Warning: Discussing politics can cause......

[IrishLax]

D). again there's so much more that it's a lost effort by me. Take the fact that on mountainsides the ecosystems change as you go up the mountain due to the temperature change with altitude. There are researchers who have studied mountainside ecologies for years. They are reporting guess what? The ecosystems are migrating up the mountains as the subtleties of fractional degrees urge them to move to their desired new ranges. In certain ranges, the topmost ecosystems have been pushed right off the top. They don't exist there anymore. Bird breeding ranges are sensitive to fractional seasonal degrees. Several species are moving northward and abandoning old areas. These are simple observable facts by macrobiologists who receive no funding for atmospheric science. They are just reporting what they see. The same thing is happening due to warming waters off the pacific coast for some offshore ecosystems there. You can say "Who cares?" but the point here is that it shows that the GCC trend is sensed by the world's ecosystems clearly. I HAVE found it to be generally true that anti-GCCers don't care squat about such matters.
.

And therein lies the issue. I ask you two things OMM:

1. Even if the US cut emissions completely (aka stopped producing any greenhouse gasses, CO2, whatever... just completely stopped doing things that caused GCC) would it matter? Because I guarantee you Mexico, India, China, etc. etc. etc. are not going to and with their burgeoning manufacturing/emissions/whatever they are likely to still continue to cause GCC.

2. When I was working down on the border the Government/EPA/SWFO had all of these ridiculous environmental rules. For instance, we couldn't track dirt from one part of the desert to another... because heaven forbid we mix up dust that naturally blows around. And if these endangered pronghorns came within a couple miles of a site we had to completely shut down work because these animals are so sensitive that we can't even look at them the wrong way or they will refuse to bread and then roll over and die. But literally feet away from us across the border in the same desert Mexico had none of these regulations... so the pronghorns still die, the dust still gets "contaminated" and blows around, and all of the mining operations that were over-regulated by the EPA have just moved right down to Mexico where they have no regulations and are polluting the exact same air.. just worse.

So I hate to be a defeatist... but I guess my question is, even if you do think GCC is a big deal... is there anything we can honestly do about it as a nation? I think the great fallacy is that this is an American problem that we need to fix. It's called global climate change for a reason and I think a lot of unemployed people who used to work in the mines of Ajo, AZ couldn't care less about a couple birds when they're unemployed and watching Mexicans do their job and create more pollution.

 

[Old Man Mike]

RhodeIrish: I am with you, but I was a science teacher in college for thirty years, and trying to lay out truthful things, even if complicated, was my sacred duty---no joking there, "sacred" was exactly how I felt it. My disappointments have been legion, and my sadnesses....but, just this one more time, I had to try. [even though all tries on this subject are feebly inadequate without a class semester to work all the dimensions].

A legendary saying attributed to Merlin said: "TRUTH against the World!!" That old man and I were both "fools" in the minds of those who don't want to admit that anything is wrong.

I just saw LAX' post, so, wearily, I'll try to do a bit more on this. This is not your fault LAX, God bless you, but your questions are so large beyond imagining that "you know not what you ask". But, with humility and notice of inadequacy:

Yes I think that it's a big deal and parts of our beloved planet are INEVITABLY going to be clobbered. So, yes, I'm defeatist on getting an "undefeated season".

No, no environmental scientist thinks that this is a solely US caused problem --- Lord ... the scope of the needed answer to this just flashed before my eyes ... it entails knowledge of the historical graphs of cheap energy use vs pace of economic growth, the historical awareness of those graphs by the emerging economic superpowers, the difficulty of getting them to risk "tunneling through" the dirty energy "graph mountain" to get to the promised land, our own political unwillingness to do anything tantamount to "bad news" and election consequences...a near perfect storm ensuring paralysis. But just because we will lose some species and some cultures [take Kiri Bati for example; the Maldives; certain water-poor peoples --- hey, who cares? Social Darwinism right? The EXACT opposite of Christ's message] that does not mean that we should not try to mitigate SOME of this. The nature of Gospel morality is that one's own choices for good are not voided by the fact that one's neighbor won't do the same good. Nevertheless, environmental scientists and technologists still constantly consult with the Chinese et al to attempt systemic changes in the basic emerging systems. This, by the way, is also why they will kick our a$$ in terms of sustainable energy, transportation, materials, chemical, manufacturing systems as the future develops.

I believe that although I personally, and a very large number of people like me, try to do our little things to encourage conservation and future-oriented development [by buying things which may cost more but are morally cleaner], that we of that little "green rain" will not come close to succeeding. The sociological and political reasons for this are endless. So things will die. If the worst case scenario which is still scientifically reasonable [that of a chaos great attractor shift in the relationships of all the countless feedback cycles which try to restore normalcy in climate behavior] occurs [and one should give at least passing thought to the dice-rolling in big consequence situations], then I believe that we may be forced to draconian technofixes to temporarily "save the day". [Ex. Soot sunshields, or vast arrays of reflective balloons, or exploding bombs in the stratosphere, or macroexperiments on the ocean's plankton, or covering the Greenland glaciers [if any are left] with soot, or restoring all powerplants to dirty mode [their aerosol pollution has given us not only air pollution but part of that acts as a solar shield --- this is another dimension which ignorance prevents simple-minded thought from being sensible --- everyone knows that particulate emissions are bad for health, thus attempts at making clean plants. But IF YOU DO you take away another slower of sunlight reflection and that artificially created cooling is gone and the fuller force of the CO2 etc is unleashed because now the Sun is giving its own contribution more fully.] GAWD DAMMIT!! I wish that people would just....

I'm out of here.

By the way: I never was granted an EFFIN' nickel for any "biased" atmospheric science research. I've known several such scientists who work in the field. Most were in the science business and fully established in their research before any of this crap came along. Offensive @#$%*&%$#@# ignorance.

 

[BobD]

I think I've learned more in this one thread than I have all year. OMM your awesome!

I also like hearing everyones thoughts on the original topic. Thank you!

Please keep adding!

 

[Rhode Irish]

And therein lies the issue. I ask you two things OMM:

1. Even if the US cut emissions completely (aka stopped producing any greenhouse gasses, CO2, whatever... just completely stopped doing things that caused GCC) would it matter? Because I guarantee you Mexico, India, China, etc. etc. etc. are not going to and with their burgeoning manufacturing/emissions/whatever they are likely to still continue to cause GCC.

2. When I was working down on the border the Government/EPA/SWFO had all of these ridiculous environmental rules. For instance, we couldn't track dirt from one part of the desert to another... because heaven forbid we mix up dust that naturally blows around. And if these endangered pronghorns came within a couple miles of a site we had to completely shut down work because these animals are so sensitive that we can't even look at them the wrong way or they will refuse to bread and then roll over and die. But literally feet away from us across the border in the same desert Mexico had none of these regulations... so the pronghorns still die, the dust still gets "contaminated" and blows around, and all of the mining operations that were over-regulated by the EPA have just moved right down to Mexico where they have no regulations and are polluting the exact same air.. just worse.

So I hate to be a defeatist... but I guess my question is, even if you do think GCC is a big deal... is there anything we can honestly do about it as a nation? I think the great fallacy is that this is an American problem that we need to fix. It's called global climate change for a reason and I think a lot of unemployed people who used to work in the mines of Ajo, AZ couldn't care less about a couple birds when they're unemployed and watching Mexicans do their job and create more pollution.

Maybe not, but denying that it is happening certainly isn't helping. If we are aware of it and accept it, maybe we can modify our behavior in accordance. Maybe we will be ahead of the curve a bit, but holding off on trying to address the problem because Mexico and China haven't changed their behavior isn't going to solve anything. The more nations that make an effort to address the problem, the greater the pressure will be on offending nations.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Realize that the distinction you're trying to make is a pretty fine one for the average American conservative. The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) lobby acts as if the following have been proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the existence of AGW; (2) that the amount of warming will have catastrophic consequences; (3) that their offered solutions will successfully avoid those catastrophic consequences; and (4) that the benefits of avoiding those catastrophic consequences clearly outweigh the costs of the offered solutions.

(1) is proven, but there's no consensus on the last three essential parts of this argument.

So you're basically complaining that AGW deniers are absurd because they deny 1-4 instead of just 2-4. At the end of the day, for the average American who doesn't have a degree in climatology, that distinction is pretty flimsy.

I would support a carbon tax if it applied to--say-- China and India as well. Without their participation, any action to seriously and unilaterally address AGW by the US would simply be a Pyrrhic gesture-- the offered solutions would likely do great damage to our floundering economy without appreciably slowing AGW.

 

[Rhode Irish]

OK, but I mean we can't do anything about a lot of things. It doesn't mean we don't acknowledge their existence. This is obviously an absurd comparison (but that is kind of the point), but we can't "solve" gravity, but that doesn't stop us from acknowledging its existence.

Now, I will disagree with you in a small but important way: (2) in your above list may not be "proven" in the same way as (1), but it seems to many reasonable people to be very, very likely. And that is why I think it is foolish to dismiss (1) out of laziness or convenience. If we don't recognize that their is a problem, any hope of doing something about it is lost. Even if we can't "solve" the problem, we can position ourselves to deal with the consequences if we can identify them early enough and devote the necessary resources. To me that seems a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

OK, but I mean we can't do anything about a lot of things. It doesn't mean we don't acknowledge their existence. This is obviously an absurd comparison (but that is kind of the point), but we can't "solve" gravity, but that doesn't stop us from acknowledging its existence.

Gravity needs a solution?

Now, I will disagree with you in a small but important way: (2) in your above list may not be "proven" in the same way as (1), but it seems to many reasonable people to be very, very likely.

I've found The Economist to be a very balanced and informative source on this topic. Everything I've read to date states that we could end up with anything in the range of +2 C to +6 C degrees of warming over the next century. If it's ~2 C, the best course of action is probably nothing extreme; our average global temperature has increased that much over the last century, and mankind has dealt with it easily. If it's closer to 6 C though, the consequences begin to resemble science fiction, and drastic action is definitely justified.

Somewhere in the middle is most likely, so some mitigation in the here and now is a very wise insurance policy. Unfortunately, global politics gets in the way.

And that is why I think it is foolish to dismiss (1) out of laziness or convenience. If we don't recognize that their is a problem, any hope of doing something about it is lost. Even if we can't "solve" the problem, we can position ourselves to deal with the consequences if we can identify them early enough and devote the necessary resources. To me that seems a worthwhile endeavor.

I agree it's foolish, but from a strictly political angle, it's not all that relevant to the bigger picture. AGW skeptics equate the existence of AGW with the policy implications that Al Gore insists flow naturally from its existence. Those people are not likely to be convinced by outrageous indignation that anyone could doubt the existence of AGW in the first place.

 

[enrico514]

And therein lies the issue. I ask you two things OMM:

1. Even if the US cut emissions completely (aka stopped producing any greenhouse gasses, CO2, whatever... just completely stopped doing things that caused GCC) would it matter? Because I guarantee you Mexico, India, China, etc. etc. etc. are not going to and with their burgeoning manufacturing/emissions/whatever they are likely to still continue to cause GCC.

2. When I was working down on the border the Government/EPA/SWFO had all of these ridiculous environmental rules. For instance, we couldn't track dirt from one part of the desert to another... because heaven forbid we mix up dust that naturally blows around. And if these endangered pronghorns came within a couple miles of a site we had to completely shut down work because these animals are so sensitive that we can't even look at them the wrong way or they will refuse to bread and then roll over and die. But literally feet away from us across the border in the same desert Mexico had none of these regulations... so the pronghorns still die, the dust still gets "contaminated" and blows around, and all of the mining operations that were over-regulated by the EPA have just moved right down to Mexico where they have no regulations and are polluting the exact same air.. just worse.

So I hate to be a defeatist... but I guess my question is, even if you do think GCC is a big deal... is there anything we can honestly do about it as a nation? I think the great fallacy is that this is an American problem that we need to fix. It's called global climate change for a reason and I think a lot of unemployed people who used to work in the mines of Ajo, AZ couldn't care less about a couple birds when they're unemployed and watching Mexicans do their job and create more pollution.

The US is the biggest customer in the world... it can impose rules to other countries that want to sell goods within its borders. Tariffs should have been imposed a long time ago on companies/countries that do not follow basic employment standards. The same could easy be done to companies/countries that do not respect the environment. Unfortunately this would not be good for the margins of many corporations that shut down high cost factories in the US and now produce abroad what they sell in the US. It would on the other hand bring back some jobs to the US helping solve the biggest issue your country now faces.

For the time being... the rest of the world needs access to the US market more than the US needs access to the rest of the world.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

For the time being... the rest of the world needs access to the US market more than the US needs access to the rest of the world.

If only that were true.

I'd love to hear your plan for how the US could effectively impose carbon controls on China and India.

 

[enrico514]

If only that were true.

I'd love to hear your plan for how the US could effectively impose carbon controls on China and India.

Close your market to their products... as simple as that. If they don't respect minimum criteria their goods cannot be sold on the local US market.

The US and most industrialized nations impose tough (or tougher) environmental standards on industries that produce locally yet allow goods produced abroad (almost) free access. Not only is this somewhat hypocritical but it has also been an important cause (with labour) of the loss of millions of jobs over the last decade.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Close your market to their products... as simple as that. If they don't respect minimum criteria their goods cannot be sold on the local US market.

Illegal under the WTO. So no, not as simple as that. Doing so would also (1) inflict incalculable damage to our own economy; and (2) blatantly violate the principles of openness and mutual respect for sovereignty that we've fought to instill in the international order over the last 50 years.

The US and most industrialized nations impose tough (or tougher) environmental standards on industries that produce locally yet allow goods produced abroad (almost) free access. Not only is this somewhat hypocritical but has been an important cause (with labour) of the loss of millions of jobs over the last decade.

And attempting to regulate industries in other sovereign nations through the threat of embargoes and tariffs is universally rejected as a terrible idea for a whole host of reasons. That's why comprehensive carbon controls have to be accomplished through huge international conventions, or not at all.

 

[enrico514]

Illegal under the WTO. So no, not as simple as that. Doing so would also (1) inflict incalculable damage to our own economy; and (2) blatantly violate the principles of openness and mutual respect for sovereignty that we've fought to instill in the international order over the last 50 years.



And attempting to regulate industries in other sovereign nations through the threat of embargoes and tariffs is universally rejected as a terrible idea for a whole host of reasons. That's why comprehensive carbon controls have to be accomplished through huge international conventions, or not at all.

So much to say...

"Incalculable damage to your own economy" ... look in the rearview mirror... the US economy has already taken a gunshot to the head and is being kept artificially alive by mountains and mountains of debt. While you're at it... why has all this debt been necessary...

"openness and mutual respect" ... I hate to break it to you but those economies who have been stealing your jobs while gaining your technology and capital aren't exactly open.

People need to wake up... access to your markets isn't a right... it's a privilege. I love and thrive under competition but if you are going to cheat... I simply won't play with you. Human rights and making sure we leave a decent world for our kids are significantly more important than a quick buck.

Good luck with your "huge international conventions"... they're useless if one party has no plan to follow or apply them until they become beneficial to them... until they have the big end of the stick.

 

[Rizzophil]

Are we really debating the scientific evidence of climate change? OMM, I appreciate your effort here - you have far more patience than I - but I just assume we not validate the argument with a legitimate response. To me, there are certain issues that represent a threshold for credibility. Evolution and climate change are at the top of that list. If you find yourself questioning either of these things, look into it yourself and read up on the science behind them. If you still question their validity, you're hopeless and there isn't anything left to discuss. You should just be written off as willfully ignorant or incapable of understanding, and in either instance you aren't worth the time it would take to explain it to you. These are not theories, anymore than gravity or the idea the earth orbits the sun, rather than the other way around.

To verify, are you saying that I'm hopeless because I believe that we didn't come from apes/gorilla's?

(Read Genesis 1:27)

 

[Whiskeyjack]

"Incalculable damage to your own economy" ... look in the rearview mirror... the US economy has already taken a gunshot to the head and is being kept artificially alive by mountains and mountains of debt. While you're at it... why has all this debt been necessary...

You're advocating a beggar-thy-neighbor policy which might benefit American industry in the short term, but the retaliation it would invite would lead to a world-wide recession. It's a really bad idea.

"openness and mutual respect" ... I hate to break it to you but those economies who have been stealing your jobs while gaining your technology and capital aren't exactly open.

America has built it's economic empire by convincing other countries to open their markets to us. To now attempt to use that openness as leverage against them if they don't allow us to dictate policy to them would be extremely hypocritical. We don't need to further diminish our standing and influence in the international community.

People need to wake up... access to your markets isn't a right... it's a privilege.

There are international laws governing "access to markets", and WTO member nations cannot deny access arbitrarily without getting sued for huge sums of money.

I love and thrive under competition but if you are going to cheat... I simply won't play with you.

Cheating implies a system of established rules, and there aren't many binding ones in the international community. These are sovereign nations we're talking about. They set their own rules for the most part. You don't seem to understand that the U.S. isn't a supranational body that can simply legislate it's will onto other countries.

Nations can get together, decide on a single set of rules (treaties), and voluntarily bind themselves under those rules. But there are no such treaties in place for the things you want to regulate.

Human rights and making sure we leave a decent world for our kids are significantly more important than a quick buck.

Who's idea of human rights? Who's idea of a decent world? China and India are looking forward to decades of catch-up growth which promises to dramatically improve the standard of living for their citizens and their influence within the international community. Unsurprisingly, they're not very keen on capping that growth due to Western concerns over global warming.

Good luck with your "huge international conventions"... they're useless if one party has no plan to follow or apply them until they become beneficial to them...

No sh!t, Sherlock. That's what I've been arguing this whole time. The argument for comprehensive carbon regulation is compelling, but geo-politics has prevented and will continue to prevent any such system from being installed.

until they have the big end of the stick.

Your overestimation of American power to unilaterally impose policy on China and India is almost childlike in its naivete.

The US, China, and India could conceivably get together and agree to a mutually binding carbon tax. The EU would conform, and the rest of the world would have no choice but to follow. Unfortunately, the issue is politically toxic here in the States, so it's hard to see any US President willing to take the lead on this; and more importantly, China and India have zero incentive to do this without some serious countervailing benefits.

 

[Rhode Irish]

To verify, are you saying that I'm hopeless because I believe that we didn't come from apes/gorilla's?

(Read Genesis 1:27)

I'm saying you're hopeless because you think evolution means that we "came from" gorillas.

 

[enrico514]

You're obviously a lawyer a good one at that...

You're advocating a beggar-thy-neighbor policy which might benefit American industry in the short term, but the retaliation it would invite would lead to a world-wide recession. It's a really bad idea.

Most would argue the US is already in a balance sheet recession (if not depression)...

America has built it's economic empire by convincing other countries to open their markets to us. To now attempt to use that openness as leverage against them if they don't allow us to dictate policy to them would be extremely hypocritical. We don't need to further diminish our standing and influence in the international community.

Seems like a great reason for the US to let itself get steamrolled and let living standards of the majority decrease. I vote for this! The world has changed significantly in the last decades.

There are international laws governing "access to markets", and WTO member nations cannot deny access arbitrarily without getting sued for huge sums of money.

The US can withdraw from the WTO...

Cheating implies a system of established rules, and there aren't many binding ones in the international community. These are sovereign nations we're talking about. They set their own rules for the most part. You don't seem to understand that the U.S. isn't a supranational body that can simply legislate it's will onto other countries.

Agreed... but if they want to sell the junk they produce on the US said junk needs to meet certain criteria...

Nations can get together, decide on a single set of rules (treaties), and voluntarily bind themselves under those rules. But there are no such treaties in place for the things you want to regulate.

Once again I agree... screw the treaties... if you want access to the biggest consumer market in the world (in $)... follow these simple rules...

No sh!t, Sherlock. That's what I've been arguing this whole time. The argument for comprehensive carbon regulation is compelling, but geo-politics has prevented and will continue to prevent any such system from being installed.

Yup. So let's waste more time talking about something that will never get done... and postpone doing anything until then. I like this strategy quite a bit!

Your overestimation of American power to unilaterally impose policy on China and India is almost childlike in its naivete.

I truly believe that I am not. The US is the major end market for most finished goods and they want/need access to this market to maintain employment and social balance which remains quite fragile.

 

[pkt77242]

I'm saying you're hopeless because you think evolution means that we "came from" gorillas.

So true.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I appreciate your arguing in good faith, Enrico. Apologies if I got a little chippy earlier.

You're essentially advocating that the U.S. should withdraw from a system of international governance that (1) it largely designed, and (2) continues to profit from enormously.

I truly wish we had the leverage you believe we do over the emerging power house economies, but we don't. We aren't the largest consumer market in the world (in dollars or otherwise); that would be the EU. Closing our economy to China and India would cause them to do the same to us; that would be a death knell for many of America's largest companies, and it would cause the prices for many basic goods to skyrocket.

India will be our most important strategic and economic ally in the upcoming century. Alienating them is virtually unthinkable.

China is an economic and military rival, but the health of our two economies is strongly intertwined. Starting a trade war with China would be akin to shooting a Siamese twin with whom you share organs.

Gandhi's saying that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" is especially appropriate for trade wars. No one wins.

You blame these rival economies for "stealing" American jobs. As much blame or more belongs to our Byzantine tax code. If we did away with all loop-holes and lowered our corporate tax rate to the OECD average of 25%, it would go a long way toward slowing that trend.

 

[enrico514]

I appreciate your arguing in good faith, Enrico. Apologies if I got a little chippy earlier.

You're essentially advocating that the U.S. should withdraw from a system of international governance that (1) it largely designed, and (2) continues to profit from enormously.

I truly wish we had the leverage you believe we do over the emerging power house economies, but we don't. We aren't the largest consumer market in the world (in dollars or otherwise); that would be the EU. Closing our economy to China and India would cause them to do the same to us; that would be a death knell for many of America's largest companies, and it would cause the prices for many basic goods to skyrocket.

India will be our most important strategic and economic ally in the upcoming century. Alienating them is virtually unthinkable.

China is an economic and military rival, but the health of our two economies are strongly connected. Starting a trade war with China would be akin to shooting your Siamese twin with whom you share organs.

Gandhi's saying that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" is especially appropriate for trade wars. No one wins.

You blame these rival economies for "stealing" American jobs. As much blame or more belongs to our Byzantine tax code. If we did away with all loop-holes and lowered our corporate tax rate to the OECD average of 25%, it would go a long way toward slowing that trend.

What you call chippy I call passion!

Please don't get me started on the EU

Now back to ND football...

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

I appreciate your arguing in good faith, Enrico. Apologies if I got a little chippy earlier.

You're essentially advocating that the U.S. should withdraw from a system of international governance that (1) it largely designed, and (2) continues to profit from enormously.

I truly wish we had the leverage you believe we do over the emerging power house economies, but we don't. We aren't the largest consumer market in the world (in dollars or otherwise); that would be the EU. Closing our economy to China and India would cause them to do the same to us; that would be a death knell for many of America's largest companies, and it would cause the prices for many basic goods to skyrocket.

India will be our most important strategic and economic ally in the upcoming century. Alienating them is virtually unthinkable.

China is an economic and military rival, but the health of our two economies is strongly intertwined. Starting a trade war with China would be akin to shooting a Siamese twin with whom you share organs.

Gandhi's saying that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" is especially appropriate for trade wars. No one wins.

You blame these rival economies for "stealing" American jobs. As much blame or more belongs to our Byzantine tax code. If we did away with all loop-holes and lowered our corporate tax rate to the OECD average of 25%, it would go a long way toward slowing that trend.

I've just come across a wonderful cannoli recipe if anyone's interested....

 

[pkt77242]

hah no I got it and that has always been a valid argument. But what happens when it gets to the point where we can't even manage to pay the interest on the debt?

But in my theory you wouldn't have that issue, because during the good times (2003-2007) we should have run a slight surplus that would have let us either pay down the debt we had or put it into a rainy day fund for when thinks went south. 2003-2007 was fiscal cluster **** looking back. We went to war with 2 countries and didn't raise taxes (pretty much unheard of in history) and in fact cut taxes, we increased spending in many areas (medicare part D) and we famously (or maybe infamously) had a VP say that deficits don't matter. Truth is both sides were and are the issue when they aren't held responsible.

But a balanced budget amendment would just make our economic downturns even worse and is not the answer. The answer is as we have talked about to vote out the people who are representing our interests, not to take away one of our few ways to fight recessions. That is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

[RDU Irish]

RhodeIrish: I am with you, but I was a science teacher in college for thirty years, and trying to lay out truthful things, even if complicated, was my sacred duty---no joking there, "sacred" was exactly how I felt it. My disappointments have been legion, and my sadnesses....but, just this one more time, I had to try. [even though all tries on this subject are feebly inadequate without a class semester to work all the dimensions].

A legendary saying attributed to Merlin said: "TRUTH against the World!!" That old man and I were both "fools" in the minds of those who don't want to admit that anything is wrong.

I just saw LAX' post, so, wearily, I'll try to do a bit more on this. This is not your fault LAX, God bless you, but your questions are so large beyond imagining that "you know not what you ask". But, with humility and notice of inadequacy:

Yes I think that it's a big deal and parts of our beloved planet are INEVITABLY going to be clobbered. So, yes, I'm defeatist on getting an "undefeated season".

No, no environmental scientist thinks that this is a solely US caused problem --- Lord ... the scope of the needed answer to this just flashed before my eyes ... it entails knowledge of the historical graphs of cheap energy use vs pace of economic growth, the historical awareness of those graphs by the emerging economic superpowers, the difficulty of getting them to risk "tunneling through" the dirty energy "graph mountain" to get to the promised land, our own political unwillingness to do anything tantamount to "bad news" and election consequences...a near perfect storm ensuring paralysis. But just because we will lose some species and some cultures [take Kiri Bati for example; the Maldives; certain water-poor peoples --- hey, who cares? Social Darwinism right? The EXACT opposite of Christ's message] that does not mean that we should not try to mitigate SOME of this. The nature of Gospel morality is that one's own choices for good are not voided by the fact that one's neighbor won't do the same good. Nevertheless, environmental scientists and technologists still constantly consult with the Chinese et al to attempt systemic changes in the basic emerging systems. This, by the way, is also why they will kick our a$$ in terms of sustainable energy, transportation, materials, chemical, manufacturing systems as the future develops.

I believe that although I personally, and a very large number of people like me, try to do our little things to encourage conservation and future-oriented development [by buying things which may cost more but are morally cleaner], that we of that little "green rain" will not come close to succeeding. The sociological and political reasons for this are endless. So things will die. If the worst case scenario which is still scientifically reasonable [that of a chaos great attractor shift in the relationships of all the countless feedback cycles which try to restore normalcy in climate behavior] occurs [and one should give at least passing thought to the dice-rolling in big consequence situations], then I believe that we may be forced to draconian technofixes to temporarily "save the day". [Ex. Soot sunshields, or vast arrays of reflective balloons, or exploding bombs in the stratosphere, or macroexperiments on the ocean's plankton, or covering the Greenland glaciers [if any are left] with soot, or restoring all powerplants to dirty mode [their aerosol pollution has given us not only air pollution but part of that acts as a solar shield --- this is another dimension which ignorance prevents simple-minded thought from being sensible --- everyone knows that particulate emissions are bad for health, thus attempts at making clean plants. But IF YOU DO you take away another slower of sunlight reflection and that artificially created cooling is gone and the fuller force of the CO2 etc is unleashed because now the Sun is giving its own contribution more fully.] GAWD DAMMIT!! I wish that people would just....

I'm out of here.

By the way: I never was granted an EFFIN' nickel for any "biased" atmospheric science research. I've known several such scientists who work in the field. Most were in the science business and fully established in their research before any of this crap came along. Offensive @#$%*&%$#@# ignorance.

OMM - Other than seeing your past thoughtful posts of substantial substance, I don't know you from anyone while I have scientists I know personally that have reinforced my opinions. The "I know more than you" attitude wears thin (that goes for your too Rhode Irish). I don't see a single post or reference for a good source from you or Rhode to back up your PROVEN global warming claims. As far as I have seen, there is dispute amongst the scientific community and a lot of the info on the surface does not pass my smell test, especially when I look at some of the loose assumptions. I will be the first to claim ignorance, I have not spent decades researching this, just spare time here and there trying to sift the the garbage to figure out what is legit and what is pumped up junk. One person offers the Economist as a good unbiased source, what is yours? You soundly slam anyone who opposes your view without giving an ounce of merit to any possibility of any GWW/GCC argument having legitimacy? I know Aussies are crazy but what about this:

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away | News.com.au

As for global cooling, I was referring to the 60s and 70s, I was unaware of the 1991 incident you describe but had heard that volcanoes can and have thrown us for a loop in the past (including a huge Iceland eruption causing the mini-Ice age of the 1300s or 1400s that coincided with the plague if I am not mistaken). Just regurgitating what I have processed over many years as a casual observer. Call me stupid or ignorant and I am likely to say "screw those stuck up global warming nuts, I'm taking my SUV to McDonalds and asking for a styrofoam wrapper for my Big Mac." (that is my attempt at providing some levity to the conversation, I actually have pretty thick skin to go with my thick skull)

I would like to know your thoughts on Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. That means pros and cons to the analysis and resources to support or question his assumptions.

Let me just offer the Law of Unintended Consequences. So we learn how to control global temperatures. Now who regulates what is the "right" global temperature? Much like OPEC, there is enormous incentive to cheat the system. Just as we are seeing our economy suck balls, it would only get worse as developing countries cut corners to be more price competitive. We will also have a million different people beating down the door of the new global weather czar asking to raise or lower temperatures so their endangered species habitat is safe or their crops get water (see California and Water) or their beach is too big or too small or the heat wave is too hot or the cold spell too cold.... That isn't even getting into plots that SPECTRE will conjure to keep James Bond busy.

Isn't this also like saying we aren't going to play football anymore because too many people get hurt, or rather the only reason we play is because it makes money? Cheap and abundant energy is essential to economic expansion and is a huge reason for the economic success of our country. Now we move backwards to being the most regulated and working to increase the cost of energy. How is that working out for us? Our economy sucks right now and a market based energy policy would turn it around quickly.

I am not against saving the world but I think it is best done through capitalism. Geothermal heating and cooling systems are cost effective and incredibly efficient, why not promote those instead of pipedream ideas for energy? I am looking into solar panels for my house if they make financial sense, I will probably do it. I am planting Bermuda grass because I don't want to waste money on a sprinkler system and water to fight nature and keep Fescue alive in the heat. I am a capitalist. As resources become scarcer, price will go up and alternatives will be more competitive. I also don't discount the power of innovation. Someone will figure out more efficient solar panels, celulostic ethanol and any other list of solutions to the problem. Crippling our economy in the mean time to artificially raise the price of energy so the rest of the world catchs up to us faster is a dangerous solution.

 

[RDU Irish]

But in my theory you wouldn't have that issue, because during the good times (2003-2007) we should have run a slight surplus that would have let us either pay down the debt we had or put it into a rainy day fund for when thinks went south. 2003-2007 was fiscal cluster **** looking back. We went to war with 2 countries and didn't raise taxes (pretty much unheard of in history) and in fact cut taxes, we increased spending in many areas (medicare part D) and we famously (or maybe infamously) had a VP say that deficits don't matter. Truth is both sides were and are the issue when they aren't held responsible.

But a balanced budget amendment would just make our economic downturns even worse and is not the answer. The answer is as we have talked about to vote out the people who are representing our interests, not to take away one of our few ways to fight recessions. That is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

At risk of sounding like a loon - $5 or $6 trillion of our $14 trillion debt is owed to ourselves in the form of the Social Security/Mediscare "trust" fund and Treasuries owned by the Fed. Don't kid yourself, FICA is a tax, not an investment. I call that the power of the printing press, we can shred 40% of our debt with no real economic effect. Much like taking a 401k loan. Absent tax consequences, it really makes no difference to my balance sheet if I write it off or pay it back. Really just taking out of one pocket and putting in another, classic shell game.

However, the debt is scary when you consider current record low interest rates. It is easy to imagine interest rates doubling or tripling over 5 or 10 years. SS/Medicare just went to cash flow negative as boomers are pushed to retirement faster than expected with our crap economy. That makes for a lot more supply of Treasuries (need to issue more) just as the Fed, China and many other foriegners are decreasing or stopping their purchasing (lower demand). I am still not sure who is buying 30 year Treasuries at 4% other than Ben Bernanke, the 10 year at 2% isn't any better. Even if we don't grow the debt further, we still have huge risk from potentially higher interest rates. But, as stated above, thankfully we owe ourselves a large amount of that money.

 

[RDU Irish]

I'm sure this is not a reputable article either.

Archived-Articles: Media Credibility, Not Ice Caps, In Meltdown

I am sure I suffer from confirmation bias, but then the bias of media leads me to seek alternative sources of information.

 

[irishog77]

Let me first say that I am not a scientist nor have I spent years of my life studying climates. I was, however, a history major and have a love of absorbing stories, facts, anecdotes, and the often long, complicated answer as to why something is. I think it would be completely naive on our part to not acknowledge that we, as humans, do not have some impact on the environment. To what extent though-- I have no idea. I consider myself an "environmentalist," in that I try to reuse, recycle, and limit the amount of energy and resources I use and/or consume. I don't, however, make that the focal point of my life. I am a capitalist and believe in not only the free market, but the true essence of economics-- how limited resources are used, consumed, and disbursed...on a micro and macro level.

I think one of the problems I have, and probably RDU Irish and others have (not that I want to speak for them though), can be captured by one question that is simple in its basis, but quite complex in its answer: In a public bathroom, is it better to use a hand dryer or paper towels? I ask this in all sincerity because I believe there is no "best answer." On the one hand, I can use something that saves the destruction of trees and the energy and resources demanded to convert a tree into paper. And also save abundant space in a landfill. So that is a good thing right? On the other hand though, I can use essentially a natural product that is biodegradable (and in a relatively quick manner too) and also saves the continued use of energy to power it up numerous times a day. Not to mention, a hand dryer is made of metal and would take thousands of years to decompose. So that is a good thing too, right? So that is the rub. The problem I see in this whole ordeal and why I sometimes "doubt" scientists, climate experts, and environmentalists is that they can give us 2 good answers, and 2 bad answers...2 responsible answers, and 2 irresponsible answers...2 ways to help the environment, and 2 ways to harm the environment...2 ways to be judicious in the economics of resources, and 2 ways to ignore the economics of resources.

OMM- I always enjoy and appreciate your posts here in IE. I do view you as the true "elder statesman" on this site, whether it's about ND...or the environment. You truly possess a unique insight on this site that others do not. Perhaps you (or others as well), can help me, RDU Irish, and others understand the "right" answer in my question above.

I also understand this is primarily an ND and football website, and deep, complex answers are difficult to truly answer in a forum such as this.

 

[Rhode Irish]

The same conundrum exists at the grocery store: paper or plastic? (Obviously the right answer to that is a canvas bag that you can use over and over again, but few people do.)

I don't think its possible to live a neutral existence in terms of environmental impact, at least for most people living normal lives. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be cognizant of the impact of our choices and attempt to eliminate needless waste to the extent possible. I don't consider myself an "environmentalist", but I do try to be environmentally responsible.

It isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. If everyone (including our corporate citizens) made some effort to use resources responsibly we could make significant reductions in the harm that we do to our planet. Which matters, because its the only one we have.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Guys, there's nothing that i can say within the confines of this little response box to illuminate the details of a life-properly-lived with respect to ourselves and the future. Anything that I say will be cheap-shotted by someone without them acknowledging that just maybe they could be misinformed. I have tried to make in all my posts whether on football or something like this, that I am painfully aware of how complicated questions are and that I have much to learn. But that does not mean that I have learned nothing in my years of reading libraries full of input on all sides of issues important to me. With that, I'll beg your patience with a miserably inadequate few remarks.

A). To stay with general science: Our planet is a fixed resource treasure chest as far as materials are concerned. It is also blessed with a fairly constant incoming of useful energy which allows us to defeat thermodynamics and continue [whether we are humans, plants or bacteria] Life as we know it. We have the luxury of bountiful energy of a certain kind, but some ultimate and some pragmatic limits on material resources. Persons who say that there is no need to be concerned about materials of any sort are not paying attention. At a minimum they should educate themselves about the national security discussions which have been going on for decades concerning "critical resources" and stockpiling. Most times, in this modern world, when you read in the papers "this area of the world impacts our national interests" , the speaker is talking about material resources which are not in abundance. Recently, the world went slightly ape when China announced that it was going to limit both production and sales from its rare earth minerals mining area. These materials do not only show up in weaponry or gigantic computers, but in countless store products as well.

So, who cares?? One might think that one should care if one were interested in national security, in national productivity and economics, and just maybe in the future. One might even decide not to be wasteful in one's own treatment of one's purchases or in what one did with the "waste" product when one decided to dump it. Or one could just not give a sh!t.

B). The issue associated with materials conservation digs much deeper than Rhodium or Thallium or Yttrium. Check the security discussions. These folks are worried about Chromium and the conditions in Zambia, in Bauxite and the conditions in NW Africa, in Phosphate, and yeah, in Oil and Uranium. If you want to understand most of our military "activities" overseas since WW2, "follow the money and the critical resources concerns". So what-in-the-h*ll's the point??

A stable world requires that we are not fighting over materials all the time. Back here on mainstreet of Anytown USA, every human is contributing to a greater or lesser efficiency of resource use or re-use in our daily behaviors. Every piece of product which passes through our hands has an "energy history". Every phase of its being required energy. Maybe conserving a bit might reduce our planet's energy burden??

C). The throwaway trash system we have employed is what is known in physics as a linear system. Linear systems have beginnings and ends. The loss of available energy content occurs constantly throughout each stage of the line. The trash is energy poor and mainly entombed. That requires a maximum use of energy to replace the utilized product. But removing materials from the waste bin style of handling can capture them in a relative energy-rich state and often they can be turned back into the cycle with less loss. In a world wherein people kill one another over not-enough-resource-for-all we need to consider even the moral dimensions of waste-maximizing behavior.

I must quit. People like earlier posters might not want to believe this, but the story about the dangers within our linear system waste handling [and spoiled personal habits towards materials] goes on for thousands of library shelf feet. I can't do it here. Publications like Worldwatch would occasionally try to compare the energy and materials burden of products like a NYT edition or a banana from Costa Rica or a cup of coffee so that readers could at least understand better the systems they were involved with. A group named In Context in Washington state would do likewise. And this says nothing about the social-cultural impacts upon local individuals doing the mining or growing or sewing, etc.

Some people don't give a rat's a$$ about any of that: I get that; just don't ask me to respect it.

The grade school kids mantra of Re-use it if you can, recycle or compost it if you can't, burn it if you must, but only waste it as the last resort, ain't bad.

"Paper or Plastic" is a huge analysis all by itself.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Playing gravedigger today, but I felt this article merited discussion....

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/s...s-hampered-in-study-of-2011-extremes.html?hpw


Key quotes...

Scientists say they could, in theory, do a much better job of answering the question “Did global warming have anything to do with it?” after extreme weather events like the drought in Texas and the floods in New England.

But for many reasons, efforts to put out prompt reports on the causes of extreme weather are essentially languishing. Chief among the difficulties that scientists face: the political environment for new climate-science initiatives has turned hostile, and with the federal budget crisis, money is tight.

There has been a incredibly disheartening appropriation of science for political ends in the last few years. Certain politicians have discovered that calling scientists liars and finding the odd contrarian brings in more votes than treating scientists as advisors removed from the political sphere. This trend, if it continues, will have terrible consequences for the country.

Many of the individual events in 2011 do have precedents in the historical record. And the nation’s climate has featured other concentrated periods of extreme weather, including severe cold snaps in the early 20th century and devastating droughts and heat waves in the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s.

But it is unusual, if not unprecedented, for so many extremes to occur in such a short span. The calamities in 2011 included wildfires that scorched millions of acres, extreme flooding in the Upper Midwest and the Mississippi River Valley and heat waves that shattered records in many parts of the country. Abroad, massive floods inundated Australia, the Philippines and large parts of Southeast Asia.

A major question nowadays is whether the frequency of particular weather extremes is being affected by human-induced climate change.

Climate science already offers some insight. Researchers have proved that the temperature of the earth’s surface is rising, and they are virtually certain that the human release of greenhouse gases, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, is the major reason. For decades, they have predicted that this would lead to changes in the frequency of extreme weather events, and statistics show that has begun to happen.

For instance, scientists have long expected that a warming atmosphere would result in fewer extremes of low temperature and more extremes of high temperature. In fact, research shows that about two record highs are being set in the United States for every record low, and similar trends can be detected in other parts of the world.

The evidence has reached a point where anybody denying anthropogenic Global Warming must be able to provide an alternative explanation as to what happens to all the carbon that modern life puts into the atmosphere, while we simultaneously are removing (usually burning) large tracts of forest.

This year, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tried to push through a reorganization that would have provided better climate forecasts to businesses, citizens and local governments, Republicans in the House of Representatives blocked it. The idea had originated in the Bush administration, was strongly endorsed by an outside review panel and would have cost no extra money. But the House Republicans, many of whom reject the overwhelming scientific consensus about the causes of global warming, labeled the plan an attempt by the Obama administration to start a “propaganda” arm on climate.

Awesome job House. Awesome.

 

[mgriff]

While pollution is bad, we still haven't even hit the Middle Age high yet, which is the hottest its been on Earth. While I agree that pollution needs to be cut down drastically, I would never ever ever support what either party has come up with as solutions, as Al Gore and the Dem's brilliant plan would have simply created a ludicrous amount of commodities, most notably carbon, that would then be traded on Wall St. and we know how that has turned out! The sad part is that I do think we should curb pollution, but I don't trust our elected representatives to give us a conclusion that solves the problem and keeps money in our pockets. Just because the Republicans support large conglomerates and their pollution, doesn't mean that Democrats are somehow morally righteous and all Republicans are just evil. Both parties are a problem, and until people realize that and attack the common enemy (private interests, most notably large corporate conglomerates) which pay for our politicians and buy their votes long in advance.

 

[IrishinSyria]

While pollution is bad, we still haven't even hit the Middle Age high yet, which is the hottest its been on Earth. While I agree that pollution needs to be cut down drastically, I would never ever ever support what either party has come up with as solutions, as Al Gore and the Dem's brilliant plan would have simply created a ludicrous amount of commodities, most notably carbon, that would then be traded on Wall St. and we know how that has turned out! The sad part is that I do think we should curb pollution, but I don't trust our elected representatives to give us a conclusion that solves the problem and keeps money in our pockets. Just because the Republicans support large conglomerates and their pollution, doesn't mean that Democrats are somehow morally righteous and all Republicans are just evil. Both parties are a problem, and until people realize that and attack the common enemy (private interests, most notably large corporate conglomerates) which pay for our politicians and buy their votes long in advance.

Any solution will necessarily be complex and imperfect. Climate change forces us to balance a host of factors, from economic vs. environmental good, current vs. future generations, private vs. public interest, modern vs. developing economies, etc, etc, etc...

I don't mind ugly solutions, what I mind is that it's becoming increasingly difficult for the underlying scientific research to be removed from the realm of politics.