simply because 50% of the people don't believe them anyway. Unfotunately, scientists don't draw big crowds and attention.

Leaving to head out of town now, but will rejoin the thread later this evening. Everyone take care.

Bill said;

When we the consumers demand that companies be more responsible, and pony up the extra cost that entails, then corporations with respond in that fashion. It's too easy to just blame greedly corporations, we're all the part of the problem.

Bingo! Change begins with each of us individually, and how we conduct our own affairs. Drive less, keep the heating thermostat set lower, use energy-efficent lighting, etc. - all things we are doing here at the Erhardt residence.

To Guy's point, the difference is that politicians are professional liars and will do/say anything to promote themselves. They purposely and deliberately mislead the the sheeple. One can support the cause, but still not trust/like/respect the messenger, of which pointing out their hypocrisy is a part.

Al Gore oughtta take a lesson from Amory Lovins, who does walk the walk. Check out the Rocky Moutain Institute: http://www.rmi.org/

I usually try to stay away from such political topics since we are in a photography forum, but I have just one thing to say on this matter.

Despite the fact that I am in favor of protecting nature and doing things to help save the planet from dying a slow death; I cannot but trust Al Gore when he makes global warming an issue.

Afterall, he was the VP at the exact same time when Kyoto Protocol was given a 95-0 hammering in the Senate which he presided over and he didn't do a single thing when he himeself was in power.

It would be refreshing to have some leaders that would lead by example rather than telling everyone else what they should do.

Bill

I think when chunks of ice the size of Rhode Island break away from Antarctica, when the Great Barrier Reef is dying because of increasing water temperatures, and when glaciers are melting on a worldwide scale, we probably ought to be discussing more than Al Gore's utility bill. It's always easy to shoot the messenger. In reality, Gore deserves lots of credit for taking what was an important, but certainly obscure, issue and bringing it before the public.
The fact that his high profile essentially demands, and is getting, a response is so much the better. So when guys like Drudge begin to show some data demonstrating that, for example, the strife in Darfur is not tied to a shift in rainfall patterns that is in turn tied to warming of the Indian Ocean that is then linked to greenhouse gases, I'll pay attention. Until then, they're just a bunch of empty barrels making noise. Way to go, Al!

On a much less serious note, I'm always amused when today's conservatives whale on Hollywood. They must have forgotten Ronald Reagan. I wish I could. Even today, for every George Cloony or Susan Sarandon, there's a Mel Gibson or Bruce Willis. Not to mention The Duke himself. Or Moses. So Hollywood has its dark side as well. But I guess when you can't defend results, or policies, or your position on issues, it's always nice to be able to trot out Leo DiCaprio and show how he's ruining the country.

Jim, the first thing I said to my wife after watching the movie was that Gore was being hypocritical. I won't go into the specific reasons because, again, I don't want to distract from the far more important issues and valid science he DID illustrate.

Believe me, I have very little trust in any politicians. Still, if we get into the "who told how many lies about what" debate, I am confident Gore will still fare much much better than many of his colleagues. Let's keep everyone equally accountable for both words and actions (and inaction) but not at the expense of taking our eye off the REAL issue here.

Guy

I am a married 26-year-old from Nebraska living paycheck to paycheck in Chicago while my wife is in graduate school. I can't afford ultra-efficient appliances and living spaces, I can't afford a new ultra-efficient car, I can't donate large sums of money to conservation organizations, I barely find enough time to do my photography, let alone volunteer for conservation groups. My current position in life does not allow for me to focus on living a "greener," more aware lifestyle. Does this mean that I should quit photography as a way to promote conservation? I am a hypocrite if I don't, right? Currently my photography is the only thing that I am doing to help the environment, so if I am put to the same test as Mr. Gore, I fair no better.

However, I am at least trying to do something. Trying in some way to offset the things that I can't currently change. For that I feel I am not a hypocrite and deserve a little credit. Though Al Gore can afford to change his lifestyle, he should at least be given some kudos for doing more than a lot of millionaires in this world.

I am reminded of something that National Geographic photographer Joel Sartore, who specializes in endangered species and environmental issues, once said. While talking about what he does for a living he said "I'm not a tree-hugger. I drive a car that burns gasoline, I live in a house that I heat with natural gas. I am very much a part of American society." I think this resonates because here is a person that devotes his whole life to promoting conservation but he cannot fully escape the problem. All he can do, like all of us, is try to somehow offset the problems that we create, and hope that in some way a little bit of that mindset rubs off on people.

When the time is right (hopefully in the near future) I fully plan to live a greener lifestyle, I plan to donate more of my money, I plan to volunteer my time, and I hope to further promote conservation with my photography. However, until that time comes and my life allows for more flexibility I will have to be content with being a hypocrite.

You can't believe everything you read...from either side...you've got to ask some questions. Come on, let's do a little work here. First, what does Gore have to say about his electricity consumption? Secondly, how does his home size compare with others and how does THAT compare with his electricity usage? What's the background of the group that put out this press release? What was their goal and agenda? Like Terry said, I imagine Gore's house is a tad bit bigger with lots of guests and security that we don't all have using up some of that. But again, I'm just guessing...let's get some facts here before jumping the gun.

I just found this in a related story on CNN.com:

"The Gore's purchase all of their power through the local Green Powerswitch program -- it is 100 percent renewable power."

"In addition, they are in the midst of a renovation which includes installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Gore's spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said in a statement.

They're loving this over in Limbaugh-land....

Hi John - Actually there are a lot of scientists who question the warming data. I don't throw this out there because I support their claims, but they're not all quacks either. Some are very sincere, and are certainly qualified. They don't deny global warming, only mankind's contribution to it. It just goes to show you how complex the issue is. The way I see it, if we can handle the pollution issue and it turns out it wasn't the cause, we're still way ahead of the game.

Regardless of what's the cause of global warming, reducing mankind's pollution will be a huge benefit for all future generations.

I do believe that the burning of fossil fuels has - to at least some degree - contributed to yet another cycle of climate change on Earth. The big question is how much and what can we do about it?

While they're trying to figure that out, I'll do my best to reduce my contribution to the problem. And if Al Gore's movie inspires others do the same, then kudos to him.

Security at Gore's house take up a lot of electricity. Lights on all the time, intrusions systems, video systems, staff etc. I house like that is really more of a business.

I didn't have a problem with the issue in Gore documentary. I had a big problem with how he worked to tie himself to the issue. He turned off many more right leaning voters than he realizes.

OK, I'm feeling contrary today so I'll take the unpopular position and let folks pound on me.

First, I'm tired of hearing the phrase "scientific consesus". It doesn't matter how many scientists believe something. Truth is what matters. There was a time when the "scientific consesus" said that the Sun revolved around the Earth until one single scientist said it wasn't so. There are many more similar examples. Consesus has nothing to do with science so please stop talking about "scientific consensus".

Second, many "scientific" studies of anthropogenic climate change are based on statistical analysis and computer modeling. This is not science. The truly scientific studies often come to the conclusion that more study is needed. This translates to "Give us more grant money." Imagine my surprise. Yes, I'm cynical but I wasn't born that way.

Third, there isn't enough hard data. The famous "hockey stick" graph shows a sharp increase in global temperature over the last decade or so. Is this the begining of a long term trend or just a blip? We don't know because there isn't enough data.

So, is anthropogenic climate change a myth? I don't know. It's unfortunate that an issue as important as this has become so political. In politics, as in war, truth is the first casualty. I doubt that either side of this debate has been entirely honest. Cynical again? You bet.

And now for the question nobody wants to discuss: Is global warming a bad thing?
Consider that Earth's climate is not static. It won't stay the same as it has been over the long term. It will either get warmer or it will get colder. Which is good and which is bad? It all depends on who you are and where you are. Or, as my father used to say, it all depends on who's ox is being gored. Personally, I'll take a heat wave over an ice age any day.

Cheers and feel free to hammer away,

Bill, the gold standard for scientific data is peer-reviewed published research. Do you know of any that claims human activity is not a major contributing factor to global warming?

Guy

I haven't seen the movie but plan to. I think more emphasis should be on the message rather than what he does himself. If he is saying legit stuff then that's what really matters. People can debate how much of global warming is caused by man but there is no question that human activities release a certain amount of CO2. To me that is enough to know that there is some impact on the planet.

Guy - there are certainly claims of that sort. Do I support them? Absolutely not, but this is the type of information out there that causes so much confusion among people. Add to that the additional polarization caused by agenda driven politics on both sides and many people don't know what to believe. Like I mentioned to John, whether humans are the cause or not shouldn't keep us from attacking the human based pollution problem. In other words, fix the human related issues whether they're the cause or not. In 50 years, if we look back and discovered we took the human equation out of global warming and then discovered it wasn't the cause, who cares, we're still better off.

Somehow, I get the notion you think I'm opposing you on the issue. I'm not. My original argument was related to ole Al, and I still stand by that. An issue as important as this needs to have a messenger that is believable in order for his message to be believed.

I don't really buy your earlier Thomas Jefferson comparison. Taken in context to today's values your argument makes sense, but at the time that passage was written slaves weren't considered people, but property, the same as cattle, etc. Taken in that context, the passage was consistent with the values and social moires of that time. Even if that wasn't the case, it doesn't make sense to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

Always enjoy a good, rousing discussion. Take care.

Earth's climate is very dynamic and is constantly changing - and sometimes quite drastically with no help from man;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Boy! I go outside for a few hours work and when I get back in, you folks have been really hashing this out! There is an awful lot to try to absorb. Just wish to comment on a few things that jump out at me.

Bill, I agree that think tanks are influenced by “money and ideology.” I do not agree that conservative think tanks are “no different than liberal think tanks.” For one thing, there are considerably more conservative think tanks because they represent big business and therefore, have available funding. The biggest difference between them is that liberal think tanks tend to be ideological in nature. I think saving our planet is not a bad ideology.

Jim, “ozone Al?” I think that pretty well covers how you feel about Al Gore.

Pete, Kudos. Your analysis of the situation is stated most eloquently.

Bill, Portugal outlawed slavery in 1761 and Britain made slavery illegal in 1772 so for all intents an purposes slave owners in a British colony in 1776 were breaking the law and very well aware that considering slaves as property was no longer a popular concept.

I actually didn't think we disagreed. My point was to separate the wheat from the chaff. There will always be a multitude of opinions but peer-reviewed publications are a notch above any given scientist's personal views. As far as I know peer-reviewed research on climate change is fairly unanimous in concluding human impact.

Guy

Well, I hate to bail on this discussion, but I'm out of town and will be tied up all day tomorrow. Will check back in on Thursday to see how things are progressing. Take care all.

And what is ‘truth’ (on global warming)? And how do you know that it is?

I believe I answered this question in my first post where I said:

So, is anthropogenic climate change a myth? I don't know. It's unfortunate that an issue as important as this has become so political. In politics, as in war, truth is the first casualty. I doubt that either side of this debate has been entirely honest.

John Christopher wrote:

It was the predominant, “commonly held belief,” based on authority -- ecclesiastical authority.

Hipparchus and, later, Ptolemy were certainly not ecclesiastical authorities. I suppose it's a stretch to call them scientists by today's standards but they are prominent figures in the evolution of science from the Greek natural philosophers like Aristotle, through the medieval alchemists to modern scientists. They were the closest thing to scientists in their era. Even if Copernicus was influenced by earlier Greek, Islamic, and Indian writers, that one man had a profound effect on science and religion.

Peer review as a process of building scientific consensus is indeed the gold standard in science.

Peer review is not about building a consesus. It's about repeatability of experimental results. Remember cold fusion? The original experimental results were published and then other scientists were unable to repeat them. Thus, cold fusion failed peer review and was discarded although a few researchers still tinker with it.

By the way, I'm not a scientist. I don't even play one on the internet.

So… I guess you would disagree with e.g. the scientists mentioned in articles like this one And… perhaps you can point us to some of your own published research?

Yes! This is exactly the kind of junk that often passes for science these days. I can't argue with the math they used because I wouldn't understand it but I'm certain that their sample size (35 years) is statisticaly insignificant in climatological time frames. Lets look at their conclusion in the last paragraph of that article:

The link between rising ocean temperatures and overall climate change remains murky because of the overlap between natural cycles and any global warming. "But if you buy the argument that global warming is causing the increase in sea surface temperatures--and everybody seems to be buying this--[except me, it seems -MS] then it's a pretty small leap to say global warming is causing this increase [in hurricane frequency]," Curry says

Roughly translated this says "We don't know. Give us more money and we'll study some more". Just like I said in my earlier message. But wait, it gets worse. The last paragraph continues:

Her team will now focus on clarifying the mechanisms at work in the North Atlantic by separating out the 75-year natural cycle and climate change.

It sounds like they are going to throw out the data that doesn't agree with their theory. Junk. Pure junk.

Finally, please read the last paragraph of my message again.

Consider that Earth's climate is not static. It won't stay the same as it has been over the long term. It will either get warmer or it will get colder. Which is good and which is bad?

It's my opinion "more of the same" is not an option and that the effects of global cooling woud be much worse than the effects of global warming. I think global warming is the lesser evil.

Thanks, my dictionary got quite a workout this evening.

Cheers,

In my oppinion, all boils down to: is polution bad or good thing. And: shall we do something about it or not.

I only laugh when our meteorologists talk about long time studies, and they are only 100 years old. Is Earth warming? Is it warming because of humans impact up on it? Figuratively I don't care! Our activity is causing habitat shrinking (being city expansion, building of new highways, hydroelectric power stations, ..., just name it) and is causing biodiversity shrinking with it too. We consume way too much. Just check Chris Jordan's page. Would you believe all those numbers? I was shocked, to be polite. My statement is, that every creature have a right to live (OK, I'll not take mosquitoes for granted ). And because of that, like Jim said, everyone shall do something. Al made a documentary, good. If you are questioning his role, ask yourself, what have you done instead of why he did something.

Marko

Terry said;

Jim, “ozone Al?” I think that pretty well covers how you feel about Al Gore.

Yes, it does. I think he's just another self-serving politician who is now also a Hollywood poster boy. http://prorev.com/gore.htm

OK, enough of my OA bashing. So we all agree that reducing the consumption of fossil fuels is a really good idea - it good for the environment, and good for the U.S.A. if we could tell the Middle East to take their oil and do you-know-what with it (a very high priority, IMO).

Again, I believe our only hope is a grassroots approach. Government doesn't have the guts to do what is needed (they worry too much about getting re-elected) and big-biz will keep supplin' as long as we keep buyin'. So the effort to conserve all starts with us as individuals.

Here is what I do;

1. Since I now work from home - something that took much time and effort to achieve - I have reduced my personal consumption of gasoline by over 70%

2. We use flourescent light bulbs in our home - they use about 20% of the electricity of an incandescent bulb

3. We keep our heating thermostat set much lower than in the past - now typically 62 degrees

I'm not looking to be a poster boy here, just passing on some ideas on energy saving that we have successfully integrated into our lifestyle.

Here's what I think Big Brother should consider doing;

1. Give tax incentives to companies who develop work-at-home programs

2. Give tax incentives to companies who develop on-site over night accomodations for workers so they do not have to commute.

3. Give tax incentives to indiviuals who use less energy

4. In a more Draconian approach, impose a "gas stamps" program that limits people to how much gasoline they are allowed to buy (I hate this idea, but not as much as I hate the idea of being dependent on Middle East oil).

More ideas on saving energy?

Jim, first of all, we are not talking about US alone. There is a whole world outside US borders, you know .

But on less energy consumption: what about buying things that consumes less energy? I'm not talking just about cars, but other things too. In EU there is a scale of energy consumption for kitchen machinery like washing machines, refrigerators and things. And if one is buying at least "A" class machinery or better yet "A+", can save a lot of energy. Then, how about switching off the lights that you do not need, switching off computer that you are not using, turn the water off when you are washing teeth, and so on and on.

These are small things, but a small multiplied a lot of times could mean a lot. And every one can contribute.

Marko

Marko, good points! I refer to the U.S. only because (1) that is where I live and (2) that the U.S. is currently the world's foremost consumer of energy. Of course, the U.S. will soon loose its "greenhouse gas emissions title" to China, a country with ZERO concern for the environment, and evidently, zero concern about what anyone else thinks of that.

Here in the U.S. we also have an "Energy Star" rating for all electrical appliances.

These are small things, but a small multiplied a lot of times could mean a lot. And every one can contribute.

Exactly!

Energy is the tip of the iceberg. Man is consuming the resources of the planet faster than the planet can recover. Whether it be energy, water or food there is a finite supply. How many rivers no longer flow their entire lengths? How many wells need to be drilled deeper because the aquafers continue to drop? Agriculture has made great strides in the past few hundred years. An individual farmer can now feed 125 others. In large part this accomplished with large monocropping agriculture. This approach can be hit hard with climate change either natural or man made. Areas that now grow a very large percentage of a given crop can quickly become too wet or too dry or too cold or too hot to continue to produce that crop. I think feeding the worlds population will become a problem long before the coastal cities need to be evacuated due to rising seas.

Jim wrote:

... and good for the U.S.A. if we could tell the Middle East to take their oil and do you-know-what with it...

Jim, while I share this sentiment, I think it's important to understand where the US gets its imported oil. According to DOE's Energy Information Administration the top five exporting countries accounted for 69 percent of United States crude oil imports. In order, the those top five countries are Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria. So the US is not (or at least shouldn't be) as beholden to Middle Eastern countries as is commonly believed. Still, it wouldn't exactly break my heart if the US never purchased another drop of crude from the Middle East. Especially if the reason was that we didn't need it.

Cheers,

" Energy is the tip of the iceberg. Man is consuming the resources of the planet faster than the planet can recover. Whether it be energy, water or food there is a finite supply."

We may have a water distribution problem in some areas, but we aren't using up water. Just because too many people choose to live in the desert doesn't mean that water is like oil. There's no food shortage, just the inability to pay.

I also saw the piece that Justin cited about the Gores using all renewable energy and installing solar panels. It also pointed out that this raises their energy bill about 5K per year, and that the original information came from a Republician group that often debunked global warming. So it appears that ol' Al really does walk the walk and that this was probably an attempt to swift-boat him after the Oscar. Besides, if you really wanted to make this comparison, it should be done on non-renewable energy consumption / sq. ft. of area / person. Al might look pretty good then.

Of more interest in this thread is the number of you who think all politicans are useless. That's a cop-out. Although we've certainly had our share of heros and bums over the years, we're not going to solve something on the scale of global climate change without a functioning political system. I know all of us do what we can to reduce energy consumption etc., but the fact is that it won't be enough soon enough. The world turns on ledership, and although we've seen precious little of it lately, it's still the one trait that makes a difference. We're starting to see it at the municipal and state levels as mayors and governors respond to climate change, but really it's only the federal government that is powerful enough to make the need changes both domestically and internationally. All politicans think about reelection. They all triangulate. It's part of the job. It's the ones that do it for the public good that we need to put in office. The others need to go back to Texas.

In the '70's most people rolled their eyes when Jimmy Carter called the energy crisis the moral equivalent of war. Think we'd be better off today if we approached it that way? We may have avoided more costly wars. Carter wasn't a strong enough leader to implement his vision, but that doesn't mean we stop trying.

OK, I'll go back to scanning elk slides now....

Interesting NYtines article yesterday about Stewart Brand who predicts environmentalists' embracing nuclear power. You may need to be registered to read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/science/earth/27tier.html?ex=1173330000&en=6c9d3cf11e9de732&ei=5070&emc=eta1

alt link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/science/earth/27tier.html?ref=science

Pete said;

Of more interest in this thread is the number of you who think all politicans are useless. That's a cop-out.

It's not a "cop-out" - it's reality. If politicians were 1/10th as efficient in doing their jobs as most of us have to be to earn a living (and pay for their salaries/perks in the process), we wouldn't be in such a mess now.

Pete, I truly do NOT believe government is going to solve any problems - they are much more adept at making them. Unless each of us grabs the bull by the horn and simply start using less, nothing will ever be resolved.

Yes, call me a cynic but I have lost faith in government, and that seems to be a recurring theme through the history of civilization.

PS - I think a new button needs to be added to all voting machines - None of the Above.

I am just questioning this notion that man is the sole cause of global warming. Certainly Man is contributing to it. But nature may have a hand in it too. Glaciers have been receding steadily over the last 100 years or more. To claim that Man is the cause a hundred years ago is unrealistic. Polution and greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide) are cited as culprits in global warming and which Man has contributed. There has been several significant volcanic eruptions during the last century. The amount of dust poured into the atmosphere from even a single one of these eruptions is phenomenal. Can Man compare? How much C02 (carbon dioxide) does a single eruption throw into the atmosphere? How does this compare to Man's burning of fossil fuels?

As Jim states, the earth's climate is very dynamic and is constantly changing.

Although global warming is a concern, I believe the earth will endure and so will mankind upon it.

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

I don't think anyone (reputable) says man is the sole cause. Eventually, nature is going to kill me. If someone sticks a knife in my heart, they will kill me faster. That's what's going on. Trying to prevent an untimely demise. Yes, people will endure. Some people will endure better than others. The fact is, we're in very real danger of bringing something on ourselves that's going to be a catastrophe for a lotta people. The sad thing is that so many people are fine with that.

One Al Gore isn't fine with it, yet he seems to be a prime target. I wonder what the folks who criticize him are doing about this issue - other than sit on internet boards and bad mouth someone. If you don't like his ways, get up there next to him, push him aside, and show everyone how you'd do things differently. If you are up to it, I can assure you that you'll get my vote.

To answer Will's questions about volcanoes vs. anthropogenic carbon dioxide contributions, with emphasis added on the figures:

From the US Geological Survey's Volcanic Hazards: Gases page:

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

To Darren,
BRAVO AND A HEARTY AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In my last two posts I used the term “Scientific consensus.” In case anyone thought that was just a fancy terms that I made up, this link goes into some depth as to when and how the term is used, and how it relates to “Peer review.”

Thanks for the Wikipedia link. Let's all read it together. Here are the first two sentences of that article (with added emphasis):

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time. Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method; however, the content of the consensus may itself be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm tired this evening so I'll leave it to folks with more energy to read up on the scientific method (pay close attention to the part about objectivity) and then, armed with that knowledge, read the Georgia Tech article and decide for themselves.

It can, indeed, be remarkably easy to be well informed. It's even easier, but so much more dangerous, to accept, without question or critical thought, the dogma espoused by authority figures, be they government authorities, religous authorities, or scientific authorities.

Cheers,

Anil said;

I wonder what the folks who criticize him are doing about this issue - other than sit on internet boards and bad mouth someone. If you don't like his ways, get up there next to him, push him aside, and show everyone how you'd do things differently.

OK, Jim Erhardt for President! Off the top of my head;

Campaign Reform

1. Candidtate would be forbidden by law to talk about the other candidtates - they would only be allowed to talk about themselves, their ideas and how they would handle the issues.

2. Outlaw campaign contributions - all candidtates would receive identical funding from a single source (tax payer $$) and would be given guidelines on how the (our) $$ could be spent.

3. Only during televised debates would the candidates be allowed to refer to another candidate in any way, shape or form.

Perhaps with these changes, we could get some decent, honest folks to run for office without fear of being caught in the childish mud slinging fests/character assisinations we must currently endure with every political campaign.

Term Limitations

All offices would have term limitations and a maximum amount of years any one person would be allowed to serve in public office. The career politicians have to go (and no more taxpayer-paid 737s to ferry them back and forth to the job)!

In a previous post I outlined some ideas on how to help reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.

OK, do I have your vote (sorry, I have no Hollywood credentials)?

Jim, You've got my vote!

One addition however. No elected official would be allowed to accept a lobbyist position within 10 years of getting out of office.


Also, Anil's viewpoint is appreciated, but should apply consistently to all politician's not just liberal ones. All too often it seems people are only offended by attacks on their party, not the opposition. George Bush and Bill Clinton have been two of the most verbally shredded policticians ever, so neither party has any claim on civility. Personally, I have no use for either one of these guys, but find it humorous how defensive and indignant people get about their party being attcked while attacking the opposition like a crazed Pit Bull.

Bill, great addition to the list!

"Politics" is just dirty stuff and brings out the frustration most of us feel. This is why I never cared for the idea of discussing politics on NPN - it's more divisive than anything else, and rarely results in any kind of useful consensus.

I think we should all realize that we are - for the most part - on the same page when it comes to these important issues. And if we all do something about it in our own ways - whether that is voting/campaigning for someone in particular or just reducing personal energy consumption - perhaps we can have a positive effect. I think in those terms, we are in unanimous agreement.

OK, do I have your vote (sorry, I have no Hollywood credentials)?

Sorry Jim, not on that platform. I fear most of your campaign reform ideas run afoul of the First Amendment.

My suggestion for campaign reform, which might also require a constitutional amendment, is to ban any campaigning during a term of office. In other words, once elected to office you can't run for that office or any other office until your term expired. Resign all you want, it doesn't matter, your term hasn't expired. All politicians would be lame ducks and they could get on with the job they were elected for without being distracted by campaigning.

Cheers,

Better yet Mark - term limits. No person shall serve more than 10 years TOTAL in any or all federally elected positions, and zero consecutive terms in any position. You serve 6 years in congress, and 4 as President, and you're out outta there! AND, the politician's federal prison terms count toward the total!

Mark said;

Sorry Jim, not on that platform. I fear most of your campaign reform ideas run afoul of the First Amendment.

Yeah, I guess you're right but it sure would be nice not having to listen to that BS every election, wouldn't it?

I've been trying to follow this, and I can't say that I have understood every nuance twist and turn these arguments have been taking. When you talk about what this ancient dude said opposed to that ancient dude, what is science and what is not, I'm lost.But when you say all politicians are corrupt and all Hollywood poster persons are not worth listening to, I understand what's being said and I can not agree. Whether it be a matter of faith or politics, all that each one of us (who is a thinking person) can do is choose a position that makes sense of our own view of spirituality and the world. Now I am a person of faith who also believes deeply in trying to save wild things and wild places. Even though I am a simple person, I have no problem separating those people in power who always seem to back the side pursuing profane profits from those who, warts and all, are pursuing a worthwhile ideology. I would tell no one that Al Gore is perfect. But when I compare him to our present day vice-president, and think about preserving nature, he deserves a halo in comparison. What I don't understand, in spite of all the spin that has been taking place here, is why that is not evident to all? So to say that no politician can be believed, and no celebrity has a cause worth following is pure nonsense. There is absoluely no one size that fits all. To paint everyone with the same brush, all the same color, leaves the painter's credibility in doubt.

Thanks John, that makes sense. Perhaps a large part of what you are reading in my last post was my own overwhelming need to believe in others and in worthwhile causes. Also, no need to apologize about confusing me. It was easy for me to recognize that you and say, Mark Sahlke, as an example, are heavy hitters in intellectual debate. Not being as well read in many of the topics you bring into this, all I can do is read with my mouth open. Anyway, thanks again John, you give me lots to think about rather than to react to.

You are too kind, Terry. Speaking for myself (and ...quoting Groucho...) “I've always had an idea that my retirement would be the greatest contribution to science the world has ever known.”

There's something we can agree on. I feel exactly the same way!

I may occasionaly enjoy a spirited and stimulating debate but I can't think of myself as a "heavy hitter in intellectual debate".

I'd like to say publicly that I hope no one, especialy Mr. Christopher, was personally offended by any of my comments. I was starting to worry about that.

Cheers,

So, I guess this was a Hot Topic? Pete D

i wonder if Al is retrofitting all of the houses that he owns????!!!!! he has several mansions scattered about the country,,,,, frankly,, it would nt matter what the subjects are, im with Jim E, and Bill C on these selfserving mouthpieces,,,,wouldnt take a leak on them if they were on fire!!!!

also, if Big Al had only carried his own state of Tennessee he would nt have the floridians to blame, Nader to blame, supreme court to blame,,, if you cant count on your on state, who can you count on,,,!!!

dang Pete, (Bengeyfield), i have never even heard you speak this many words at one sitting,,, much less write those doctorial dissertations you have contributed to this thread,, maybe next time i see you in the park i can bring up the subject and get you irritated!!!!
Kim

Mark Stahlke wrote "I'd like to say publicly that I hope no one, especialy Mr. Christopher, was personally offended by any of my comments."

I can hear John's head swelling now! What would Clint think?

For the end note of this thread (yeah, right!).

I think this thread is a perfect example of what's wrong with the entire global warming discussion. Tons of discussion about global warming, lots of differing opinions (even among those who agree with each other), and yet, no answers.

I think the reason for this is because we're approaching the issue from the wrong perspective and with the wrong priorities. Each different group has their own self serving agenda, and as long as we approach the issue from a confrontational viewpoint nothing will get done.

I say it needs to be simplified. We can debate cause and effect all day. We can debate whether global warming even exists all day. We can debate what to do about it all day. Too much debate, no action. Reminds me of the Royal Bank of Scotland ad on TV.

The simple truth is that pollution is not good. I think that's a point EVERYONE can agree on. So, let's put aside global warming, put aside petty politics, and throw all the arguments under the bus, and just clean up the environment because it's the RIGHT THING TO DO. It's not too expensive, it's not too hard, it's not too little too late.

The naysayers said the space program was too expensive, too hard, etc., yet I challenge people to name almost a single thing in our everyday lives that the space program hasn't affected. The space program caused the greatest technological explosion of ideas and inventions ever seen, and it still continues today. I doubt you can pick up a single item in your house that the space program hasn't affected in some way, especially our camera equipment. The US was the leader of this, yet it didn't just benefit the US. The technological advances, greater medical understanding, huge increase in scientific and engineering knowledge, manufacturing (all the new fancy clothes we wear outside all came either directly or from offshoots from the space program) have benefited the entire world. President Kennedy made the space program a priority and gave it a very tight time frame, and Americans rose to the challenge. We could do the same with pollution and global warming. This shouldn't be looked upon as an obstacle, but as the next great opportunity for learning and technological advancement. It's time once again for America to take the lead. It will not only be good for us and the world, but could prove to be the impetus to bring Americans together once again instead of polarizing us.

Just my thoughts on the issue.... Good night John Boy.

The amount of CO2 emissions from human activities is staggering and is cited as a chief cause of global warming. But this prompts a few questions. C02 is a heavier than air gas. So how does it get into the atmosphere? You would think it would settle in low lying areas and that is the case during volcanic eruptions. Once in the low lying areas how does the gas eventually dissipate? Surely it has to. Otherwise our atmosphere would have become unbreathable.

I am not sceptical concerning global warming. It exists. Nevertheless questions need to be asked, especially for myself who seeks to understand it all.

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

Kim wrote
----------------------------------------------------------
wouldnt take a leak on them if they were on fire!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------
I wonder what possible contribution these kind of statements could bring to this discussion other than dissention.

For Bill: I am sure Al Gore would agree with most of what you have just written. I only wish that I could, but one thing stands in the way of your wonderful solution. How do we move forward when the most powerful and effective political party in this country is, to the best of my knowledge, totally opposed to any action that brings forced compliance to implement environmental safe guards?

Terry - For one, I don't think Al Gore is any more enamored with action than George Bush. Both are too heavily invested in their own agenda instead of true leadership. Al had eight years to do something and didn't do squat. All this nonsense about his house, that he's getting solar panels, etc. Huh? Solar panels have been available for many years and he's just getting them? When you're the supposed leader, you lead, you don't bring up the rear.

Effective change can happen in one of two ways. If enough people demand change, it will occur; this is highly unlikely because most people are sheep, waiting to be led. The other way is to have REAL national leadership. Unfortunately, this is just as unlikely, at least during this next election phase. There is not one person, not one, currently in the race or that's currently likely to join the race that exhibits TRUE leadership. They all have the noses stuck into whatever is their pet cause or belief. True leadership doesn't micro manage, it's more concerned with the big picture and is able to inspire others. This is a rare trait. I disagree with those that say leaders aren't born, they're made. That's hogwash IMO. True enough, leadership skills can be developed and honed to a degree, but all true leaders, both good and bad, seem to have inherent leadership qualities "built-in".

During the 20th century there were only four true leaders in presidental roles (IMO). TR, FDR. JFK, and Reagan. Put their politics aside, just look at their styles. They were able to communicate their message and inspire others. Those are the keys to leadership. You don't have to be the sharpest knife in the drawer to be a great leader, but you do have to be able to communicate well and inspire. All four of those presidents had serious personal flaws, but they had personalities that attracted people to them, and they could and did make things happen.

I just don't see that on the horizon currently I'm sad to say, and I fear we're missing such a great opportunity because of it.

OK, I'll play again, seeing as Kim wants something to talk about while we wait for the wolves to show up.

So all politicians are slime balls (some are) and the government can't do anything right (sometimes it can't). If that's true, then what's the end game? How do we as a society solve things on the scale of global warming? Jim seems to think that if we all use less energy then things will be fine. Well, that'll help, but it's not enough. There has to be a political process that's grounded in science and led by people with a concept of public good. Politics IS messy, but it's the way we get things done. There are no other options. If you think otherwise, you've still got the landing lights on for Amelia Earhardt.

Politics put the wolves back in Yellowstone (Kim), and politics prevented the New World Mine from polluting the Lamar River - both on Clinton's watch BTW. Politics gave us the public lands we all photograph on, and the ESA which alowed the wolves to get back to Yellowstone (Kim). And in other segments of society, politics is responsible for much progress from the GI Bill to civil rights. Bill makes an excellent point about the space program, but also makes my point (perhaps inadvertently) when he writes, "President Kennedy made the space program..." That's right. He took an emergency (Sputnik) and rallied the county around it. That's leadership using the political process for the public good. (Contrast that with 9/11). The system works when the right people run it.

Terry is right. None of these guys are saints. JFK did MM on AF1, and FDR died with his girlfriend. Both came from privlege, and both did some dirty politics. But between them they did a of of good for the country because they equated government with public service. Today we're governed by people who don't believe in government. And they've produced just the kind of system you guys are bitching about - corrupt, self-serving, and ineffective. So we either get the people in place who can make this system work, and they're out there, or eventually China takes over and you'll need a boat to photograph the Everglades.

Those of you that are interested in the science of global warming might want to look at Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers. It really does a good job of portraying the diversity of diciplines, range of geographic locations, and number of natural process that all point to the same conclusion. If you still have doubts, keep listening to Rush.

Bill, the more you post and the more I study it, the more I realize that we are very close on some of these issues. There are facets of your beliefs that I hold very strongly, and there are areas where we are definitely using different lenses to get our personal view of the situation.

It is very interesting to me that you hold TR, FDR, JFK and Reagan as the only true leaders of the last Century. It sounds like you are saying that these folks had that powerful charisma that makes others willing to follow them. I guess I find myself agreeing. Although, it was the Reagan administration assault on the environment that caused me to leave the Republican Party forever. But, in spite of that, I did like the ol' boy. For me, Bill Clinton had that same type of charisma. The harder the opposition pounded him, the stronger it came through. If he had been able to keep his brains from dropping south of his belt, he would have been great.

Having just read Pete's entry, I would say he comes very close to representing my beliefs in these matters.

Putting personalities of our leaders aside, we need the political system to implement the changes that could reverse current earth-destroying trends.

Also, this is far bigger than just the United States, it will take a world effort.

I've been following the discussion but so far haven't added any comments. So far, I'm probably closest in thinking to Guy, but with some skepticism. Gore has no credibility for me since I'm aware of his long term history. My take is he's looking for a way to stay in the public eye despite being a washed up politician. He's hardly "scientific," and he's hardly objective. I just don't believe much of anything he says--it's agenda driven. I put him in with the rest of the Hollywood Crowd that embraces him so much.

That aside, he does raise a serious issue. I suspect the earth has been warming, and a significant portion of that is natural. There have always been cycles--ice ages, warm periods, and so on. There have been periods in earth's history where there apparently was no polar ice caps. So, how much of the current warm up is man made? I don't know. I've listened to both sides; no one seems conclusive. Maybe that's not the important thing though. There is a lot of gunk going into the air. That can't be good for us. The Kyoto deal was a scam--it completely left out India and China for example. China is now the bigest user of coal.

What needs to happen is for leaders to begin leading. They don't have a lot of incentive to do that though, unless it is internal. We need more efficient transportation, less coal burning generators and more nuclear ones, and certainly more could be done for research that what is being done currently.

I just wish the polarizing people like Al Gore, Hollywood, and Rush would stay out of it.


Kent in SD

Amen Kent! Erhardt~Staubus '08.

Pete said;

Jim seems to think that if we all use less energy then things will be fine. Well, that'll help, but it's not enough.

Pete, my point is that change must start with us as individuals - before we "talk the talk" we should "walk the walk." This, I believe, is the crux of this whole conversation!

For example, if someone is pro gun control yet thinks they should be the exception to the law because of their perceived social status, they IMO have zero credibility and are hypocrites. Same thing with any of today's "hot topics" including global warming. If you campaign/promote for the reduction of green house gas emmissions yet contribute more than your fair share of them to the atmosphere, how can you expect to be taken seriously? The message is still an important one but I think I'd look to someone other than Al Gore the politician to actually do anything about it. That is what the OP and this thread is about!

So we start at home as individuals and do our fair share. From there, we can network with others on what we are doing in our own homes and get ideas from others - a true grassroots approach. Sooner or later our thinking makes its way to those in the position of power simply because we have imposed our will on our "leaders" and on business in general with our buying habits. This is a painfully slow process, but sure as the sun will rise tomorrow morning, it will make a difference in the long haul. If only we could say the same for the empty promises of those who seek public office.

The day this country starts using less fossil fuels is the day we, the people, begin using less - less gasoline, less electricity, less oil/gas/electricity to heat/cool our homes. That requires a serious commitment to a change in lifestyle, something no politician or government agency will do for us.

Until then, talk is cheap.

Wow, a consensus? All that's needed now is a big group hug and a chorus of Kumbaya.

Seriously, this has been an enlightening discussion and a great topic from Darrin. Unfortunately, I don't know that I'm as optimistic as you John. You can have all the grassroots level support in the world, but without effective management and leadership it's like a ship without a rudder. We're in severe need of great leadership to push, manage, and track progress.

"If the people will lead, the leaders will follow."

Author - unknown

Politics is dirty,, by its nature,,,and occasionally it works, but it only works, when it has to,or when it election time,,,,and jst as easily as it gives, it can snatch away,, i listen to Rush in the same light as i listen to Gore,, they are both jokes,,,,,so i have no love of either,, Gore hasnt gotten over his loss, and yes, it was a loss,,, and he cant seem to get off the government tit...he and his father were in it so long,, they feel they are obligated to be there, and the poor american people just cant do without his name on the marqee and his leadership,,no one needed gore to understaind that there are changes in our environment,,hollywood and the country has labeled as a champion!!!! please give yourself more credit than that,, he didnt bring it to the forefront anymore that he invented the internet,, and as it seems to be turning out,,, any good attention has been offset by bad,, with his three large homes,,, and his electric bills,,, whethere they are in line or not is not the problem,,,its that his life of priviledge has bestowed on him an electric bill that is higher than the average wage earner makes a year,,,,and that is in just one of the houses,,,, so any enlightment he may have brought has been diminshed,,,imo,,i simply dont need al gore to tell me how to conserve energy,,, do you???

until government cuts out the incentives huge incentives and perks to elected governement officials,,, we will always be in this quandry,, and since they controll what gets brought up, then it wont change,,,and i still wouldnt P------ss on any of them if they were on fire!!!

this might heat things up a bit for you.

Must............not..........click........

*CLICK*

NOOOOoooooo.....

Oh wait, it's just an OpEd piece, there's no science here. Is the debate on global warming over because "a foreign affairs columnist for The Washington Post" declared it over? I don't think so.

The editorial column puports to link to the text of a white paper by futurist [I want a job like that!] Peter Schwartz. It doesn't. If you want to read the white paper, you need to dig a lot deeper. Eventually you will find it as a PDF hosted at Global Business Network (GBN). Scrolling to the bottom of that page, we learn two interesting things. First, "futurist" Peter Schwartz is the chairman of GBN. Second, they're selling a business seminar. Here it is:

In early June, GBN will be facilitating a one-day strategic conversation on the uncertainties, risks, and opportunities of climate change. The session is targeted to corporate decision-makers from a wide range of industries who want to explore the implications of climate change for resources, markets, and competition, and other business imperatives. Participants will include GBN chairman Peter Schwartz, cofounder Stewart Brand, and CEO Eamonn Kelly.

This looks like a seminar on how to profit from global warming. Did someone say agenda? Are you starting to see why I'm so cynical? I assure you I wasn't born that way.

In light of this, and after further thought, I'd like to retract one of my earlier comments. I wrote:

It can, indeed, be remarkably easy to be well informed.

I can no longer support this statement. On the contrary, I believe it's actually rather difficult to be well informed. It's only easy to appear well informed.

For example, the Kyoto Protocol is mentioned in almost every discussion of global warming. How many of us have read the actual text of that treaty? We have all been exposed to huge volumes of commentary about Kyoto (almost as much as Brad & Jen's love child by Elvis) but how many have read it? I confess, I have not. And yet many people have opinions about Kyoto. I'm sorry to have to point out that most people's opinions of Kyoto are merely opinions about opinions of Kyoto. This is not being well informed, it's only appearing well informed.

Gosh, I'm argumentative these days. I'm even arguing with myself now. What's up with that?

Cheers,

One thing that really bugs me is when I hear Al Gore et al. taking a scientific tone but not method. These folks only talk about the downsides. What, there are no upsides? None? Having warmer winter temps is a bad thing for South Dakota? I immediately get skeptical when I hear that something is either all good or all bad. How many things in real life are like that, anyway? I want to see a real discussion of the pros and cons so I can be better informed. What I don't want is a bunch of folks saying, "100% bad, take my word for it." I want to make up my own mind.


Kent in SD

I understand what you're saying Kent, but the problem with your SD example is that you're taking the "global" out of global warming. While warmer winters in SD might be of benefit for the local population it comes at a global cost. The possible downsides of global warming are so bad that they dwarf any possible local benefits. The point I've been trying to make in this discussion is that even if we determine later on that man wasn't the cause of global warming, cleaning up our environmental mess is still the right thing to do and will benefit mankind greatly in the long run.

Bill, I find myself agreeing 100% with your latest post. John, does that sound like some of your concensus?

Since I'm not as fast a thinker as some of the rest of you, I have been studying on Bill's earlier comments on the great leaders of the previous century. We are unable to resurrect Teddy Roosevelt, so I don't think the answer to global warming will come from his conservative party. I think I've come up with a solution that doesn't call for just one dynamic leader, but instead, a "Dream Team."

First we elect Hillary as president, with Barack Obama as vice-president. Since Bill will be the country's first gentleman, Hillary can appoint him to be ambassador to the UN. Hillary would be the brains, Barack the inspiration, and Bill the negotiator - because, afterall, as you folks already named him, he's mighty slick. Oh, yes, let us not forget Al Gore who started this whole debate. Hillary will have to create a new cabinet level - Department of the Environment - and appointment Al as its head. Remember, Al already has the Hollywood connection and his star can guide us to the future.

(John, sorry I didn't get to read all your reference material, but since I've already found a solution to global warming, I guess I won't need to. )

These folks only talk about the downsides. What, there are no upsides? None?

There are people speculating on potential benefits of global warming. Try this Google search.

DISCLAIMER: I have not examined the web sites in these search results and make no claims regarding the veracity of any of them. As always, I recommend carefull reading, critical thinking, and a healthy dose of skepticism.

Cheers,

What I really care about is getting the smog out of Southern California and hte Central Valley. It's disgusting most of the time. When I was in grade school we couldn't have PE class for a number of days because of a "Stage xx smog alert". I have relatives who have asthma. Some people get asthma as adults even nowdays.

I woudln't mind population control either, removal of non-native species, etc.... god the traffic sucks. and cooler weather. anything above 75 makes me have allergies because of the dust.

Terry - I knew it was too good to last (our agreeing, that is! ) I'm afraid it's my opinion that one Clinton in the White House was too many; I certainly don't want another. Obama certainly has the charisma, but I don't know if he has any substance to him - too soon to tell. Whoever the next president turns out to be, I don't envy them - they will have a very full plate!

Hey, this is getting interesting! Is global warming real or is is a figment of someone's imagination. Well, it does look like it is real. But what is the cause. I firmly believe that we do not know enough to tell. Especially as I remember reading that the change in solar output necessary to send us back to another ice age or to send us back to the balmy weather of the dinosaurs is too small to be measured. However, since we may be the culprits, why take chances? Here things get interesting. The only way to stop CO2 emissions is to stop burning carbon. We also need to stop throwing all the natural gas to the winds in our antiquated distribution systems as methane is often said to be a more active greenhouse gas than CO2.

Now, we need to get realistic. We aren't going to stop burning carbon. What we need is another way to produce energy, electricity for example, without burning carbon. One way to use the same amount of fuel to get more electricity. That can be done! I have been working in electric power generation for 25 years. The fool public utility commissions has decided that fuel costs are a pass through item and therefore there is no advantage to the utility to improve their plants' efficiency. In the way that the chronometer was developed, why don't we establish a fund to be paid to the person who develops another way to produce power. Shall we fund that with a small levy on the CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere? Let's rule out items that fail in this regard. Such as making hydrogen by electrolysis with the electricity coming from current power generation facilities. You have gained nothing with this ploy. Also, lets rule out other methods that produce hazardous or toxic byproducts as well.

Meanwhile, to force better efficiency on the electric power generation that we have, lets make this levy on CO2 emissions be graduated. Using calculations currently in use during plant design, figure out the theoretical efficiency of the plant. OK. Those emissions are at levy rate 1. Lets allow a bit of breathing room for realities and allow a 10% margin where the levy is twice rate 1, call it levy rate 2. Above 10% is an indication that the utility, or IPP or Merchant plant, is not making an effort to increase efficiency. Lets make levy rate 3 twice levy rate 2. Since most of the effort to improve efficiency can be done by properly maintaining the equipment and controls, lets have these ramp in over a five year window. Now for the zinger. The levy for the lowest tier is part of the cost of generating electricity because we have not yet found a way to change the laws of physics. The other levies are borne by corporate. These are NOT added into the cost of generation. This can be funded, in part, by paying the upper executives a reasonable salary, not millions in salary and even more in perks and bonuses.

Actually, I went back to school to get my degree with the intention of going into alternative energy. When I was close to graduation, I was married with a kid on the way. The alternative energy employers paid enough for a single person to rent an efficiency apartment, drive an old VW van, and eat an a starvation budget. This needs to change to get enough people with the smarts and drive to take these jobs. Admittedly, those in these fields today are committed and smart. But there are not enough of them to make a big dent in the problem.

Well, well, well. That was interesting.

I followed the first link in the Google search results I posted above. It points to a paper titled "Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming" by Thomas Gale Moore, Senoir Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

That's certainly prestigious. Stanford University is, after all, a well respected research institute. A quick scan of the paper reveals a scholarly looking piece complete with footnotes, a number of tables, and an extensive list of refrences at the end.

Let's dive in. Here is the abstract from the paper. [With my comments inserted like this. -MS]

Abstract
A somewhat warmer climate would probably reduce mortality in the United States and provide Americans with valuable benefits. [Splendid! -MS] Regressions of death rates in Washington, DC, and in some 89 urban counties scattered across the nation on climate and demographic variables demonstrate that warmer temperatures reduce deaths. The results imply [Imply, not prove? Hmmm. -MS] that a 2.5deg. Celsius warming would lower deaths in the United States by about 40,000 per year. [Wonderful! -MS] Although the data on illness are poor, [Uh-oh. Insufficient data. -MS] the numbers indicate that warming might [Intruducing speculation here. -MS] reduce medical costs by about $20 billion annually. Utilizing willingness to pay as a measure of preference, [How might one quantify, measure, and study "willingness to pay"? -MS] this paper regresses wage rates for a few narrowly defined [Does that mean carefully chosen to support a given conclusion? -MS] occupations in metropolitan areas on measures of temperature and size of city and finds that people prefer warm climates. [I guess they didn't ask Richard Wong. He must not be in their "narrlowly defined" list of occupations. -MS] Workers today would be willing to give up between $30 billion and $100 billion annually in wages for a 2.5deg.C increase in temperatures. [Whoa! I didn't know I was willing to give up a bunch money for a couple of degrees of warmer weather. I'm sure glad Mr. Moore of Stanford University clued me in on that. -MS]

There you have it. Junk. Pure junk, masquerading as science. This time it's from the other side of the global warming debate.

So, what shall I believe? The gloomy prognostication of Peter Schwartz or the rosy scenario of Thomas Gale Moore? Unhappily, I choose neither. I've come full circle. I'm right back where I started when I first wrote:

It's unfortunate that an issue as important as this has become so political. In politics, as in war, truth is the first casualty. I doubt that either side of this debate has been entirely honest.

I'm afraid the truth is unknown and, given the rancorous, agenda-driven tenor of the ongoing debate on global warming, unknowable. And that's what I'm so incensed about.

"In the long run, we're all dead." -John Maynard Keynes
"So long and thanks for all the fish." -Douglas Adams

Please understand that I have tried to keep my comments as a-political and non-personal as possible. That is why I tried to avoid addressing you by name in this discussion. I am interested in discussing issues, not personalities. Arguments and links are fair game; you are not. (...besides I quit hunting long ago )

Thanks John. I appreciate that and I think you have done an admirable job of it. I have endeavored to do the same but I'm afraid one of my early comments might not be clear. Way up near the beginning of this thread I wrote, and have repeated:

I doubt that either side of this debate has been entirely honest.

When I wrote that I was referring to the larger, world-wide debate taking place in scientific circles and media circuses. I was not referring to this discussion. I should probably go back and edit those messages but I dislike revising history.

I hope you, and everyone else reading this thread, don't feel that I was questioning your honesty and personal integrity. If you do, I cheerfully apologize.


BTW, It still surprises me that that bit of foolishness on the Aquatic Plants Digest mailing list was archived for posterity. After a number of contentious threads on amazingly arcane topics I felt the list itself was ripe for lampooning. Of course, I knew just the guy to do it. If folks thinks this is a heated discussion, they ain't seen nuthin'. There was one flame war on the APD that was so vicious some people were thrown off the list. Thankfully, I was not a participant. Oh yes, the topic? The color of water in a white bucket.

Cheers,

Setting aside the debate on global warming (at least for now ), I believe energy conservation is a good thing whatever the motive. I've seen several suggestions in this thread about ways to conserve energy. One that I haven't seen, and perhaps I missed it, is tankless water heaters.

Did you ever wonder why you're storing 40 to 60 gallons of water at about 120 degrees on a 24x7x365 basis? Seems wastefull doesn't it? According to the web page linked above, it is:

For homes that use 41 gallons or less of hot water daily, Tankless Water Heaters can be 24% – 34% more energy efficient than conventional storage tank water heaters. They can be 8% – 14% more energy efficient for homes that use a lot of hot water, around 86 gallons per day. You can achieve an even greater energy savings of 27% – 50% if you install a Tankless Water Heater at each hot water outlet.

As a side benefit, you get unlimited hot water. You could stay in the shower all day long. Unless, of course, you're trying to conserve energy and water.

Cheers,

Mark said;

Setting aside the debate on global warming (at least for now ), I believe energy conservation is a good thing whatever the motive. I've seen several suggestions in this thread about ways to conserve energy. One that I haven't seen, and perhaps I missed it, is tankless water heaters.

OK, now we got something to talk about!

For those who do not know, I have made my living in the heating trades all of my life. First as a contractor/installer, then as a sales manager for Slant/Fin (one of the largest and well-known manufacturers in the hot water heating industry) and now as an independent sales rep for the same company. I am a "hot water heating guru" (no kidding) and have conducted contractor training seminars for the last 12 years. So with that aside...

Though tankless water heaters are energy efficient, they are not the only energy-efficient option for heating water. The main issue with the ordinary gas or oil-fired water heater is something called "standby loss" - the amount of energy that is lost up the flue pipe during the off-burner cycle. With the traditional gas-fired water heater with a standing pilot, this is a substantial amount of energy.

The most popular type of water heater today (for hot water heating systems) is an "indirect-fired" water heater that operates as a zone off a boiler. These heaters are essentially well-insulated heat exchangers that lose less than 1 degree per hour as compared to 12 to 15 degrees per hour for the standeard gas-fired water heater. When connected to a modern, high-efficiency boiler (87% for oil, 94% for gas), an indirect water heater can provide the hot water for an entire home and do so with great thermal efficiency. Indirect water heaters, while very efficient (zero standby loss), are limited in flow rate and often require "point of use" installation techniques. You can get "unlimited hot water" as long as you don't exceed the flow rating of the unit, which is usually quite low.

Another energy saving technology, one I have been involved with for over 17 years, is radiant floor heating. I won't go into a long dissertation on it here, but it's safe to say that staying comfortable inside your home when it's cold outside is much easier (and more energy-efficient) using low level infrared (radiant energy) than trying to heat air directly with a "scorched air" (forced hot air) system. Over 97% of all homes in America use scorched-air. In Europe, where they have been far more energy conscious than the U.S., the vast majority of homes utilize "warm water" radiant heating in one form or another.

Yes, energy conservation is what it's all about! We can debate the politics of it all ad nauseum, but talking about real ways to save energy is where the "rubber meets the road." My thanks to Mark for bringing this up!

Jim,

The cheapest thing I could do saved us slightly over 10% on our electric bill. I simpily moved our thermostat to a location which was much more sensitive to the temperature fluctuations as our bedroom is on the southwest corner of the second story. Previously, the thermostat was located in a hallway on the east side. WRONG! It allowed 2-3 degree fluctuations in our master bedroom which had to be kept colder so that it would not get too hot. The cost of the move was less than $5 which was for the texturizing needed to repair the drywall where the thermostat used to be.

It's amazing how such a simple change can be effective. Apparently, the people who originally installed the thermostat have no understanding of process control.

Mark,

Be careful about judging what you read. Thomas Gale Moore is not a scientist and his claims have been easily dismissed and shown to be incorrect. Do a Google search and find real science reviews of his comments. There is so much information that is provided by real peer-reviewed scientists who have to provide methodology and checkable results that anyone can see what is going on if you try. If you want to think that the scientific community (and we all talking just about everyone) is wrong then base it on something real, not how much electricity Al Gore uses or some non-scientist who offers a flawed analysis. What fact are you looking for to be convinced that human impact is the cause here? Be specific, the information is out there. And when you think you found an answer, check into what the authors background is and what work has been done to prove or disprove their conclusion. That is what science is about. And if your not willing to do that, then you may want to take seriously what the world scientific community is saying, because they do that work everyday.

Paul

Some links of interest by Goggling "global temperature history" -

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/temperature-history/

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/01/are-humans-involved-in-global-warming/#more-199

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V7/N4/EDIT.jsp

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1203968/posts

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/5200event.htm

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-03-24/400.htm

BTW, I finally got to see "An Inconvenient Truth" last night, and I watched it with an open mind. While I believe it is prudent for each of us to reduce our energy usage, I came away feeling that the movie is more propaganda than fact (see some of the above links). Al would like us to believe that Earth's climate was always stable up until the 20th century, but that clearly is not the case. The "hockey stick" graph of global temperature history used in the movie is laughable at best, omitting some large and well-known fluctuations in global climate. Accordingly, An Inconvenient Truth should be by all means viewed and its points considered, but IMO taken with a grain of salt.

Here are some links based on science.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00007F57-9CE1-1213-9BEF83414B7F0000 (about the "hockey stick")

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm (from Woods Hole - a respected scientific research facility)

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/Fingerprints.html (good overview)

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf (UN report - up to date and complete)

http://realclimate.org/

http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-rebuttal.html (rebuttal of the Khilyuk and Chilingar study listed by Jim)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=global+warming+human+impact (the number one science journal in the US and maybe the world)

Paul

Paul said;

Here are some links based on science.

And of course, those links that offer other explanations are not.

Too bad this debate (on a national/international scale) is based more on politics and emotion than a true scientific consensus. That is the point of the links provided in my previous post - not to "take sides" but rather to show that there is no consensus. The only consensus is in the minds of those who have already made up their minds.

That said, energy conservation remains an important goal, and something we should all pursue for a variety of reasons.

Follow-up, 3-13

I just wanted to elaborate on a few thoughts in regards to this entire issue. First, a bit of of background - I have a degree in geology, which makes me look at the natural world from that perspective. Geologists don't think in terms of decades, centuries or even millenia, but in terms of millions of years. We also depend on the fossil record (paleontology) to tell us what the Earth may have been like long before we ever set foot on it. Additionally, I was an Earth Science teacher in 1980 and 1981 in a public school system before making the dreaded decision to join the family contracting biz. I mention this as a point of reference - I do have an understanding and appreciation for science. With that out of the way...

Looking at this issue as objectively as possible (I have no emotional investment in this debate one way or the other), there are several points that make me question the premise that man's burning of fossil fuels is entirely responsible for the current warming trend - which in a geological time frame, cannot even be considered a "trend";

1. CO2 is a minor "greenhouse" gas. Water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas, thereby having a far greater effect on the slowing of the re-radiation of infrared heat energy back into space. A Google search of "greenhouse gas" will lead to more info on the various greenhouse gasses, such as this one. Most scientists agree that we have no control over water vapor in the atmosphere.

2. Knowing that CO2 plays a minor role in the greenhouse effect, and that it has increased by less than 40% over the last 200 years, I find it hard to believe that this increase alone can account for the "unprecedented warming trend" depicted in An Inconvenient Truth.

In regards to the movie and those who subscribe entirely to its message, I have the following concerns;

1. The role of water vapor, something we have no control over, is ignored. This in itself makes a mockery of any serious discussion on the causes of global warming due to greenhouse gasses and what can be done about it.

2. Past climate changes, severe changes that are well documented and accepted, are ingnored to preserve the misleading "hockey stick" graph of temperature variation (or according to the movie, the lack of it) over the last few thousand years. The Little Ice Age is a case in point - those who want to support the validity "hockey stick graph" call this a "regional event" that only effected the northerm hemisphere. This in my mind is a case of conveniently ignoring the facts which don't support a pet theory, again making a mockery of the scientific process. The same is true of the Medieval Warm Period, which the same group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization whose mission is the "understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation" chooses to label a regional deviation. To ignore these and other naturally occuring dramatic changes in climate that effected an entire hemisphere is rather self-serving and very misleading, wouldn't you say?

3. Because of the above, we end up with a movie - and perhaps even a cause - in which objectivity is forsaken to support a theory; that man's use of fossil fuels is entirely responsible for any current warming trend, and even more amazingly, that we can stop global warming by simply using less fossil fuels. IMO, this premise is misleading at best (some have even referred to it as a "hoax") as it totally ignores the power of natural processes and the long geologic (and recorded) history of climate change/variation on planet Earth - and any possibility that those forces are playing a role now.

4. Also not factored in is deforestation. In this regard there is ground for agreement - man is having an impact on the Earth's climate - but no one is arguing that point!

Why isn't Al and his followers rallying to stop the destruction of the Amazon? Are we to believe that the U.S. government is so mighty that it can curtail, or even stop global warming by mandating energy conservation? Are we to believe that Communist China will invest in energy conservation and suddenly take an interest in reducing pollution in it's government-imposed march towards global economic domination? This IMO is an insult to one's intelligence, but is the premise of "An Inconvenient Truth."

Which leaves me wondering how this entire subject became so politicized. In the movie we learn the Gores were tabacco farmers, that they stopped farming tabacco when its dangers were documented, that Al's older sister died of lung cancer from smoking, and after loosing the election (a segment on which is included in the movie, of course), Al decides his mission in life is to stop global warming because it's the "morally correct" thing to do. Could it be that Al has a bit of emotional baggage he needs to let go of before he can see things a bit more objectively? Could it be that the dislike of the current administration is enticing people into Al's camp and his message of global climate salvation by governmental decree?

From a "scientific" perspective, I find the study of climate change a fascinating one. I have no doubt that human activity - from the burning of fossil fuels to deforestation - effects climate. I am 100% convinced that we need to become more energy efficient and have greater respect for natural habitat. All of these things are good morally, scientifically and practically. What is not good is allowing such important issues to become the fodder of politicians who will distort the truth for their own reason or gain. This, unfortunately, is what has happened with the issue of "global warming" - it's now more about political agendas than about honest and objective science. IMO, anyone who thinks differently has taken this politically-spun bait hook, line and sinker.

So where do we go from here? We start in our own homes and learn how to use energy more efficently. We make all buying decisions, from a new car to a new refrigerator, with energy-efficiency in mind. We explore ways to work from home to avoid having to burn fossil fuels to make a living. We can support the development of alternative energy sources and energy-efficient technology - the list is nearly endless in ways we can make a difference in our homes and in the voting booth. And perhaps most importantly of all, we have to accept the fact we can we cannot control Earth's climate, we can only care for it the best we can.

For me, I look forward to seeing where Mother Nature takes us and what she has in store for us (for better or for worse). And perhaps if we can learn some respect for her, an understanding of her powers and loose a bit of our collective arrogance that we are some alimighty species that is greater than the processes that brought us into existance, we'll survive a bit longer. But one way or the other, Mother Nature will have final say - just has she always has over the hundreds of millions of years of life (and climate change) on this planet.

Jim,

I am pleasantly surprized by your position, I too am a skeptic though I do recognize that the global temperature has increased, Before going further, let me give my background. I have a doctorate in Chemical Engineering with a thorough understanding of fluid flow, heat transfer, mass transfer, chemical reaction kinectics and a more than passable understanding of statistics. I am self-employeed and do not work or associate with big oil. Interestingly, though, it is to big oil's advantage to combat global warming as the above averaage temperatures in December depressed the price of oil!

Now back to the topic. You have provided a number of good references, some of which I have read before. I will be looking at the others soon. One interesting reference I stumbled upon last week is

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/global_temp.html

It shows that from about 1865 through 1900 the global mean temperature was failry constant. It was followed by a cool perioid of about 10 years and then from 1910 through 1940 rose about 0.25 K. Between 1940 and 1975 the temperature again remained fairly constant and in 1975 it start to rise again about 0.3 K through 1997. I personally prefer to work with the numbers as opposed to graphs as the latter can be drawn in such a manner so as to mislead.

The point of the about data is that the period from 1940 through 1975 was constant. This does NOT fit any of the greenhouse gas models. CO2 has steadily risen since about 1900. Proponents typically misstate the data by only reporting that the "global temperature has risen 0.6 K over the past centrury." While true, they imply that the temperature rise was steady which ignores the 1940-1975 period which does not correlate with the CO2 data.

If this data were supplied to a statistician, the analysis would show that there is a poor correlation between the global mean temperature and the concentration of CO2. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is something else occuring which may or may not be in conjunction with CO2.

Since you are a geologist, you should understand that time is needed to determine what is really happening. Over the eons, CO2 and global temperature are definitely correlated. However, those measurements are time smoothed due to the sampling techniques, i.e. analysis of gas samples from ice cores and temperature from various isotope ratios. None of those measurements can show the year to year fluctuations which we observe. Good European temperature data appears to go to about 1860 while good North American data only goes back to about 1895.

The question is: Are we seeing a real climate change or just temperature fluctuations due to the the uncoupled nature of our unsteady state system? That would also include any solar fluctuations which are causing the polar caps to receed on Mars. Or, are we seeing a climate shift caused by CO2 and other greenhosue gasses?

P.S. The skeptics have their own omissions and misrepresentations. But, because they are not as widely read, I will not go into that right now.

David, thanks for posting.

Another aspect which I have just began reading up on is the relationship of CO2 and global temperature history. Some have suggested that a rise in natural CO2 is a result of warming, not the cause. As we know, the oceans can hold a vast amount of dissolved gas, including CO2. We also know that the solubility of gasses is greatest at low temperature, and as the temperature of a liquid increases, its ability to hold gasses in solution decreases. This is perhaps another one of those "positive feedback loops" often referred to - as the oceans warm, their ability to absorb and hold gas in solution is decreased.

Related to this, heat exchange at the air-water interface is limited compared to the heating effect of solar radiation. A point of interest, a cubic foot of water can hold 3300 times more BTUs than a cubic foot of air, so it takes a lot of "warm air" to heat water. Knowing this, an increase in solar radiation will more readily heat the oceans, and as they warm their ability to hold CO2 is solution will decrease - resulting in the release of CO2 and all other gasses held in solution. Is this part of what's going on? I don't know, but the physics of it makes sense.

BTW, I make my living as a heating products representative showing people how they can use less energy to heat their homes, so I have no vested interest in this debate either. A fair and honest discussion of the forces at work is all most of us want - thanks again for your contribution!

Along the same line as Jim's, a recent UN study found that emissions from livestock are responsible for 20% of greenhouse gasses (that's more than all the world's transportation combined).

Someone once jokingly said that the difference between marketing people and sales people is that marketing people actually know when they're lying (meaning salespeople just repeat the mantra and may even believe it).

The real problem with many politically-charged issues like this is that politicians like to look for the penny under the light - attack easy targets, give people an easy way to feel good about themselves etc.

Nobody wants to tackle the issues of damage from farming (a protected industry), population growth (can we say religious/moral can of worms?), the fact that huge developing nations like China are already burning more coal than the US and Europe combined (can we say foreign policy/industry lobby minefield?) etc.

Guy

Guy said;

Nobody wants to tackle the issues of damage from farming (a protected industry), population growth (can we say religious/moral can of worms?), the fact that huge developing nations like China are already burning more coal than the US and Europe combined (can we say foreign policy/industry lobby minefield?) etc.

That is the truth!

BTW, on a lighter note, you speak of "cow emissions" - I often wonder what those emissions were like in the age of the dinosaur. Talk about "greenhouse gasses" ...

Are we really at the point where no one here is arguing the cure but rather the disease?

Paul

Okay Paul, what is your comprehensive proposal to cure global warming?

John said;

I especially applaud the “IMO.” Jim, to his credit, is making it clear that he is only stating a personal opinion. For, as a proposition for serious consideration, dismissing the prevailing scientific consensus on global warming...

Again, using the scientific opinion link provided in your response, the various scientific organizations summarize their conclusions in sort of a non-consensus fashion. For example, the IPCC statement reads quite a bit differently than that of the American Association of State Climatologists. The IPCC states with "90% certainty" that the current changes are due entirely to man's burning of fossil fuels, while the AASC and even the Geological Society of America concludes that "the climate changes are due in part to human activities" (my emphasis added).

So, regardless of what one thinks is "prevailing scientific consensus", there is no consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is solely responsible as "An Inconvenient Truth" and its disciples would lead us to believe. The only consensus is the temperature and CO2 concentrations are rising, the climate is changing (as it has for eons) and that human activity has played some role in these latest changes. Trying to read much further into that "prevailing scientific consensus" becomes a matter of conjecture, as a review of the various "statements of organizations" will reveal.

In regards to the movie's sensational predictions of climatal doom, it again flies in the face of "prevailing scientific consensus." According to the AASC, "Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth's environmental system. These components include the oceans, land, lakes, and continental ice sheets, and involve physical, biological, and chemical processes. The complicated feedbacks and forcings within the climate system are the reasons for the difficulty in accurately predicting the future climate." But of course, some will still take the movie's politically-spun message of self-imposed doom "hook, line and sinker" believing it actually represents "prevailing scientific consensus."

Until then I think most people here (and many other places) would agree that we need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, prevent massive deforestation and review our current agricultural practices, among other things.

Now there's a consensus!

Dave,

I don't claim to have a cure. My problem with this discussion is the assertion that top scientists in the field, published in peer-reviewed major journals somehow forgot, or didn't know to take into account the effects of water vapor or geological time frames and that they have been using faulty statistics. And they've been mis-representing the science in this way for decades. Obviously, something is really, really wrong and someone should tell these guys how to do the science correctly (write them, call them, or something).

Note - I have not seen Al Gore's movie and cannot speak to it.

Paul

John, the only reason that the movie is referrenced throughout this thread is that it is the topic of the original post, as well as the alledged hypocrisy of Gore. My point has been that in general, the movie does seem to be more of a personal/political statement than honest and objective representation of the topic. Speaking entirely for myself, this is what I abhor about politicians and the major media in general - the deliberate "spinning" of the facts to fit political agendas, and their unwillingness to be completely honest with the American public.

My problem with this discussion is the assertion that top scientists in the field, published in peer-reviewed major journals somehow forgot, or didn't know to take into account the effects of water vapor or geological time frames and that they have been using faulty statistics.

Paul, the answer to your point is really quite simple - it's called propaganda. If you read through the links provided thus far, you will see that not all "top scientists in the field, published in peer-reviewed major journals" draw the exact same conculsions as to the actual causes of climate change, as Al and his followers would like us to believe. This is the power of propaganda, something we have been falling victim to since the beginning of civilization. In this case, a big part of the propaganda is that "mainstream science" is in total agreement on the exact causes of the current warming trend, when in fact that is not true. It's unfortunate that those who are not hopping on the Gore bandwagon are ridiculed and dismissed as being outside of "prevailing scientific consensus." This is not only an unfair and underhanded tactic, but a detriment to the scientific process.

My point is that the movie is not a honest, unbiased presentation of all relevant facts and POVs on the topic. Rather, it was constructing entirely for the purpose of supporting Al Gore's new self-declared mission to save us all from global warming and elicit support from the uninformed general public for him and his cause. An Inconvenient Truth is "Hollywood propaganda" at its best and there's no shame in falling victim to it.

So, can we curtail or even stop the current global warming trend as An Inconvenent Truth suggests? Can we prevent earthquakes or meteor impacts? Can we smooth-out irregularities in solar output? Can we modify ocean currents to better suit our preception of an ideal climate? In this regard, the movie is more science fiction than science fact, which when taken for what it is comes as no surprise.

Can we modify our behavior in regards to practices that effect natural processes? Of course we can. If we do so, will it have any dramatic, or even measureable effect on the natural processes that are already in motion? That is a far tougher question to answer, one that there is no scientific consensus on, but lack of true consensus shouldn't stop us from modifying our behavior in a way that is more harmonious with nature. In that regard, the suggested measures at the end of the movie - energy saving lightbulbs, lower settings of heating thermostats, etc. is all good advice, but nothing that hasn't already been suggested since the oil embargo of the 70s.

It doesn't hurt to be objective and honest. It doesn't hurt to have an open mind and to consider all of the facts and POVs. In that regard, I am glad I viewed An Inconvenient Truth as I can now have an informed discussion about it. I highly recommend that you view it too, and then take the time to research and discuss the topic as we are doing here. In the mean time, I found a few more lights in my home that need to be re-fitted with energy-saving flourescent bulbs.

John, an open mind and a good discussion is always a good thing.

In this case, it's tough to separate the person from the issue, especially since that is what the OP of this thread is about, as is all of the commentary about the movie. The person and the movie has moved the debate from the scientific arena to the stages of Hollywood, which as someone previously mentioned, may or may not be such a good thing.

In a larger sense, if we are to accept the fact that the use of fossil fuels has been the primary reason for the recent temperature increase (perhaps an arguable point), what are we to do about it? Can we expect all of mankind to immediately cease using fossil fuels? And even if we did, would it curtail or end the natural processes that are already in motion?

Our dependence on fossil fuels has taken us down a road on which we are now beginning to realize that there is no turning around. The best we can do is find an alternative road and go from here. In the mean time, I sincerely doubt that mankind is going to curtail the use of fossil fuels in any meaningful way until alternative energy sources are globally available and economicaly viable. In other words, for better or for worse, we will be living with rising CO2 levels (and any consequences of it) for quite some time to come.

Ultimately, I believe the world is currently over populated with homo sapiens and if Mother Nature is true to historic form, she has her ways to bring that back into equalibrium. Perhaps the future climate on Earth will be less hospitable to human existance and take its inevitable effect on world population levels. A cold and scary observation, but one I think most of us know is true.

John, great pic of Kellan! The future is certainly worth preserving to the best of our abilities.

That's one cute little one John!

Is Mann's hockey stick flawed? The first link is just commentary/editorial, but the second link is worth reading from beginning to end as it is very revealing about the Mann "hockeystick graph" and IPCC's implementation of it;

http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/GrassrootPerspective/HockeyStickScandal.shtml

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

The Mann hockey stick is not perfect. It has probably been over used and under explained by both sides in order to make a case for and against man-induced global warming. Here's a good link, short and sweet about a recent evaluation of the graph.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060626/full/4411032a.html

Jim's second link is a full reading of one of the the main critics of the graph and is worth reading. But it dwells on the potential problems with the methodology without dealing with the overall question of global warming and man's impact on it. The science behind global warming is not dependent on the representation of the hockey stick. The potential problem with that graph deals with the earlier time periods, not the current temperature increases. It seemingly only deals with a potential error in the relative temperature differences between the earliest section of the graph (which may under estimate those temperatures?) and the recent temperatures. It does not question the current increase in temperature. If I missed something or if I'm misreading the paper, someone let me know.

Jim - If you have determined that temperature changes occur cyclically and fully explain the current increases, what evidence would be acceptable that human impact is significant?

Paul

The problem is far more than the serious omissions of past climate changes - it is also the possible intentional exaggeration of current warming. The fact that such clearly documented major problems are found by McKitrick with the Mann graph and methodology, that it differs so radically from the previously published graphs (even by IPCC) and Mann's unwillingness to share his computer modeling in my mind discredits the whole thing. The whole "it's already proven and don't question it" attitude by IPCC (the alledged "prevailing scientific consensus") is especially infuriating. Unless the entire report by McKitrick is a fabrication, the Mann study is seriously flawed placing into question the honesty and competence of those who use it as credible evidence.

BTW, the link you provided is the same publication who would not give McKitrick equal time, so Nature's objectivity falls into question as well.

The more I learn about the Mann study and IPCC's prominent use of it (I just found the llinks in my previous post today), the more I am convinced it may be the biggest fraud ever perpetuated in the name of science. The McKitrick link should be required reading for anyone who wants to seriously debate global warming and any role man may be playing in it.

The oversight suggestions provided by McKitrick in how this important information is conveyed by the IPCC are IMO excellent and should be put in place.

A recent editorial by Ross McKitrick

Another long, enlightening (and perhaps troubling) read;

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

The whole "it's already proven and don't question it" attitude by IPCC (the alledged "prevailing scientific consensus") is especially infuriating. Unless the entire report by McKitrick is a fabrication, the Mann study is seriously flawed placing into question the honesty and competence of those who use it as credible evidence.

(emphasis added)

The honesty and competence of the IPCC has already been called into question by one of its own members. Now a former member.

Early in 2005, Chris Landsea, a tropical cyclone researcher and co-author of the 1995 and 2001 IPCC reports, resigned from the IPCC. Upon his resignation he published a scathing open letter in which he accuses the IPCC's lead author of using "the media to push an unsupported agenda".
From Mr. Landsea's letter:

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity.

He closes his letter with this paragraph:

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Cheers,

Now for (me) the really scary stuff - and it has nothing to do with Michael Mann or the IPCC -

http://dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358953.stm

Scary, because if just small changes in solar output can have such effect, imagine the devastation of a larger change in output. This scares me much more than elevated CO2 levels!

Jim, you finally found something worth worrying about. When you combine the warm sun
together with the "cattle" problem, it makes human caused global warming look pretty
insignificant. The U.N. just published 400 pages on our "meat footpring".

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

Art Lund

Global Warming - A Layman's "No BS" Q&A Executive Summary

Whew, what a thread. Some comments...

1) Why do people equate global warming to Gore? Gore's a politician, no a scientist. Politics suck, and politicians are liars, we all know that. But whether Gore is a hypocrite or not doesn't matter. All what matters is the science. And scientific consesus (peer-reviewed, published, in serious journals) DOES confirm global warming, DOES confirm human impact, and DOES point out that the speed of warming is non-normal.

2) "... based on statistics and computer modelling... this is not science". Sorry, but this is BS. Statistics is an integral part of ANY scientific research! At least that's my experience.

3) Some raise the possibility that climate change is something good. Hardly. Fauna and flora is adapted to the current climate. It's unlikely that evolutionary change (another "controversy" according to some "scientists"...) is fast enough for organisms to adapt at the rapid pace the temperature is predicted to rise (IMO the actual problem is not the change itself, but the speed of change). Migration is not always possible (just think of coral reefs - they'll simply die). Not only will wild species suffer, important agricultural plants will suffer too (photosynthesis, for example, exists in different flavors (C3, C4, CAM), each working best under certain conditions - and those systems used by the important crops won't be very happy about a 5¡C rise in temperature).

5) Some people referred to couple of dudes back in the old times that debated about the heliocentric or geocentric word view. Their point is that scientific consensus can be wrong, and that we shouldn't believe what scientists (most of those that publish peer-reviewed papers in serious journals anyway) have to say. Well, there's some irony in that. The geocentric world view was never a scientific view IMO, it was a religious and philosophical one, with the church (roman catholic in that case) forcing everybody who disagreed to retract his statements (e.g. Galileo Galilei). Finally, science prevailed. Today, the church is replaced by oil companies and conservative politicians that try equally hard to twist scientific facts to protect their own profit.

6) Climate is not weather. People often say "with such cold weather that we had last week, global warming sure must be BS". This is the wrong point of view. Global warming refers to an average warming over the whole globe, not local weather. Furthermore, equating global warming with more sunshine (which some would look forward to) is probably not quite accurate. You can as well have warmer but still rainy and cloudy days. Warmer climate doesn't mean more sunny days...

Ok, nuff for now...

Basil

Basil, thanks for your participation in this discussion!

In regards to your comments;

1. Agreed! But again, this thread started as a comment on Al Gore and his movie, thus we keep the linkage between him the subject of global warming. There are many, many people who will take "An Inconvenient Trth" as gospel, which is really frightening.

2. Yes, statistics are part of science, but scientists always keep in mind how unreliable they often are. It's only when statistical models are presented as "90% certainty" - and thus represented as certain fact - that they take on a whole new and misleading meaning.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Mark Twain

3. Climate change is historical fact and life has continued to thrive on Earth. As Darwin figured out, the species that adapt to change survive and those that don't perish. If we are to believe a meteor impact ended the reign of the dinosaur, then that change in climate is about as sudden as it gets.

But I think we agree that there will be some pretty big changes on Earth in the coming centuries - if not sooner.

4. I think you missed number 4.

5. "Today, the church is replaced by oil companies and conservative politicians that try equally hard to twist scientific facts to protect their own profit." And without a doubt, that is a 2-way street. It's up to us to sift through all of the BS (coming from both directions) and try to make some sense of it.

6. Yes, no question about it.

This is really depressing...

Google 'Al Gore carbon credits' and you will find some very interesting reading; Here are just a few of the links;

http://billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html

http://newsbusters.org/node/11149

..and a bit more cynical/entertaining editorial on the subject...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/281949,CST-EDT-STEYN04.article

And some info about the company...

http://www.generationim.com/about/mission.html

http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html

http://www.generationim.com/news/

An Inconvenient Truth + Generation Investment Management LLP = Mr. Gore stands to financially profit from all of this. Another "inconvenient truth" - wouldn't you say?

More Al Gore hypocrisy...

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468

it's now official,

global warming is a bandwagon that is about to crumble with the weight of all those who are crowding round it waiting to jump on. our UK government have implemented a number of moves in todays budget, and planned more, that will make sure that we will probably be the most green taxed society on earth. am i happy that our brave government is leading the way to save our planet? no...this is just the most blatent quoting of unproven fact for financial gain i've ever heard of.

im firmly in the non human effect camp, and find it VERY VERY worrying that people in general, indeed whole populations can be led so blindly and so greedily by those that have that power.

do i think we should be caring for our planet more than we do - of course i do, i'm involved in conservation issued directly myself, but what dismays me is that all this is driven by humans
desire to save the planet for their own selfish existence and that no one (present company excluded) REALLY gives a jot about the habitat saving and species conservation for it's own sake.

ok let me go and add up how much more tax i'll have to pay and how much more i'll have to try and make so that i can keep my conservation efforts from going under.

m

Terry Wrote
"Kim wrote
----------------------------------------------------------
wouldnt take a leak on them if they were on fire!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------
I wonder what possible contribution these kind of statements could bring to this discussion other than dissention
---------------------------------------------------------- "

from my point of view, without all the quotes and praise of the clintons, gores and obamas,,,your comments, again, IMO,, are just as offensive to those that do not believe the hollywood non sense, and the notions that AL is all giving and wonderful, inventor of the internet and ,,,Bill and Hillary obbama will save the world,,,I believe POLiTICS works,,but what we have working here is NOT politics,, its greed, and power struggle ON BOTH SIDES,, you will see way above that i think both Al and Rush are jokes,,, I simply quite frankly believe that the system has locked up,,and until the present lot of all of them is unceremoniously removed,,,nothing will change,, so you can not like my simple wording of what i think of them,, its not scholarly, or PC or whatever the terms are today, but its my quick and dirty opinion,,,i simply dont need them to tell me how to conserve,,,maybe others do,,,i just try to do my part,,,

I have only taken time to read a few comments in this thread and honestly people, I am shocked by them. I would expect that people so busy with the natural world would think about the issue at hand and not let themselves be diverted by secondary stuff.

Finding faults with people like Al Gore is all nice and funny, but what on earth is the relevance here! For all I care he makes gold mountains from selling his story and buys the most polluting cars and planes he can. It's not about him, it's about his story and I have seen it after studying climate change quite extensively for the freelance project I am working on. I can't find much fault with what he is saying, but for many the fact that he is making money out of it or is himself emitting a lot of CO2 is an excuse to just put aside the message. But that is something that seems to be really human. You'd see it in courtrooms too, where the incovenient truth (pun intended) given by important witnesses is made weak by the opposing party by digging up personal unconvenient truths about that witness which really have nothing to do with the case at hand. It's a silly thing to do. Focus on the issue, not on the messengers!

Accusing the 'climate change camp' of only being in there to make money is quite funny too. Sure, they are also just people and there will be those more interested in personal profit than in 'the cause', just like in all other camps. But again, taking that as an excuse to wave aside that cause is not right. Besides, there is much more money to be made on the opposing side by oil, coal, car industry and nuclear energy amongst many others. It is often their side that tries to discredit the 'climate change camp' by accusing it of greed. Funny... It's the kettle calling the pot black and people swallow it just like that.

Once more, focus on the subject guys, I am a firm believer that humans are for a very important part responsible for climate change. Those that say that humans are not capable of having an impact on something as huge as climate should just open their eyes and see how much the world has changed in just the last few decades. We changed the face of the earth almost completely by replaing nature with cultivated areas. If we can do that, we can also change the atmosphere and the climate. Just go look at a big industry area and see how much gas is emitted there per minute. All that influences the atmosphere and it continues day after day, year after year and in countless places on the earth.

It is time we open our eyes and act instead of just pointing fingers and making each other ridiculous.

Al Gore thread 1541 views/138 replies; Moving Ahead thread 232 views/15 replies.

Sure is a lot more fun debating the causes (and the politics) than actually having some constructive discourse in regards to what to about it, isn't it?

Hey Jim

A curious observation. In light of that comment, it's kinda interesting to scroll through this thread and see who had the most to say here.

Seriously though - you can't have your cake and eat it to. You're claiming global warming is a hoax, that there's no solid evidence to support it, Gore's lying and only in it for the money and fame, kinda the whole conspiracy theory, then saying we need to work on constructive ways to combat it. I find that somewhat, uhhmm, uncohesive .. don't you?

Cheers

Carl

Carl, I was waiting for you to show up and argue!

My main reason for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is mostly because it's a finite resource, depending on foreign suppliers is not very good for national security and its extraction from the earth is not environmentally friendly (especially coal).

I'm not claiming that global warming/climate change is a hoax (and you know it, but how else could you create the contention?). I'm claiming the work of Michael Mann and his manipulation of the data to intentionally create the infamous "hockey stick graph" is a hoax.

BTW, you confirmed my observation in my previous post. Are we having fun yet?

Hey Jim

Sorry to have kept you waiting.

When you claim the methodology used to support theories of anthropogenic global warming is intentionally manipulated, flawed and fraudulent, it doesn't seem unreasonable to interpret that (as I did/do) as meaning you don't buy the theory.

Cheers

Carl

Carl, it seems you haven't read this entire thread, the links I provided challenging Michael Mann's methodology and my "editorial" on the subject! I think I have made my POV as clear as I am capable of doing.

Hey Jim

I did find my way through this thread, along with the few other recent ones discussing various aspects of the subject, and also your editorial. I guess part of why I don't think you've been totally clear is you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here. A simple example:

On one hand you say "The build up of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, along with harmful land-use practices and destruction of habitat in the 20th century has no doubt accelerated and contributed to the current change in climate." -- you also imply (in several places) there's nothing we can do about global warming. Seems to me if we have the capacity to change it one way, we should be able to change it the other, no?

And please don't take this as directed at you personally, but ... as you just recently mentioned the point, I'll raise it now. What is "national security"? I have no idea what that means (honestly). What evidence is there that our reliance on foreign oil supplies jepoardizes 'national security'? In other words, how are any of us genuinely 'safer' if we in the US use less oil from overseas? I honestly don't buy this at all. I think it's an emotional argument used for politcal leverage, and has really no foundation whatsoever. In fact, I'd submit that our reliance on foreign energy puts other countries in a far more insecure and unsafe position than it does ourselves, and that we would actually be improving THEIR "national security" if we are to wean away from fossil fuels.

I agree we would do well to consume less .. less oil, less electricity, less timber, less of everything.

Cheers

Carl

Carl, not sure how much better I can elaborate my position. If you feel that I'm "talking out of both sides of my mouth," then I guess no amount of explaining will clear it up for you.

We can argue pointless semantics until we're blue in the face, but what action do you think should be taken?

Hey Jim,

Sorry, but this whole thread has been about the very kind of 'pointless semantics' you're now apparently so upset about - and you've said far more than anyone else here, so don't start that nonsense. All I'm doing is critically examining the position of the messenger here, and I don't think that's unreasonable. Essentially what's going on is you're claiming folks like Al Gore and the IPCC, etc aren't credible in their position, then wanting to discuss what action should we take that works towards the very goal they point to. I don't think it's pointless to ask why you suggest we need to take any action at all, when you claim we're incapable of negatively impacting the current warming trend. If you believe we need to do so on the ground of 'national security' I don't think it's pointless to examine what that is, and how that dynamic works - and IMO, it's completely bogus.

At this point I'll not continue the conversation Jim. It seems we're allowed to attack the credibility of politicians and hollywood types and IPCC scientists, but it's not OK to examine the reasoning and positions of people closer to home.

Cheers

Carl

Carl said;

I agree we would do well to consume less .. less oil, less electricity, less timber, less of everything.

I agree!

I think the problem in understanding global warming, or the entire environment for that matter, is there are huge variables, which are so complex, that none of us can fully comprehend. All of this must be taken as a whole, in my opinion, It's a crying shame that the arctic is melting, but what is the exact cause? Is it Joe middle class with his deisel pickups (millions of them out there) or is it some rich buy who lives in a high rise and trades stocks? Or is it a natural geologic trend? Do conservative think tanks exist solely to protect wealthy corporate interests, or do they push for policy that makes the economy more efficient, benefiting everybody. If you could say double your wealth more easily, without affecting the environment, would you go along with it, knowing very well, that a rich person's wealth might increase by 50%? "Hell no, we can't let a rich person get wealthier; I'd rather screw myself first" seems to be the standard answer. Talking about efficiency, I recall Reagan's trucking deregulation. Prior to that, trucking policy served big special interests of the left, it was inefficient and unfarr. Trucks would be required by law to drive across the country empty so they would not compete (ie they could not do round trips full with cargo). That cannot be good for the environment and certainly exacerbated global warming. Conservative think tanks ended that. Conservative think tanks (Milton Friedman) also ended the $88 Billion dollar subsidy that Jimmy Carter proposed to give to the big oil companies to exploit the West for synfuels. (Talk about giving taxpayer dollars to big, rich corporate oil companies!) That would have been a huge unnecessary boondoggle that could have wreaked environmental havoc on our West, and for nothing. My point is that there are a lot of variables at work, not just blaming the republicans (the blame game), if we want to improve the environment, we need to understand them all. Republicans damage the environment, democrats do too. The later has more emotion for the enviroment and will certainly outbid a republican any day of the week, the former conducts policy favorable to the environment at times, that goes unnoticed. What motivates most people in the world is money, left or right, To me, the environment is an issue that unfortunately has become a political ploy for vast economic interests; how socialist the world goes is every bit of a variable as how free enterprise we are. Greed knows no bounds in my opinion, it's not just the rich, but can be the middle class, and can be left or right. Al Gore may be right about global warming, but I am afraid if we abided by his politics, with all its good intentions, in the long run we will have an even worse environment and greater global warming had we not listened to him to begin with..

Hey Mark

Thanks for a thoughtful reply, but I'm not sure how the last sentence is supported by any of the rest of your post.

Cheers

Carl

Thanks Carl. My point in the whole post is to understand and protect the environment we must weigh in all the variables. Governmental policy that aims to set stringent environmental policy, yet creates a very inefficient economy, negates whatever gains may be made toward the environment. Take autos for instance. For years, the market for foreign cars was restrained to 'protect' the big auto corporations and labor unions, done primarily by the democratic party. The consumer was forced to buy more American cars, in the name of patriotism,which were more inefficient than the Japanese cars. This was the Mondale, Tip O'Neil crowd. So, this was policy that lasted several decades, and contributed vastly to the greenhouse gases built up during the last half of the twentieth century. Even until just recently, I believe it was Congressman Bonior, Dem of Michigan, who was trying to set governmental policy that would classify the family mini-van as a 'cargo' vehicle, and thus have it classified as something for commercial use. In so doing, protectionist laws would apply to foreign imports of these 'commercial' vehicles, thus encouraging Americans to buy domestic, and less efficient vans (ie more polluting and more greenhouse gases and more dependence on foreign oil and bigger profits for big oil). To summarize, yes the Republicans are slow to jump on the environmental bandwagon and gain favor with the populace, but by the same token, the Al Gore and company (ie the Democratic party machine) do the talk, yet encourage governnmental policy that indirectly wrecks the environment.So in a nutshell, the envrionmental issue to me seems to be a red herring in the big picture of money politics, the dems involved up to their eyeballs just as much as anybody else, just they play the good public image game better.

Hey Mark,

I think you're just a bit too harsh when saying that the Dems are just talk. Drop by the League of Conservation Voters website and check out the scorecard for all the candidates. You’ll really see the difference between the two parties. As for the Republicans getting on the environmental bandwagon, that WILL NEVER HAPPEN in the upper levels of government where the party has a true grip on the candidate.

In the 2007 National Environmental Scorecard released a couple of weeks ago by the League of Conservation Voters, John McCain received a score of ZERO! McCain was the only member of Congress to skip every single important environmental vote scored by the LCV. Hell, there were members of Congress that were seriously ill and some that even died during the term that scored higher! McCain’s lifetime score is a 24!

Hey Mark,

I think if you'd said folks like Gore, et al, don't have all the answers, and make a bunch of mistakes as well, that'd be fine. But to go so far as to claim we'd have an "even worse environment and greater global warming" had we engaged his ideas is somewhat absurd, IMO. The current White House administration has far and away the worst environmental record of any in my lifetime. I can't think of a single aspect of their environmental record that has been a positive, that didn't come under extreme duress and pressure - nothing.

FWIW, I agree with some of your comments in the most recent post - we must weigh in all the variables, best we can, to make informed decisions. But to imply the folks in power now are doing that is somewhat incredulous.

Further, you said that an inefficient economy negates whatever gains may be made toward the environment. Consider that for a moment.

Firstly, what is an "inefficient economy"? You mean, of course, the market economy, not the natural or biotic economy, I take it? Secondly, in the market economy what is measured as "efficient" is most often that which doesn't account for its true costs - which we were talking about on the comments on the cost of the war. And those costs are real, and they will be paid .. not now, perhaps, but down the road. So "efficient economy" is really, typically, a misnomer.

Secondly, the gains negated in the example you stated are a function of a false premise, the whole "Buy America" campaign, anyway - and that was never a supposed protection for the natural environment. Secondly, the greenhouse gas emissions generated over that period were largely a result of people driving further, not people buying less fuel efficient vehicles. The marketing was "Buy smaller vehicles, because gas costs a lot of $$" ... not "don't burn gas because it's screwing up the environment" - so people bought smaller cars, and drove them further .. gas consumption actually went up during the earlier oil crises.

I'll agree that both parties are guilty of encouraging policy that indirectly wrecks the environment, but I'll take that over a party that deliberately, unabashedly, consistently and increasingly encourage policy which directly wrecks the environment.

Cheers

Carl

Let me put it another way: the political game is about money, both sides of the aisle. The left wants us more socialist, the right wants us to be more free enterprise. If we for the moment can look at only those two variables in play, we still can not come to a consensus which is better for the world environment. I personally think that socialism (or movement in that direction) is horrible for the enviroment, you may disagree. Fine, and that's my original point- there are far more variables at play that no one can grasp totally. We've reduced the environmental issue to see who can gain more brownie points and thus win favorable public opinion to further the big money politics agenda, not necessarily what policy is really better environmentally. So, we have cars that are now 10% more efficient, but we also drive a lot farther, and we double the population, which means more and more drivers. How is that a gain?

It's like the soccer mom saying, "Well, I drive an SUV for safety with the family in case of a collision, I live in a big house in the suburbs and commute to work in the city every day to my government job, I travel extensively, and I am very environmentalist because. I vote dem and I recycle hundreds of aluminum cans every month".

Hey Mark,

I agree the political game is most often largely about money. Reducing the politics of Al Gore to socialism though is a little intellectually dishonest, IMO, no more than saying moving towards facism is a better option. The principle of your argument, though, always intrigues me - the idea than the political game is about money as a claim for a movement away from the market economic machine towards sustainable, healthy environmental policy seems a contradiction in itself. If I was driven purely by the terms you suggest drives the whole motivation, "environmentalism" is the last ideology I'd support. I'd go with supporting Exxon oil, and Big Coal and transnational corporation policy, not alternative energies, sustainable development and less consumption.

The point about the smaller cars, driving further, is that the motive for that "agenda" (what an abused word that's become, eh?) wasn't until recently, driven by environmental concern - it was purely $$$, due the increasing $$$ cost of oil. So people drove further, with their smaller cars, actually increasing overall oil consumption. But that's critically different to someone proposing we consume less oil because of the difference it can make to the air we breathe.

FWIW, I used to teach guitar in the very suburbs you refer, the soccer moms in the SUV's, commuting to work in the city, etc (though not for a Govt job). Almost without exception, those folks don't vote dem, and don't recycle anything other than their fetid, out-dated, vitriolic ideologies. :)

The notion that an environmentally healthy policy is opposed to market economic growth has been shown, time and again, to be unfounded, and more often than not, dishonest (i.e., those who argue it know it to be untrue). Few things raise my ire more than the ranting of folks who cry "jobs" when someone suggests a more harmonious existence with the world around us. More jobs have been and continue to be lost due to increased mechanization and automation and globalization and outsourcing and downsizing than because of anyone hoping to save the spotted owls.

Jerry, thanks for the reminder about McCain.

Cheers

Carl

Carl, I really can't follow that first paragraph at all. I didn't say Gore would give us socialism, but that his ideology leads that direction, ie bigger government, more regulations, favoritism to big unions and some big corporations, more government spending and more dependence upon government, and an overall transfer of wealth from those who create it to those who absorb it. (And I would argue further, the transfer of wealth is in theory supposed to take place from the wealthy to the less wealthy, but the net effect is we take from each other, or borrow from the future.) But regardless of labels, if candidate A talks about reducing oil consumption, yet endorses policy of the left that I believe increases overall innefficiency with less incentive to conserve (and that is in part because, when it's not your money, you're more wasteful), or candidate B, who has zero brownie points with the environmental movement, but who actually has policy that I believe will benefit the country environmentally through sound economic principles that encourage efficiency and discourage waste, (though it was not his ostensible purpose) I would still vote for candidate B. Whom would you vote for, assuming my underlying assumptions are correct?

I don;t get your connection about jobs and spotted owls, either. It seems to me that the ones who want to save the old growth forests for the spotted owls are also the ones who complain the most about job losses overseas. I'm all for conserving the old growth and wildlife that inhabits it, btw. Conservatives, as far as I can tell, see this as an evolving economy, not a giveaway. If you want to get on the topic of forestry, there's another variable I refer too, a hotbed of emotion, with very few facts or principles understood. The indications I have is that in our efforts to save the forests, we set them up for gigantic, uncontrollable fires in the future. It's one of those knee jerk issues, reduced to its simplest levels, that "we must protect those wonderful forests (not just the old growth) from being raped by the big corporations" Yes, we can save them alright, and all is wonderful for the moment, but in the long run, they will burn instead of being harvested, and the forest will be far less healthy. At least those are indications I get from those involved in forestry..

Still my original point was that the whole environmental issue is very complex, and imho, to better preserve our planet, we must be a lot more informed about all the issues (variables) not simply playing the blame game.

So Mark,

You really have NO IDEA about forestry do you? You are listening to the few that are really distorting the reason to cut down our forests. As you noted, “At least those are indications I get from those involved in forestry.. “. Well, what other reason are they going to use? Now, I’m a book publisher so I’m not against logging, I’m a big advocate of sustainable forestry. But let me ask you, if your/their reasoning for cutting down our forests is true why do we even have old growth forests? Why do we have the beautiful mature forests that we now have? Please enlighten us! Let me explain why we have unhealthy forests: first of all, we have a NO FIRE policy! A healthy forest is a burned forest. We have had this “no fire” policy for so long that we’ve allowed for the forests to become littered with downed debris, fuel that would’ve been eliminated by allowing natural fires. Fires that we have today are super-hot and burn the healthy along with the weak and dead.

I’ve been working for the past two years on an extended assignment and I’ve learned more about forestry than I could ever imagine. It’s really amazing that you, along with others are so narrow minded that you really believe the line “if we don’t harvest the forest it will catch on fire and burn or it will just die and do nobody any good”. It really just makes me laugh my a#@ off!

For your clarification I have added a few photos of a 2-age cut contracted by our (Bush Administration reformed) US Forest Service. As you review these photos you will see piles of slash all over the place. This is the fuel that makes for extremely hot and deadly forest fires. Now, their reason for cutting the forests in the first place is to REDUCE these fuel sources. I can guarantee you that there is a much higher chance for a deadly hot forest fire now than before the cut. If you can’t see this then you are in denial!

I could keep on going with the subject but I’ve got a two-week old baby girl to take care of. So the next time I recommend that you do your homework before making such an unsubstantiated remark.


Hey Carl how’s Alaska treating you? I’m ready to do that book when you’re ready!

Ok, I hope this works.

Here's another!

And the last one that I'll post.

Hey Mark,

"if candidate A talks about reducing oil consumption, yet endorses policy of the left that I believe increases overall innefficiency with less incentive to conserve (and that is in part because, when it's not your money, you're more wasteful), or candidate B, who has zero brownie points with the environmental movement, but who actually has policy that I believe will benefit the country environmentally through sound economic principles that encourage efficiency and discourage waste, (though it was not his ostensible purpose) I would still vote for candidate B. Whom would you vote for, assuming my underlying assumptions are correct?"

In this kind of conversation, I really don't think hypotheticals serve any purpose other than to win points. It certainly doesn't portray my understanding of the policies of the 2 major political parties of this country. I'll add this - to reduce the current administration's governing to "has zero brownie points with the environmental movement" is like saying Andrew Jackson had zero brownie points with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw and Seminole Indian, or that John Chivington had zero brownie points with the Cheyenne. If you honestly think the current administration in any way resembles candidate B, we're probably WAY too far apart for this conversation to resolve anything. :)

When I hear folks say the environmentalists are on the other side of the money game, I just wonder "who on earth would be in support of environmentally protective policy if they're in it for the money"? If garnering money is one's founding motivator, as you suggest, who on earth would point their policy in the direction of environmentalism? I wouldn't. I'd suggest Gore wouldn't, either - he's a smart man, regardless whatever other shortcomings he may have.

No, you don't say Gore is a socialist, but as soon as one brings that kind of word into the discussion it adds a layer between the lines that's probably not constructive, IMO. Like I said, the same idea for me, perhaps, would be to suggest that those leading us toward facism are not doing us or the environment any good - then you'd say that the current administration isn't facist, and the conversation becomes even more circular, and distracted. FWIW, nobody has given us bigger federal government, more Govt spending, debt regulations and big transient no-transparent corporations than those in power at the moment.

I also disagree with your premise of "those who create wealth" - firstly, we have to agree on a definition of "wealth" - clean air, drinkable water, healthy sustainable agriculture, civility, peace, wilderness are a part of a wealthy community, IMO - just as perpetuating and orchestrating war, toxic air, poisoned waterways, corporate agribusiness, endless "development", loss of viable ecosystems, fear-mongering, intolerance, and escalating debt and indenture are forms of poverty. Those are not a consideration of those presently in power, nor are they generally considered as measurements of "wealth". Second, Exxon don't create wealth. They exploit it. WalMart don't create wealth - they maintain employment at near poverty levels of income. Nike don't create wealth - they create and foster poverty. Your statement "an overall transfer of wealth from those who create it to those who absorb it" is totally off-base, IMO. I don't absorb wealth - the folks who work on the store floor for WalMart don't absorb wealth - the folks who work in the sweat shops of Gap, Nike, etc, don't absorb wealth - they're denied access, by those in power, to what wealth they might otherwise be a part of. BoiseCascade absorb, extract and exploit wealth. Enron absorb wealth. Monsanto exploit wealth, and create poverty. Union Carbide, JP Morgan, et al, absorb and plunder wealth.

Don't get me started on the forestry stuff - you lost me the second you suggested that "harvesting" a forest leads to a healthier forest than allowing them to proceed more naturally. There's not a single example of a "harvested" forest that contains the genetic diversity, stability, maturity, biotic community, or even the simple beauty of an old growth forest. A monocrop is a fiber plantation, not a forest. The whole "fires" argument is totally bogus - that argument is a spawn of the transnational corporations whose single interest is increased dollar profits, not a healthy forest. If you think WeyerHaeuser is concerned about the health of the Pacific Northwest, I've got a bridge I'll sell you. Cheap.

The "timber industry" has fuelled the argument, for years, that environmentalists cost jobs - the reality is the timber industry makes redundant thousands of jobs at every opportunity they can, which is often at the development of newer (usually more destructive) technology.

Bringing it back to Global Warming, here's a great example of what's going right now; this was announced today:

Dept of Interior under Investigation.

Basically, what's going on is that the FWS, after intensive studies, meetings, public hearing, memos, emails and chitchat were supposed to have their recommendation on listing the polar bear as endangered (or not) over 2 months ago. They did submit their recommendations to DC, and it's been held up their, because the administration don't want to acknowledge global warming as existing. The FWS service are now being sued for not complying with the law, including the ESA.

I agree with your last sentence.

Cheers

Carl

Hey Jerry

Couldn't agree with you more, man.

Alaska's rocking man, thanks - we'll talk soon about the book. How's the dad-thing doing ya? :)

For one of the deepest reads you'll find on the forestry industry, check out "Strangely Like War: The Global Assault on Forests", by Derrick Jensen. It's a comprehensive and well-reported look at the forestry industry. I can't recommend it highly enough.

Cheers

Carl

Jerry, Now let's mellow down a bit. The statement I made about the forests catching fire was with the exact understanding of the fuels that you mentioned, though note those fuels exist in the uncut forests as well. Of course, our fire policy has been misguided. I did not say otherwise, but wanted to avoid getting into endless details.We are not in disagreement, so tell me how I don't know what I am talking about, but you do? Note I did not make a case for cutting down old growth. Please don't concoct notions on me! I was told that forest fires are more likely where there is plenty of undergrowth fuel. I was told also that most of the twentieth century fire policy was to prevent fires in order to 'save' forests. In so doing, just as you say also, we set up the forests to be unhealthy and fire prone. Explain to me how we can pretty much state the same things, yet you feel I don't know what I am talking about. You need to calm down your insulting tenor here, please.

That's how the National Forest Service explained it to me, in layman's terms, FYI. If we are going to harvest the forest, and keep a healthy forest, then all these aforementioned "variables" (back to variables) must be considered together. It was not some corporate guy conning me, it was our government! He stated, just as you did (I believe), fires do keep the forest healthy, allowing for new growth.But to use the twentieth century knee jerk mindset to "save the forests" with fire prevention programs, we ultimately did more damage to the forests than if had not taken a fire prevention policy to 'save't them to begin with, don't you think? . Do you disagree?

Now, to tie this back to the original point about taking all variables into consideration, the forestry topic makes a good analogy to what I am saying about Gore. We can get all hotbedded,emotional and screaming about doing something, like to save the forests, take big steps to save the forests, but without sound scientific backing, follow this path for a whole century, and ultimately find that we are worse off than had we not done any fire policy at all, jsut letting it be natural. So, regarding Gore, yeah, he might offer some legitimate concerns, but what, if any policy of his, can we assuredly follow that would guarantee that global warming will be reduced in this century. Or, might it happen, through good intentions, but without sound science, that we follow new policy and end up with worse global warming anyway? I don't doubt Gore's sincerity, nor that global warming exists, but what exactly measures can be takeng that really will make a difference, or will we be taking measures that delude ourselves? What good is it to reduce auto emissions 15% for instance, yet we double our population and quintuple the miles driven? Maybe it's not autos anyway that is the primary cause of global warming; maybe it's industrial pollutants, perhaps the chloride compounds? Do you know? I don't? Is there really sound science into the exact causes? There's certainly a lot of disagreement. Are you for instance, absolutely sure about the causes and what measures can be taken, more sure than many of the scientists? That's my unwavering concern in this discussion.

By the way, regarding forests, you seem to be on the know, what can you tell me about some of the research I have been hearing about how Native Americans managed the forests? I have just an inkling of understanding that they practiced a primitive form of forest management through burning. What can you tell me about this?
Cheers and thanks for the photos. I also took some of clear cut forests, and cringed. But then again, I own a house, read newspapers and books as well.

Mark,

We all know why we realy have the "no fire" policy and it has very little to do with saving the forests. It is to save the homes of people that have built in and around our forests! It's mostly about the people!

Here's some great articles about this issue:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0814_030815_forestfires.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1203_loggingfires.html

http://www.nativeforest.org/press_room/release_8_29_02.htm

http://www.onearth.org/article/our-trial-by-fire

Hi Carl, Wow, I' m getting the one-two punch here! Regarding hypotheticals, well yes, they can get carried away to meaninglessness. However, when we talk about the future, especially the trend of global warming in the whole 21st century, then how can we talk, except without doing so in terms of possiblities and hypotheticals? And why am I suddenly the defender of Bush in all this? Where did that come from?

Talking about digressing, you mention Andrew Jackson from 170 years ago!. I too cringe and feel ashamed about what happened to the Indians, and what happened in subsequent years. And what's particularly scary, Jackson was the founder and first president of the democratic party (if I have my history correct) plus the reservation system and harsh treatment of the Indians,, Japanese incarceration, segregation, slavery, Jim Crow, were all sponsored and supported by the democratic party. Things change.

These are unintended sordid consequences, of well meaning people in the past. If only they could see, and comprehend their crimes, I am sure they would feel horrible by our standards. This ties it in, because we do things now, no matter how well intentioned, that may have dire consequences for the future.

I am not swallowing wholesale propaganda from the lumber industry, but expressing what I gathered from our own government. I would follow that with this question: Okay,the forests are unhealthy and this has much to do with management and our no burn policy, agreed? So, if we have a forest, that is not old growth, and let's say there is no new growth (unhealthy, right), and let's say there is a lot of fuel. If we are going to demand lumber for homes, and other products, would it not be wise to target this forest for harvesting, if we are going to harvest any forests at all? Agreed, it's not going to be healthy for that particular forest, but it would seem to me, by our economic demands, that would be the wisest choice. Or do you think, heck, don't harvest that forest, instead let it burn? Would that not contribute to more greenhouse gases?

So, let's wrap this up. I can see we can respectfully disagree ideologically. I am always skeptical of those in politics who seem to know what is better for me. Maybe that's why I am an American. I have my sense of history and economics, and you have yours. Looking forward to your replies, Cheers as well. MM

Jerry,
I'll check those links. If I understand you correctly, all this stuff about Smokey the Bear, all those commercials of the past and so forth were kind of a hoax on us? The truth is all that was about saving homes in forests? That could be and I respect your insight. So, to follow up, then would you say that the unharvested forests not near homes are unhealthy, and why is this so? I mean if they are being let burn naturally, and are not being harvested, then how can they be unhealthy? thnx MM

Hey Mark,

Thanks for the reply.

The comment about hypotheticals wasn't an avoidance of the fact that we're talking about the future. The way people use hypotheticals like this isn't constructive .. it's to establish certain parameters, define a given scenario, and control a conversation. Look at what you wrote below. How could anyone answer anything other than Candidate B is the better choice? Does it reflect reality? Not at all. What if I said:

If candidate A proposes we develop policy and strategy to move forward in an ecologically sound and viable manner, strive to develop peaceful relationships with the world around us, and become more tolerant of diversity and candidate B is selfish, greedy, war mongering, hateful SOB, I would vote for candidate A. Whom would you vote for, assuming my underlying assumptions are correct?

That kind of discourse isn't constructive, it serves no purpose other than to win an argument. He, or she, who defines the parameters of a conversation will always win the argument.

I guess I took

"if candidate A talks about reducing oil consumption, yet endorses policy of the left that I believe increases overall innefficiency with less incentive to conserve (and that is in part because, when it's not your money, you're more wasteful), or candidate B, who has zero brownie points with the environmental movement, but who actually has policy that I believe will benefit the country environmentally through sound economic principles that encourage efficiency and discourage waste, (though it was not his ostensible purpose) I would still vote for candidate B. Whom would you vote for, assuming my underlying assumptions are correct?"

as defending Bush (candidate B). Forgive me if it wasn't intended to be. I also took this

(Al Gore's) ideology leads that direction, ie bigger government, more regulations, favoritism to big unions and some big corporations, more government spending and more dependence upon government, and an overall transfer of wealth from those who create it to those who absorb it."

to mean bigger, more, etc than the current administration. Those are relative terms, they have to be references to someone else's (i.e., Bush's) policies, best I follow it.

My point in mentioning Jackson wasn't a concerned with which party he belonged to - it was arguing that saying the current administration's governing "has zero brownie points with the environmental movement" is like saying Andrew Jackson had zero brownie points with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw and Seminole Indian, or that John Chivington had zero brownie points with the Cheyenne. I could've said it's like saying Exxon Mobil have zero brownie points with Valdez fishermen - it's, at best, a monumental reduction, more often a somewhat dishonest representation of the reality.

"question: Okay,the forests are unhealthy and this has much to do with management and our no burn policy, agreed? So, if we have a forest, that is not old growth, and let's say there is no new growth (unhealthy, right), and let's say there is a lot of fuel. If we are going to demand lumber for homes, and other products, would it not be wise to target this forest for harvesting, if we are going to harvest any forests at all? Agreed, it's not going to be healthy for that particular forest, but it would seem to me, by our economic demands, that would be the wisest choice. Or do you think, heck, don't harvest that forest, instead let it burn? Would that not contribute to more greenhouse gases? "

Well, it'd be impossible to answer that reasonably without a bunch of further detailed information, but on a simple level, I'd point out a couple of things:

a) Harvesting isn't simply 'harvesting'. We must address what that means, how we pursue it, how we measure the costs of that harvest, who pays those costs, what alternatives are available, etc. The means and scope of harvesting forests vary greatly. Replanting isn't simply a function of "what grows quickest and offers the fastest, highest return". Traditional forestry practices have tried, largely, to manage forestry purely form an economic standpoint (failing miserably, by the way); ecologically viable, healthy forests were a presumption, not a considered factor.

b) We must decide if our "economic demands" ought be satiated each and every time they arise (or increase).

c) When you create a little scenario like this, you establish a simple premise, and that carries certain other implications. It doesn't, for example, consider that much more is going on than this. Old growth forests ARE being logged, clearcut and simultaneously destroyed. Forests aren't being cut simply to satisfy economic demands - they're being cut, often times disastrously, to perpetuate the logging industry. It also blinds us to alternative concerns, such as recycling, lower consumption, waste, and so forth.

Your example of harvesting a forest

"These are unintended sordid consequences, of well meaning people in the past. If only they could see, and comprehend their crimes, I am sure they would feel horrible by our standards. This ties it in, because we do things now, no matter how well intentioned, that may have dire consequences for the future. "

Why do people so often move to excuse deliberate malfeasance when it comes from those in power? To claim that what's going on at the moment is "well intentioned" is blind, bruh. There was nothing "well meaning" about the policies of those people I mentioned earlier, and there's nothing "well intentioned" about the present administration's environmental record. It's not ignorance that's the problem, it's a set of values that are rooted in power and control and narcissism. And the dire consequences aren't of "the future". They're right now, absolutely present, just as they were 130 years ago on the Great Plains.

Ignorance isn't the issue here: information is clearly available. Did you read the link I posted about the F&WS? The science which you suggest is so vital, best they could muster it, was gathered, discussed, chatted about, stewed over, and analyzed, and convincingly supported the position of listing polar bears, as a species, endangered due to loss of sea ice (i.e., habitat) due warming global climate. The administration has stumbled over, delayed, denied, avoided, lied about, and removed and done everything they can to oppose it. Not because of any other reason than it might cost their buddies some $$$. They haven't found or dredged up any information that refutes the findings of the F&WS studies .. they're simply making every attempt at denying those findings because it doesn't sit well with their view of the world.

Regarding the forestry issues, the government is hardly a trusted source for valid information about the National Forest Service and forests. Ever look at the folks on the NFS and the heads of the largest timber industries? They're the same people. The NFS is in the business of selling timber, not healthy forest management. For the record, I'll disagree a bit with Jerry here too - the "no burn" policy was, for the most part, so that potential timber wouldn't be wasted .. seeing a tree burn up was, and for the most part still is, seen as wasted $$$ - the contribution of fires to a healthy viable forest ecosystem wasn't at all a part of the equation. That said, I suspect where Jerry's coming from claiming you "don't know what you're talking about", is when you suggest the reason for the fires policy was to 'save forests' - that's a veil to cloak the underlying and fundamental principle guiding almost everything the FS has traditionally stood on with its management policies. That's changing, slightly, and slowly, but historically, that's simply been marketing.

Your questions about Native Americans and how they lived within the forests will likely yield a million different answers. They definitely burned forests, and utilized timber. To what scale is another issue. They certainly never clearcut forests, they certainly never replaced forests with monocrops and fiber plantations. Any reading on the forests of the US when European settlers first started arriving on the land indicates that whatever practices the native peoples engaged, the results were different to what followed.

"Or, might it happen, through good intentions, but without sound science, that we follow new policy and end up with worse global warming anyway? I don't doubt Gore's sincerity, nor that global warming exists, but what exactly measures can be takeng that really will make a difference, or will we be taking measures that delude ourselves? What good is it to reduce auto emissions 15% for instance, yet we double our population and quintuple the miles driven? Maybe it's not autos anyway that is the primary cause of global warming; maybe it's industrial pollutants, perhaps the chloride compounds? Do you know? I don't? Is there really sound science into the exact causes? There's certainly a lot of disagreement. Are you for instance, absolutely sure about the causes and what measures can be taken, more sure than many of the scientists? That's my unwavering concern in this discussion. "

I highly doubt anything of this scale can be reduced to "policy". Its called "global warming" for good reason. It's global - I doubt anyone working in this field of study is going to say they have all the answers. But they do sound warning alarms, and say we need to do something. For good reason. I'm sure even the Gorical, with all his posturing and lecturing, has gotten his share of it wrong. That's not a big deal - we're all wrong from time to time. But it's a wake up call, and time we moved in a direction that doesn't yield the volume and degree of ecological, as well as social, personal and economic dysfunction that we're producing at the moment. Should we reduce auto emissions 15% or 20% or 23.75%?

IMO, that's diversionary debate, and not based in an attempt to find any real solution, but to deny reason for change. I don't know you, of course, so I can't say that's your intention here, but every time I see this kind of argument thrown up, that's the motivation behind it. It's not about establishing viable policy, it's simply a reason to cast doubt on those who propose changes. What are the alternatives? do nothing and wait and see? Continue on our merry way, extracting, selling and consuming what we can while we can get it, and let the cards fall where they may?

You said you don't doubt Gore's sincerity. Well, I'll take that over the alternative on offer at present, because I do doubt their motives, their sincerity and their policy.

Cheers

Carl

Mark,

This is not a loaded question! Do you know or have ever heard the term cut and squirt? How about two-age cuts? Basal area? These are all terms used heavily by our Forest Service. It's really amazing how the management of our forests has changed in the last 8 years! It's now all about the timber value and big game animals, not the value of the stand for all wildlife. It's really depressing as to how we have been shut out of the process and that we have no say whether a proposed cut will happen or not. They are managing the forest to their ideals and take no consideration to how the people that live and play in the area that is to be harvested. It wasn't like this before Bush took office! If you get a chance look up Wise Use Group, this is the group that has infiltrated the Bush Administration and is undoing government oversight in most every environmental policy agency of our Government. They believe in deregulating all aspects of government oversight from mining, drilling, ORV and timber.

Some pretty dire scenarios. I'd say you guys know more facts about the subject that most of our citizenry. Now if I understand you correctly, your claim is most of this began with Bush? But certainly, cutting old growth was an issue with Clinton as well, agreed?
You guys might be misinterpreting my original comment, and inadvertently lumping me in with others. I was not implying that we need to cut forests to save them. I just meant, gvven a certain lot of timber, that was not old growth and that was dry and full of fuel and ready to go up in flames, and given the fact that we will harvest timber anyway, then it would seem wiser to me to at least consider harvesting that particular tract rather than let it burn and harvest somewhere else. Sorry but I really don't see how this is a problem, except if there are wildlife considerations, where a natural burn is beneficial. I am not defending Bush's policy or favoring big business. The guy in our government told me that there is a lot of National Forest ready to go up in flames.What is the answer? So for my basic understanding, how should we best manage the forest that is not old growth, but is dry and full of fuel and ready to ignite? Should we just let it all go up in flames, should we try to save it (which might be impossible at this point) or should we let some of it go in flames, while harvesting other tracts? I really don't know, can you tell me? And to tie this to the original point, if a lot of forest goes up in flames, would this increase greenhouse gases considerably?

Now for presidential candidates, I'd be concerned with Hillary, because I do recall that about 10 years. B Clinton proposed further oil exploration in the arctic, just like Bush did recently- the same thing. And we can rule out McCain environmentally, probably worse than Bush, if that's possible, but can we really have much hope for Hillary? And then there's Obama. What does he stand for anyway, behind the charisma? Would he be expected to reverse all of Bush's enrivonmentally damaging polciy, and get us a course that you would approve of? Can simply voting democrat be the ultimate answer to a healthy environment?Just wondering.

hey Mark,

I'll disagree with Jerry here, again. I don't think any of this started with the Bush administration. The history of the NFS goes back a long, long time. They've been illegally cutting trees and selling timber for years. They've been in the business of harvesting trees, living in the pocket of transnational timber corporations for eons, and done a remarkably poor job of it probably since they began. But the current administration, and I'm sure Jerry agrees here, has been unabashed in their extraction, exploitation, and disrespect for healthy ecology.

One thing that both excites me and simultaneously frightens me today is the number of simply amazing writers who work in this area. It excites me because it can be so enlightening to learn from them, and frightening when I wonder "why do we have so many so many great thinkers writing about environmental issues"? There's literally tons of stuff around to learn about this stuff.

Here's a little summary of some of how much misrepresentation there often is about forest fires. I'm sure if you dig around you'll find plenty more.

Forest Fires in Sth Cal.

It's an example of the kind of misinformation put forward, particularly by institutions such as the NFS, to foster their own agenda. Those fires didn't, for the most part, burn NFS land, nor did they even burn much "forest" .. but what we're told is this is why the NFS must quickly step in and log forest land.

Sustainable forestry is an issue worldwide. One of the problems with understanding forests better is the relatively long life cycle of trees, and the complexity of forest ecology requires long term study - and commercial logging companies, including the NFS, simply don't want to do that - it doesn't fit the policy of someone whose fundamental interest is the market economy and profiteering.

We could look at folks like the Menominee of Wisconsin, who have an incredible record of working with healthy, sustainable forests. They live with intact viable forests, ancient trees, biotic diversity. In a forest they actively "use", there are trees 150 and 200 years old. But we don't value things the way that culture does. We don't believe land is sacred, we don't believe we belong to the land, but we worship the market economy. Profitability = sound management, right? We want to make a killing, we want to attain "Wealth". Typically, that manifests itself as greed, a form of addiction. That being the case, we have little interest in understanding, and certainly from learning about alternative choices in how we deal with the world around us.

Understand there's no single theory or ideal that is going to solve any of this mess - not that I can imagine anyway. Nor we hope to can solve each little problem individually, because they're not individual problems. Acid rain, global warming, undrinkable water, unproductive soil, species extinctions, and so forth are all related to one another, and aren't going to be solved separately. Clean water is a function of healthy forests, and vice versa. The current debate over listing the polar bear as endangered is a great example of this. The problem isn't polar bears being hunted into extinction, it isn't over-development of their natural habitat, it isn't any of the things we normally think of as eliminating a species. It's everything .. global warming is a function of industrial pollutants, of deforestation, of over population, of fossil fuel reliance, etc, etc. All of those things are jeopardizing the future of the polar bear as a species - nobody can "solve" that. Not without fundamental and monumental change, in our consciousness, in our behavior, in how we see ourselves, as well as the world around us.

We can't, and nor should we try to, reduce this amazing mystery of a world to some equation or concept or strategy and expect anything other than failure. Anyone thing we do affects countless others, so we ought expect a variety and diverse order of steps requisite to foster some improvements.

Private responsibility is as important as public responsibility, and bickering over the degree to which each is required and productive is more often than not going to get us nowhere. The way I live my life is in some respects equally as important to the survival of, say, the polar bears as is the Government policy on subsidizing oil companies and automobile manufacturers - it may have less direct bearing, but it's what have control over. I heard a good bit of discussion recently about "saving the polar bears", when the F&WS opened for public comment. People want the Govt to save the polar bears, when using all those plastic grocery bags at the store and the soccer mom's SUV is leading to their demise. We have to learn to live sustainably.

At the same time, Government is integral in ceasing the destruction of things that don't belong to us. Do you know who James "Buck Harless is? What right does he, or his company, have to destroy a mountain? What right do we have to consume the fuels of the planet and leave nothing behind? What right do we have to live in such a way that the potential of the planet to sustain a healthy biotic community, including humanity, is put at risk?

I'd never propose we don't have a right to consume what we need of the world around us, but the problem is about scale. At some point, if we don't learn to cut way back, what are we left with?

Just for the record, Bill Clinton vetoed proposals to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge after the proposal was passed in the House and the Senate. God Bless Him!

No, I don't think simply voting for the democratic party is the answer to a healthy environment. I won't bog this conversation down further with my views on the candidates, but I will say that having had the present administration for 8 years, we need drastic, urgent change. Jerry's pointed out McCain's not an answer for this, and I agree with him completely.

You've given me a great idea for an article, I'm gunna gets started on it soon, thanks! :)

Cheers

Carl

Well, thanks Carl! Well put and mostly non-political. What disturbs me most in the environmental issue is how it can easily become the politcal football to push for what really are ideological agendas. I am constantly wary of that and fearful that the environment from Washington's perpective is simply another avenue to appease a few folks, but swing a lot of votes. Like throwing a few bones out there, and we still get the same old problems over and over. And I do like your in depth insight of how things work. I think we can apply that philosophy to all walks of life, and both sides of the aisle. These hidden agendas work because most folks don't have the time or inclination to be thoroughly informed about the issues. There are just so many things to juggle, that most people just can't do it. So, platitudes and emotions rule, not analysis.

IMO, what we really need is conservatism that has an express interest in environmental well-being, and we need liberalism with a deeper understanding of conservative economics. I do agree also with you that there must be some greater conscience about what we do to the earth, whether it be bulldozing a mountain or exterminating a species. I don't blame it solely on the profit motive, nor on capitalism, but instead, think we as a whole are to blame. It's kind of like we are environmentalists when it's ourselves, but if it's 'them', then they are exploiters. We all just go with the trend, we use oil, timber, minerals, and expect all the amenities of modern society.

I said a long time ago I felt the biggest single variable affecting world environment is population growth. We can quibble about and tweak details and make some progress, but I think the overriding force will just be the sheer numbers of people. I think, despite all the concern we are probably developing our American West faster now than at any other moment in history. And this is mainly because of population growth. My own theory on this is such: we ran up huge federal debts over many decades, mostly because of social welfare (most will argue it was from the military, but it was not), borrowing from the future.In so doing, politicians realized that the only solution was growing the heck out of the economy to pay off these debts. But we were on a trend to zero population growth, with few younger people and more aging. To fill in this gap, massive immigration naturally filled the void, legal and illegal. Most of this immigrants (and God bless them, please I am not throwing any blame toward them whatsoever) are young, and produce a lot of babies. And we subsidize the births of those babies for the most part, as far as I can tell. So, we are setting our own destiny to be a hugely populated country, and most of this growth will be in the American West. I thought Bush's Guest Worker program would have alleviated this situation, and really ultimately putting less strain on the environment of our West, but it was shot down from both sides of the aisle.

Regarding the Clinton/Babbit proposal to expand oil exploration in the Arctic in the Beaufort Sea, I can gladly email you the news article I saved from 10 years ago. I got in the habit of this, knowing that people easily forget (conveniently perhaps) when democrats do it too.

Thanks- MM

Carl & Mark,

What I'm saying here is that their has been a shift to locking the doors for public comment and such over the last eight years. I guess I should state that each unit of the Forest Service works a touch different and in the Cherokee and Pisgah Nat'l Forest things have changed drasticly with forest management. They now treat the forest as a commerical tree farm. We had a say in what goes on in our forest management a few years back but now we have no say. Maybe, probably, we are now catching up with what everyone out West has been dealing with over the years.

http://content.wildsouth.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=56 This is the group that I've been working for over the past 2 years. Read the info on the Globe Sale of North Carolina.

Hey Mark,

Thanks for the reply. This has gotta way too big, and it seems like only 3 of us are even reading it, so I won't go on, but I'll touch a couple of point you made.

"I don't blame it solely on the profit motive, nor on capitalism, but instead, think we as a whole are to blame. It's kind of like we are environmentalists when it's ourselves, but if it's 'them', then they are exploiters. We all just go with the trend, we use oil, timber, minerals, and expect all the amenities of modern society. "

Well, I think the profit motive and capitalism are a fundamental element in the "problem". A system of cash money provides us with an infinite unitary measurement of wealth. That's something completely at odds with the way the world actually works, in physicality at least. One of the things this system does is provide us with a motivation to continually deplete the world around us - because we no longer have to deal with the physical reality of excess. It becomes rapidly transferred to cash money, which allows infinite storage - real, tangible physical features don't. So we definitely live within a system that fosters and promotes excess.

On top of that, don't underestimate the power of advertising. What we've seen over the last 50 years is an extensive, long-term, systemic brain washing of the general populace. The result of that is what I'd call a systemic addiction - addiction to "more", and it functions exactly the same way as does any other addiction, be it alcoholism, gambling, sex, money, shoes, or whatever. That's a HUGE deal that we don't at all care to examine - which is, of course, a classic symptom of addiction. :)

"I said a long time ago I felt the biggest single variable affecting world environment is population growth."

And I said a long time ago I felt that isn't the single biggest factor affecting the global environment. :) It clearly feeds the issue, but I think rampant, uncontrolled consumption and waste without concern is a bigger issue. The US population is a fraction of the global population, but contributes enormously to problems like global warming, global deforestation, and so on. We use a quarter of the world's oil, and we're a fraction of the population. That tells me sheer numbers isn't the single biggest factor. Now that's not set in stone either, as a country like China, with over a billion people, is also really heavily affecting the global environment.

I presumed you were referring to the arctic national wildlife refuge, in reference to Bill Clinton. Yes, they did back the AROC drilling program and off-shore leases. The MMS lease (Minerals Management Service) are just bad folks. :) Like I said, I don't think the democrats are a magic wand for this issue - but by any measurement you care to choose, if we look over the record of the last 7 years with the previous 8, the overall difference is night and day.


hey Jerry

Oh, I totally agree with what you're saying here. But when you consider stuff like the Patriot Act, and so forth, how could you expect anything different from these people?

Cheers

Carl

When this notion comes up that the profit motive of capitalism is to blame for damage to the environment, versus socialism, my alert button goes off, just like you legitimately mentioned how bogus and disingenous the argument was that the forests must be harvested to save them form burning.

Socialism is inherently flawed imo.What would have been the equivalent of profit, is instead, waste. I don't know how you feel about it, but I think it is another form of stealing, is greed masquerading as 'sharing', strains the enviroment even more wastefully by its very innefficiency, and is always doomed to eventual failure.

Hey Mark,

Well, I may or may not be correct, that of course remains to be seen - but there's certainly nothing bogus or disingenuous in my posts above.

How do you explain the rapidly approaching extinction of bluefin tuna? Howcome the passenger pigeon, probably the most abundant bird the world has ever known, was wiped out so quickly. Do you know how many examples there are of species extirpations and extinctions directly resulting from profit motives? Rates of species extinctions are at an all-time high - the fastest ever rate of deforestation seen yet in the world happened where? Gwinnett County, Atlanta, Georgia, in the last 10 years. How about the Exxon Mobil Valdez oil spill? How about Bhopal/Union Carbide? How about the Dust Bowl?

For the record, you, not I, reduced the alternative of capitalism and profit motives to socialism. I never said anything about socialism. What I wrote about above was largely to do with money as a system of exchange.

You keep referring to "inefficiency" as implicitly negative, which, thinking about it, might be giving "inefficiency a bad rap. Perhaps its the very efficiency you're promoting that is directly responsible for so much of the destruction and extraction around the world today.

Lastly, I said the profit motive is an 'element in the problem, not the single cause.

Cheers

Carl

Carl, "Disingenuous" was not aimed at your posts. I recall visiting some Earth Day forums at my old college, where there were some lecturers trying to convince the students that socialism was the environmental answer. So, just like you when the dialogue here came to the disingenuous notion of harvesting the trees to save them from burning, our better senses were alerted. So the reference is not to you, but to a precedent you were unaware of and a tactic I suspect is common. Certainly you despise socialism as much as I.

"Profits" encompass a broader meaning than the narrow parameters you set. Of course, killing off species is horrible, whether profit is involved or not. It's just unconscionable and unethical. 'Profit' per se in free enterprise is not the problem, imo, nor just an element as you say. It is more to do with morals, ethics, and a sense of fairness with nature. Certainly there are innumerable examples of species extinction that had nothing to do with profit. It's theorized that the hunting pressures early man put on Ice Age species, led or contributed to their extinctions. No profit, just bad management among other things. Profit to me is a compensation for work, effort, ingenuity or risk. Profits can be made from enviromentally friendly technology. I think blaming the 'profit motive' per se is not the right approach here.

Efficiency is another term that encompasses a broad range. My reference was that for the same amount of gain, the capitalist method will use natural resources more efficiently and the socialist with waste more. That is because the profit motive in the capitalistic is a major concern, whereas the socialist doesn't care about waste as much. This boils down to a fundamental human characteristic, which is if it is not out of one's own pocket, then there a tendency to not be so frugal. So, 'efficiency; can deplorably mean how fast we cut down forests (your point of view), or the flip side, to which I refer, of how little forest we need to chop down to reach a certain end. I am saying in the later, the socialist will be more inefficient and wasteful.

Hey Mark,

"Carl, "Disingenuous" was not aimed at your posts."

Cool, thanks man, I appreciate that.

"Certainly you despise socialism as much as I. "

I don't fear it. I have little faith in most "movements", be they socialism, capitalism, anarchism, or whatever. I certainly don't believe any one to be inherently "better" than any other.

""Profits" encompass a broader meaning than the narrow parameters you set. Of course, killing off species is horrible, whether profit is involved or not. It's just unconscionable and unethical. 'Profit' per se in free enterprise is not the problem, imo, nor just an element as you say. It is more to do with morals, ethics, and a sense of fairness with nature. Certainly there are innumerable examples of species extinction that had nothing to do with profit. It's theorized that the hunting pressures early man put on Ice Age species, led or contributed to their extinctions. No profit, just bad management among other things. Profit to me is a compensation for work, effort, ingenuity or risk. Profits can be made from enviromentally friendly technology. I think blaming the 'profit motive' per se is not the right approach here. "

Just as I was winding down you say a few words that send shivers up my spine and me spiraling off again! :) I SOOOOOOOOO disagree with this. Motivation is absolutely a part of what we're seeing. And something must be a motivation for people who have plenty to eat, plenty to drink, secure shelter, etc, to consume the world around them. By the way, what are the 'innumerable examples of species extinction that had nothing to do with profit and market economies'? Have you read Paul Shepard, "Coming Home to the Pleistocene"? He dismantles the Pleistocene Overkill theory as well as anyone - that theory really doesn't hold up under examination, certainly not in this country - perhaps on some of the Polynesian islands with large flightless birds - perhaps. Further, what we've seen in this country alone recently has happened in a remarkably short time period - How long did it take to wipe out the Plains Bison? 100 million bison in what, 30 or 40 years? Nothing else in human history can come close to that. Just like global warming, the rate of change leads to a tangle of problems of a magnitude previously unseen.

We live in a world where profit is justification for behavior. Disagree? Ever heard someone say "it's nothing personal, it's strictly business"? Do you know what that means? It means,, essentially, "I know what I'm doing is the wrong thing to do, but I'm making a buck, and that makes it OK - I know you'll agree". And that claim is almost always followed by, and expected to be followed by, "Sure, I understand".

Well ya know what? I do understand. I understand a culture so driven by economic profit they'll do ANYTHING to generate and perpetuate their control of that. I understand fishermen catching entire schools of half-grown bluefin tuna, fencing them, fattening them up, towing them to harvest, and selling them for up to $400 per pound. Fish don't reach breeding age, so the population plummets. What happens to price when supply goes down? It soars. So the fishermen are now motivated to expend more fuel, energy, time and resources to catch the last few remaining bluefin tuna because they stand to increase their profits. So they plunder the last of a species, and make a huge cash bonus for doing so. There's nothing "moral, ethical or grounded in a sense of fairness with nature" in this system. In fact, I'd submit that process is completely at odds with any sense of nature - it certainly doesn't seem to be how systems in the natural world work. When prey species become rare, harder to find, and require more energy to catch, natural predators seek other prey. Our system provides not just a method, but an actual motivation to eliminate a species here - it's more profitable for a fishing industry to catch the remaining tuna, or any other highly desirable and rare species, than it is to catch those that are plentiful. The same could be said of forests, trees, fossil fuel consumption, etc. I guarantee you in my lifetime we'll see the same thing happen globally with fresh water.

"Efficiency is another term that encompasses a broad range. My reference was that for the same amount of gain, the capitalist method will use natural resources more efficiently and the socialist with waste more. That is because the profit motive in the capitalistic is a major concern, whereas the socialist doesn't care about waste as much. This boils down to a fundamental human characteristic, which is if it is not out of one's own pocket, then there a tendency to not be so frugal. So, 'efficiency; can deplorably mean how fast we cut down forests (your point of view), or the flip side, to which I refer, of how little forest we need to chop down to reach a certain end. I am saying in the later, the socialist will be more inefficient and wasteful."

Your conceptualization of "efficiency" only holds in theory. In practice, as I wrote earlier, what happens in market economic systems is costs are externalized, and that's how profit is heightened. Companies don't pay the cost of the waste, they don't pay the cost of recycling their excess packaging, they don't pay the cost of their consumption of natural features and places. You mentioned logging again. Great example. "Efficiency", measured economically, doesn't examine the cost to the ecosystem. It doesn't include the cost of a decimated forest - it measures the cost of labor, machinery and distribution. Is it more cost-efficient to clearcut a forest, or engage "worst first, single-tree selection"? Being more efficient in a capitalist system isn't about how little forest we need to chop down to reach a certain end. It means how cost effectively can timber be extracted and transported to market.

Further, the very fundamental problem, as I explained above, is that there is no end. Market economics have given us a system of infinity. Bill Gates is infinitely wealthy, and he's still engaged trying to earn more wealth. Exxon Mobil are probably going to come close to $50 BILLION profit this year. Profit! They're not closing up shop and settling down until the last ounce of oil has been squeezed from the earth, sucked from the ocean floors and sold on the stock market. That's the only "certain end" in a market economy. Michael Jordon's another great example. Earning more money at the time than any basketball player in history, probably than any sportsperson before him, he dressed up like a clown and advertised everything from hotdogs to McDonalds to underwear in order to increase his profit. What the he** is that about? The man's a legend, one of the greatest athletes the world has known, yet he's Ronald McDonald's monkey? Sir, the profit motive isn't quite as healthy as you seem to think it is.

Walmart are one of the most profitable companies ever to exist. You know how they achieve that? It's not by being efficient in any healthy sense of the word, it's by not paying the real costs of their business practices. It's by having someone else incur those costs - either the state, in the case of medical insurance, workers, in low pay and no overtime, and so on. To say "capitalism = efficiency and environmental stability" is completely unfounded and unsupportable, IMO.

So the problem becomes one largely about scale. Any system, and I'll reiterate that, [b[ANY SYSTEM[/b] that fosters the degree of 'wealth' currently embraced by Walmart, Exxon, the Saudi family, etc, is completely unbalanced, and destined to fail, as you put it. The most successful capitalists of the world are (typically) responsible for an inordinate amount of environmental damage, so I don't agree at all that your position above holds true.

Here's another flaw in our market economy: economically, what's the value of a forest? Now, what's the value of board feet and timber? A forest becomes a part of Gross Domestic Product ONLY after it's destroyed. What's the $$$ value of a herd of a caribou on the arctic tundra? Zero? What's the $$$ value of a hide, or a carcass? Again, that caribou, if it isn't consumed, isn't accounted for under our market economic system. This is the same whether we're talking about caribou, or forests, or tuna, or natural gas, or Glen Canyon, or coal. It's even the same principle, in practice, when we talk about people - they're labor, they're clients, they're businesses, and they have economic value .. as "people", they have no economic value.

A thorough examination of capitalism and market economics would obviously require way more we ought say here, and certainly more than I'm able to offer. We'd have to consider the lack of any ethical construct in market economics, we'd want to discuss the concept of private ownership, examine further the ramifications of using a monetary system as a system of barter, political ideologies, and probably a zillion other things that I'm not even close to smart enough to grasp. Suffice it for me to say I don't think it's a system that is bound to cultivate a healthy populace and sustainable community without radical and fundamental change.

Cheers

Carl

Hi Carl, The world can be horrible or it can be beautiful, depending on your perspective. I believe it was Winston Churchill who said "capitalism is a terrible economic system, but then there's nothing better." I think you underestimate the goodwill that really does come from capitalism. A lot of those oil money profits in the past was simply given away to build libraries, unirversities, museums, hospitals and medical centers, and so forth. Two of the wealthiest men in the world this last year pledge do donate something like $30 Billion with a "B", (maybe it was $50B?, whatever) to fight AIDS in Africa. This was all a result of "profits"

It does not bother me that some people become wealthy, because I realize that more often than not (most millionaires to not inherit it) did something positive in their lives that benefited mankind, and they were rewarded for it. Michael Jordan didn't sit around the bar drinking away his sorrows complaining how rotten the world was. Instead he showed us the limits of athletics, entertained millions and offered so much inspiration to the youth, especially the Black youth. This is not a bad thing.. I do agree with you that if the rich did it illegally or unethically to the enviroment, that is an entirely different story- their ethics and values are to be denounced. But I won't blame it solely on the motivation for profits per se, I simply don't beleive moving away from a market economy is the answer. We can agree to disagree, fine.

But anyway, my original point to start this line was that there are a lot of variables to weigh when we want to make progress with global warming and save the planet environmentally. I think just all the tangents we jumped into, agreed or not, further illustrate my point- there are lots of variables, lots of competiing interests, to consider. I believe it's so complex that not even Al Gore, with all his good intentions, can have all the right answers. .

Hey Mark,

OK, another round. :)

Don't misinterpret my words. I don't begrudge Michael Jordon his ability, his work ethic, and his inspiration. The man was a fantastic athlete. My comments weren't an indictment of him, but a system that motivates endless greed, and provides for infinite increases in that 'wealth'. And our system does exactly that. I referenced Michael Jordan, among others, as an example of that.

"The world can be horrible or it can be beautiful, depending on your perspective.

Oh, trust me, I'm in love with it. Totally and forever.

I believe it was Winston Churchill who said "capitalism is a terrible economic system, but then there's nothing better."

Great example of sliding a premise by to make a point/win an argument. Why is any "economic system" implicit?

I think you underestimate the goodwill that really does come from capitalism.

Goodwill doesn't "come from" capitalism. Goodwill comes from kindness and decency. Goodwill existed long before capitalism ever did, and hopefully will continue long afterward.

"A lot of those oil money profits in the past was simply given away to build libraries, unirversities, museums, hospitals and medical centers, and so forth. "

Hhhmmm .. "a lot" is a relative term, isn't it?

"Two of the wealthiest men in the world this last year pledge do donate something like $30 Billion with a "B", (maybe it was $50B?, whatever) to fight AIDS in Africa. This was all a result of "profits" "

Why do 2 men have control over $30 billion with a "B"?

"But I won't blame it solely on the motivation for profits per se,"

I think I pointed out 3 times above that I don't blame anything solely on the profit motive either.

"I simply don't beleive moving away from a market economy is the answer. We can agree to disagree, fine. "

I don't think we'll move away from that anyway, even if it "is" the answer. I think it would be a good idea to explore though. I hope we can maybe become a little more human than simple "profit machines" and that we make some radical changes to a system that serves itself and fails everything else.

"But anyway, my original point to start this line was that there are a lot of variables to weigh when we want to make progress with global warming and save the planet environmentally. I think just all the tangents we jumped into, agreed or not, further illustrate my point- there are lots of variables, lots of competiing interests, to consider. I believe it's so complex that not even Al Gore, with all his good intentions, can have all the right answers. ."

Of course - I stated the same above. I disagreed with your assertion that we'd be worse off, environmentally, by engaging his examination of the subject and that we're better off now because of the current administration's economic driven policy.

Cheers

Carl

Hey Carl,
I am ready to wrap this up. Regarding Gate's billions, it would be nice to have just a measly million to jumpstart our nature photography careers, wouldn't it? Probably like half a day's work for him. I enjoyed our discussions.
Cheers,
Mark

"Regarding Gate's billions, it would be nice to have just a measly million to jumpstart our nature photography careers, wouldn't it?"

Hey Mark,

Bro, gimme a million bucks and the word "career" would be something of a misnomer. :)

I enjoyed it too, thanks.

Cheers

Carl