Now, this doesn't even make sense. Because if it was a threat to national security, the Republicans would have taken care of it already, right? RIGHT?
WASHINGTON — The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.
Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.
Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.
An exercise last December at the National Defense University, an educational institute that is overseen by the military, explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure. “It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J. Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, who is working with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning.
Much of the public and political debate on global warming has focused on finding substitutes for fossil fuels, reducing emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases and furthering negotiations toward an international climate treaty — not potential security challenges.
But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest.
"Obviously, this is just another opportunity for Obama to demonstrate that he is a soulless, America-hating senior-exterminating socialist.
Oh, and let me reiterate what John Boehner said -- calling someone anti-American is despicable and all Democrats everywhere should apologize for what anti-Americans Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid said."
about a billion people.
Where are they gonna go?
Yeah, I'd say it was a problem of national security...
It is the lost THREE decades since Jimmy Carter's energy speech, April 18, 1977, here
You haven't take to the sauce have you?
…that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.
Being the cynic that I am, I rather suspect they are NOT concerned about the food shortages, water crises or flooding…
THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE OIL.
They don't care about national security, they care about their security. We have a right wing and we have an ultra right wing. Two arms of the same corporate power structure.
Peak Oil, Peak Ecology, Peak Humanity…
----
Cover article here:
Full report (pdf) here
---
Post Carbon Institute here
Temporary Recession or the End of Growth? Richard Heinberg here
---
Renewable Transition 2: EROEI Uncertainty Oildrum here [If we had started when Jimmy Carter brought the subject up we'd be much more prepared.]
---
Watching the UK as a precursor of what is in store for the US has been a long established practice.
US energy future as previewed for UK - The Economist here
The Big Question: Is the UK running out of food - and what can we do about it? Martin Hickman here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
with adults. Uncle Raygun knew better....
Funny how the myth of the "great orator" in this country, is usually viewed as an old fart who thought he was telling children's stories in other parts of the world. Down to the old fart's obsession with Jelly Bellies. And it makes me mad that I never caught on that!
The republicans knew perfectly well that the baby boomers had never matured into actual adulthood, and seized the opportunity. Ergo witness the ever lowering level of the national debate. It now makes perfect sense why Bush was caught with his pants down on 9/11 reading "my pet goat" to a bunch of preschoolers. I never thought of that, but it sort of captures what we became as a society.
Republicans have traditionally been weak on military issues since Reagan. Sure, they've been strong on military contractors, but anything involving actual national security they've been quite weak. If global warming causes more problems then that's just more justification for higher defense spending, meaning more money to Republican donors.
EVER taken care of anything or anyone other than their bank accounts?
They have all turned into scared wittle wabbits.
They have been exposed as fearmongers too scared of their shadow to ever do anything unless it will make them some $$$$ then all bets are off.
They are like the Ferengi . . . (only a little uglier)
The Ferengi are greedy, avaricious, ruthless, cowardly and completely unscrupulous.
For centuries the famous Rules of Acquisition have been the guiding principles of the galaxy's most successful entrepreneurs. These 285 Rules of Acquisition range from,
#1 "Once you have their money, never give it back."
to
#21 "Never place friendship before profit."
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Ferengi_Rules_of_Acquisition_(book)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
You might be better off doing research about things on this planet, not hollywood fantasy posted in an open source wiki.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Fear Industrial Complex
The people who have the least amount of resources to stave off or adapt to the affects of climate change also happen to be the most at risk.
This is going get horrific in pretty short order, and I can't believe there's a significant portion of our country who still believes it's a hoax..
Republican response: Is not!
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
The boogieman is gonna getcha so you need the pentagon/military to save you.
YOU ARE EXACTLY CORRECT. MORE FEAR MONGERING IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE PENTAGON'S BUDGET. THEY NEVER MISS A CHANCE, DO THEY? GIVEN THEIR RECORDS SINCE VIETNAM, THEY AREN'T VERY GOOD AT *ANYTHING* ARE THEY?
[Please don't type in ALL CAPS-Sitemonitor]
What do conservative evangelicals gain from their insistence that global warming is just a myth. Are Exxon and big coal sending huge checks to Focus on the Family?
The religious right never did anything for nothing. it's all about pumping up the take, but I just can't figure out how they see this as a money maker.
AGW is a major concern. Unfortunately younger evangelicals represent a small section of the Christian Right because generation Y (woo!) has left the church in droves.
we're going to need a expensive new star wars type program (military buildup) to prevent all these poor refuges from stumbling onto our oil fields looking for a handout.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206011...
we need expensive new Star Wars program to INVADE Mexico or Canada when the climate her gets either too COLD (Mexico) or too HOT (Canada).
...that America will still exist in it's present form when the shit hits the fan. We'd better start investing in green infrastructure soon or peak oil will preempt this 'security threat'.
We have a dirty little secret.
It better not topple us. Personally i like those new totally electric cars! They don't make any noise, but people can overcome that in time. [or they can send out a gentle warning tone when in proximity of people and objects.
They have a lot of pick-up, and you can recharge at home [i think].
Solar is so close - it just needs a push like the moon landings needed. With solar we can eventually move Co2 in or out of the atmosphere as required to stabilize the climate, regardless of over warming or ice age cooling - well that's the idea, if as bit optimistic...
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Too Late, too late.
Too late to suck the CO2 back out? OH NOOS!
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
IS change:
"The problem is not that there are problems. The problem is expecting otherwise and thinking that having problems is a problem."
Theodore Rubin
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
...to "invade...something, somebody, somewhere.
I'm surprised that they didnt mention disease, and the fact that the Global health organization is at pandemic level six.
Hurricane season is due to arrive right about now. figures we would hear something like this from the pentagon.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
another day.
The republicans in office are funded in part by the military-industrial complex - and it will be the military-industrial complex that lands the big contracts to deal with this global instability.
In addition, religious leaders make up an important component of the republican noise machine. These leaders solidify, and motivate their base through gloom and doom. Thus, the increase in environmental catastrophes can be used as a sign of the coming apocalypse. This can be used to motivate their voters, at least the religious ones, and it would be a win-win for the republicans.
...about certain religions being used as a political force. It is by this mechanism that they spread!
But let's not forget all about our blue-dog sellout friends!
for the current Republican/Corporate Lie-Fest and their Democratic enablers/chickenshitz.
I wonder how many of us will survive?
Sold out, brain dead, numb, zombie?
...a janitor in a FEMA camp. If I'm lucky (not)
actually I'm gonna run away to the woods and be "wolf boy" (If I survive the pig/bird flu)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
so I'll probably be assigned to "entertaining" the wardens.
Until they get tired of me.
we'll start a band...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5OtSO3j6I
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Are you cute?
distemper or rabies?
...talk to my vet about that...
...seriously though, all dogs gotta have a rabies tag here in the U.S.
...swine flu vaccination tags (for people) could be next on the list.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
A time of tremendous upheaval looms ahead.
I suppose the strongest may survive in a landscape blighted by hunger, refugees and widespread violence.
Perhaps the question is, "I wonder who would want to survive in that landscape."
sat down, took a breath, and realized the only problem is we're fighting ourselves then the whole god damn thing would stop.
desire to actually reach understanding and consensus.
It seems that the 5% of people who are ultra-wealthy and benefit from Republican policies must believe that their wealth will allow them to survive unchanged.
The 20% of people who are Republicans merely support Authoritarianism; they don't care about no steenkin' evidence!
They view the whole damn thing like a football game and care only about "winning."
This is exactly what the conservative base wants. They spend their nights dreaming of an apocalyptic landscape in which they valiantly defend their women and property from raging hordes of un-galt liberals and foreigners. . .
to reveal the beast beneath pretty quick. A study once that said if they turned off all the power in the cities that half the people would be dead in 3 days.
there is NOTHING about the world in which we "live" that is sustainable in any meaningful sense of the word, in the face of a serious enough climactic crisis...
I'll be among the first casualties: old, slow, less than a perfect specimen...I'll go down (with a fight) in the first wave...
When the beer runs out, I'll make my last stand.
don't forget validating the end of time.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
It's important to really understand this expression. Roughly 30% of the electorate are dedicated members of the GOP. Of those, 5% actually do act in their own self-interest (i.e. become filthy rich) while the other 25% have been duped into acting in the interest of that 5% minority as well.
Spending money on "butter" makes you poor!
when the sea starts rising, and shoving people out to try to find new places to live, in the hundreds of millions, the billions, even, the military's gonna be stretched thin keeping the 'undesirables' out.
Indeed, they won't succeed, but they'll stay busy enough...
to the regime.
...make me think of the movie "Code 46", where the world elites live inside climate controlled cities to protected themselves from harsh climate. Everyone else is left outside to fend for themselves.
of the whole global warming booga booga? ugh, i know this is probably heresy of the highest order, and i'm probably going to get flamed endlessly. does anyone else feel that this is a little fear-mongerish?
More of that elite sponsored BS to sell something new to the capitalistic world.
Since you've only just joined to make this comment, we'll weigh your words with the appropriate amount of skepticism on our end.
the military? We are all to believe the military? Now what does the military have to gain from fear mongering? When in history has the military been truthfull?
What exactly can we do to stop global warming, manmade or not? NOTHING.
We can make a sincere effort to slow it down and in doing so we might be able to make it a better place for those who follow in the future. How can trying be a bad thing if it makes things better for others? Of course we could just sit back and consume like pigs and say to hell with the future.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
already attempting things Patricia? In a town, not 30 minutes from where I live, there is a house that uses almost entirely solar energy. Know what it cost? Let's just say that the owner will never get the money out of this house. So, who is to profit from this?
The future could depend on the trend setters.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
There are other sorts of profit than just financial. Hopefully more people will go totally solar and the world's atmosphere will profit.
Anything relatively new is expensive but as the competition grows the prices drop. Remember the high costs of flat screen televisions just a couple of years ago. Compare that price to the prices now.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
the previous poster. LOL.
Sometimes, their stripes show...
want us all to believe Tyler, that you swallow this entire debate one side only? Oh come on. Every argument has BS involved in it, especially when this is coming from the US military.
let's all change our minds. Fuck those scientists and they're scientific ways and means. And all that weather record keeping. And teh science. And all there comparisons with previous patternz from over 5,999 years of pure earth history!
They have nothing to stand on. except records and astute observations made over hudreds of years. and the ability to look back further via various coring methods. Clueless bastages! Trying to confuse us with fax and shit.Not like these two guys above who say "I'm Skeptiacl" and "I Agree!"
me-oww!
that sells carbon offset credits to a polluting corporation, makes a difference? That is all that has happened on global warming so far, with scientific applause by the way.
that's why you posted it to me. Hey I disagree with the clueless bastage scientists that have the fax. I'm on yore side now! don't attack me!!! lolz
me-oww!
That wasn't my intent miss kitty. Just once I'd like to listen to one of these "clueless bastage scientists" offer up some kind of solutions. They don't. They just run around repeating fear, fear, fear.
We get it. We really do. Global warming exists. What can we do about it? Oh hey, let's get polluting companies to buy pretend credits from non polluting companies. There. No more pollution.
They offer NO solutions -
Like the electric car that can travel at speeds of 85mph on regular AC current - for which Exxon bought the patent(for the battery)
Or the solar cells that are disguised as shingles which can power a home and not use existing grids.My own old-fashioned solar panels allow me to be off the grid for 3-4 months of the year.
(oops; utility corps don't want that one)
and so on...
Solutions are being offered and some are excellent but it's easier to say there's nothing we can do than to make some changes in the way we live. Creaturs of habit are difficult to get off their asses and onto a new path.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
in the true sense of the word:
heroin.
in fact, their warnings are often preceded with "If we do not start advancing technologies that are renewable..." There is the solution. Now are the weather guys ALSO supposed to develop solar wind algae farming and other things? Are we not already recycling? That's part of a solution. "Use less carbon and here's how:" That's a solution too. and peole ARE working on solutions. You sound like you're just waiting around not trying (I don't know if you are or not) and bitching your goddamned ass off that shit is not happening, when in fact it IS. It's just not Swanson's TV dinner fast.
me-oww!
Thank you miss kitty! You done good!
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
i didn't just join to make that comment. nor am i a troll. all i'm doing is expressing skepticism. i wasn't aware that people could have different ideas around here.
"skeptical.
I "never saw" the the global warming debate that everyone says "is over". (and I did see Al Gore's movie)
I'm an environmentalist who doesnt like to see deforestation or pollution an whatnot but I think the temperature increase is due to the sun's activity...
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
But the fact that the ozone layer has diminished above Antarctica and the skin cancer rates have seriously increased in Patagonia. I'd have to say that it's a fact. Hey, don't take my word for it. Look it up. They've been discussing this for years. Not to mention the ozone disappearing above the North pole too. Although not as severely.
You might say that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Ozone is one thing...and industry and the military spews a lot of chemical/pollution that destroys the O3 molecules in the air that filter harmul sunrays ...for sure...
but I dont think "ozone depletion" is the same as "greenhouse gas buildup"
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Try automotive exhaust. Try industrial emissions.
It all eats away at the ozone layer. And even paints and lawnmowers or BBQ's contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer. If it stinks or burns, it ain't good.
Greenhouse gases are largely comprised of water vapor, industrial emmissions(the water vapor traps that crap and keeps it up there) Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, I forget the rest. I did some research on this about a year ago.
Trust me on this one. It's all related.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Methane gasses too. You know, those giant cattle farms.
Cow Farts , lots and lots of cow farts, and their crap.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
And I found out that they've bricked up all of the fireplaces in Scotland. Acid rain was eating the buildings. And everything else. They have installed wind farms on the outer islands for a source of energy.
They just started not long ago. But it was impressive to see them doing that.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
...Ozone is NOT a green house gas.
Ozone destruction (from chemicals in the atmosphere) is a fact (that I agree with you on). and is a bad thing because ozone filters harmful cosmic rays that give us skin cancer...
but ozone depletion has nothing to do with global warming.
Ozone is not (on the list) with methane and carbon dioxide as a gas that retains heat in the atmosphere....
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
If you say so.
But trapped gasses deplete the ozone layer.
And if the ozone layer has been depleted, the planet warms up because the infrared rays from the sun come in unchecked. Not to mention the other rays.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
... for a so-called "environmentalist" you know little about how the environment works.
Ozone has a key role: it diverts a significant amount of solar energy. Without ozone, we would literally cook. Some of the greenhouse gases on top of retaining more heat in the atmosphere, they deplete the ozone layer, which leads to the run-away greenhouse scenario.
So ozone depletion is indeed quite related to global warming.
That wasn't directed at me.
It's not directed at me is it?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Ozone does not "reflect heat" from the atmosphere.
it only reflects/blocks harmful cosmic ray particles...
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
But I have to disagree. The ozone performs a double duty. It does both.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
I agree with the gist of what your saying...
(greenhouse gasses and atmospheric chemicals) "trapped in the atmosphere" do deplete the ozone layer.
Ozone is actually considered a pollutant. (at ground level)
I checked out ozone and it is actually listed as a "green house gas" (I was wrong) but its an unstable molecule that doesnt build up in the atmosphere like carbon dioxide and methane.
it only exists as 0.00006% of of our whole atmosphere and is basically inconsequential as a greenhouse gas.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
We all learned something.:)
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object.
Seriously dude, if you don't know what the heck you are talking about, you don't need to rush and clear any sorts of doubts regarding that.
...from direct sunshine than do O3 molecules.
...and yes I am well aware that when a harmful cosmic ray particle strikes a O3 molecule that heat is released or "transferred" to "our atmosphere"
"ozone molecules are most often destroyed when they are "hit" by cosmic particles and thusly give their little lives up to save us from evil cosmic rays...
...but Ozone only makes up 0.00006% of our atmosphere...(how much heat is that?)
ozone (is also) ...only 25% as effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
that you just found from google?
You claimed that Ozone has nothing to do with global warming, which it does.
If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd figured out that Ozone in large concentrations is actually a bad thing, because it does reflect heat back into earth (and thus, acting as a green house gas. And that "sunshine" is actually light... which has multiple wavelengths, some of which clouds do fiddly squat to reflect... which is why O3, in the proper concentration, is actually beneficial. In fact, if it hadn't been for O3 (and earth's magnetic field), chances are that life on earth would not exist at all since we would have bombarded out of existence by high energy particles and radiation (you know the stuff that O3 actually helps reflect).
Seriously...
But combine that with pollution, and you have a perfect storm.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
...is that Al Gore screwed up some of the science. When he makes fun of the Medieval Warming Period? It actually happened, which gives the nutters ammo for ignoring real AGW data.
He used it as an example that there are indeed cycles, but that the current trent is so steep that it can't be diminished as a normal cycle.
"In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore has fun mocking the medieval warm period by pointing to that region where some scientists claim it exists, while the audience laughs because of its obvious absence in the hockey plot." - Physicist Richard A. Muller
I'd dig up the clip but a superficial search hasn't turned up anything.
.
I'll catch it again through Netflix someday. I do have a physicist on my side though. And he wrote a book. If it's written down, it must be true.
... Gore also wrote a book, so ;-)
we haven't experienced any warming since 1998. how does that correspond to his cycles?
this is according to Britain's Hadley Centre, NASA, and the US National Climatic Data Centre
You mean like this?
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
or is there another NASA in your parallel universe, what do you guys call it ɐsɐu?
NASA is the outlier. but the Hadley Centre numbers show no warming since 1998. other data sets corroborate the Hadley set, for example, satellite data from UAH (university of alabama at huntsville.
again, my fault for including NASA in the other list. but the difference between the 2 data sets is interesting. i found this article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tal...
not saying it proves anything one way or the other. but it is interesting to look at why we have conflicting data.
where the author clearly does not know about the concept of "trend" BTW, the Hadley Centre does not make any sort of pronouncement on the data set implying global cooling, which is what I get the distinct impression you were trying to imply.
It would have taken the author, literally, 5 minutes to fit a slope through that data set to get the idea.
Since I actually work a the field that theregister reports on (VLSI), reading anyone citing them as an authoritative source on anything gave me quite the chuckle.
all im doing is expressing doubt. that doubt arises from information/data that does not fit into current models. its nothing more than that. i'm not trying to have a flame war, and for all i know we would agree on many other issues.
I've seen the science relating to this problem (as opposed to the corporate pseudo science)and although I'm not very good at relating it -
there are scores of websites dedicated to covering this threat.
Nobody really stands to make any immediate profit by supporting action on this problem;
on the other hand, the multibillions of ExxonMobile et al will continue to profit handsomely if the status quo is maintained.
manufacturers of alternative energy, like say the solar panel industry (that charge upwards of thousands of dollars per house) are not going to take the place of ExxonMobile?
A different approach is needed.
That avenue is open to the Exxons as well, and they could use their billions to start a sensible switch-over from the old technology to the replacement.
But it costs less to hire pseudoscience to gloss over the problem and mount a PR campaign to discredit those who would disagree.
"Nobody really stands to make any immediate profit by supporting action on this problem;"
I say...
what about Cap-n-trade taxes? and carbon credits that are traded on the "open market"
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
i think of just another scam to create wealth from nothing. like credit default swaps. but carbonier
..as an incentive system - like getting an accident free discount on your auto insurance. I guess that could also be viewed as a "wealth creation scam".
insurance companies are totally on the up and up.
The powerful leftist proponents of Climate Change are just trying to make a buck by frightening everybody into believing that the sky is falling.
We should just continue as we are - as though nothing is wrong.
Forget the data that says otherwise; it's just a bunch of scientists who have nothing better to do.
And remember, "cui bono" is only a weapon in the class war.
Here is cynical: I'm old and have no kids, so I truly don't give a shit.
Enjoy your new holocaust, I'll be pushing daisies in a few years anyway!
Here
Hey'ya fellowvoyager.
First of all, i'd be just as sceptical of the deniers. start there. Look at the backup data - be aware of and look for the standard mis-information tricks from both sides. It helps enormously to understand that the atmosphere is a tiny, super thin layer, that would not exist except for the magnetic field the earth creates as it spins.
Once you see the picture in more detail you should come to the conclusion that global warming might, maybe just fry us. That should be enough to drive everyone to become a climate expert themselves.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
the weather is enormously complicated, we don't understand 100% how it works. you have people saying with certainty, global warming will kill us all. and more so, humans created all of it.
and yet our climate has experienced hundreds and hundreds of oscillations between hot and cold and we dont 100% understand why.
You should not be so quick to debunk something about which you have cursory knowledge, at best.
Nobody is claiming the cyclic nature of climate, but rather the current rate of change which is indeed unprecedented. And which coincides with the pervasive levels of industrialization. Complexity of weather has nothing to do, since the trend is what it is important.
Although, I always get a hoot about some of the lay people using complexity as an excuse... which usually is a way of saying "I have no clue what I am talking about, and thus I assume neither do them scientists..."
Current rate of change? CURRENT rate of change? you mean downward? according to NASA's own data, and the data from climatic data centre the downward trend from 2002 has already offset much of the warming experienced this past century.
stuff, without any reference whatsoever. Thinking that saying "NASA" is enough?
You mean, downward rate like this:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/...
Or do "skeptics" do not believe in the traditional definitions of "downward" and "upward" either?
even the data is wrong http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809...
seems a sensor malfunction has caused them to underestimate the amount of sea ice by 193,000 sq/m.
is it completely outside the realm of possibility that there are/were other miscalculations?
... so what is your point?
I also heard that one of their researches is a really bad cook, maybe that also affects their results. I mean, if we're going to find unrelated incidents to cast shadows of doubt... at least let's be creative!
there is data which does not conform to current ideas about global warming.
for example, how do current theories about global warming account for http://www.dailytech.com/Arctic+Sees+Massive+...
to say that i am skeptical of the deniers too. for me, thats what skepticism entails, questioning BOTH sides of the argument.
No
to be sure. And, honestly, if civilization in the developing world is forever altered, do we as Americans really give a shit about wether or not people die from smallpox or malaria? Guns or knives? Muslims or Christians? As long as our supply chain remains intact, we'll be fine with a few extra hurricanes or droughts in the US.
That is what this is. Pure and simple planetary cycles. Did mankind contribute to it? You bet. But the planet is constantly changing. We can no more stop it, than an ant can stop an asteroid from hitting Mars. Both sides of this global warming debate are in it for the fear money. Both of them. Now, having said that, yes, mankind needs to make some drastic changes in order to survive. But where throughout history, has that not been the case?
This posting is about the GOP's unwillingness to "make some drastic changes in order to survive" (your words). So are you supporting the GOP's do-nothing approach or not?
I agree that mankind needs to approach this as a real problem. I however remain skeptical, of even Al Gore who has made millions off this. I also remain skeptical of mankind's impact. If anyone hasn't realized, mankind actually polluted MORE in the industrial revolution, than we have the last 30 years or so. Seriously, we've already attempted to clean up our act. There is only so much we can do to change this planet for the better. It's beyond our capabilities.
Al Gore has donated every cent from his movies, books, public appearances and investments in green energy funds to his climate change foundation. He puts his money where his mouth is.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
Thank you Susie for pointing that out!
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
has no income basically? Sorry Susie, but that's BS. He's become filthy rich selling this stuff, and that carbon offset credit crap that does nothing to slow or change global warming. There are two sides of greedy people in this debate, and I only partially believe one. I am not a denier and never will be. I do think we have contributed to this. But I also think the push is from corporations that will make billions if not trillions, selling more crap. Scientists have been openly applauding this carbon offset BS since the get go, and it will do nothing. Now if they have a real plan, why aren't any of them announcing it?
...the movie was only an "investment"
...Al's money will start rolling in when "carbon credits" start being traded on the "open market"
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Epic failure CC.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
mudshark, and I see many others. But at the end of the day, this carbon offset garbage is doing nothing but making people feel like they are doing something while some new corporation will be the next oil giant.
I can cry wolf all day, but if I don't produce one, then nobody will listen, will they? I've listened to scientists and I've read the info. Sure it exists. Big time. But none of these people that are crying wolf are offering any alternatives whatsoever that will even dent this and they know it.
So what do we do just throw up our hands and say since no one told me what to do, I won't do anything?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
epic failure. sigh.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
he could take a few minutes to educate himself on the subject (or on almost any matter really).
I am starting to get the distinct impression that the sole role of some of the posters in this site is to bitch, no matter what the facts/situation/context.
to find that I am not the only one who thinks thusly.
gravity will suddenly malfunction sparing everyone from this Idocracy.
Why would the Military-Industrial Complex want to stop something that could only improve its bottom line?
This is a discussion that I would have never believed to see on this site. I thought global warming was recognized and understood by most on the left and liberals in particular. If we can improve our country, our world and our atmosphere, why the hell would we question the efforts? Even if we try and fail, what harm will we have done?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
that i had to subscribe wholesale to a doctrine of belief because i usually hang out on the left side of things.
do you think it is only the uncouth people on the right who are subjected to scare tactics and fear mongering? do you think the people on the left are immune to such tactics? though i agree people on the left tend to have higher levels of education (sorry guys on the right).
I am observing comments on various sub - threads. I will just throw this all out at once.
The age of wood as fuel lasted until the 19th century. It was very polluting in particulate matter and CO2.
But we did not have much of an effect on the world.
Coal came in, it was much more efficient. James Watt developed the modern steam engine and the industrial age began.
The 19th century was coal driven, pollution was serious but it was limited in its scope, particulate matter blackened British cities.
Svante Arrhenius a Norwegian scientiest in 1896 predicted the effect of CO2 on global warming. We have had plenty of warning.
The 20th century was about petroleum and we were the leader. Our industrial and our military might came from our oil, it was one of the primary reasons we took over from the British who had coal but no oil. In 1969 they found oil in the North Sea but it peaked in 1999.
Our production peaked in December of 1970. It has been declining 5-6% per year since then.
In the 70s came the EPA, we cleaned up our particulate matter output considerable.
The irony is that the particles that we spewed into to the air caused global cooling even though we increased the CO2 level dramatically.
Once we cleaned the particle emissions the CO2 problem became more apparent.
The CO2 level at the beginning of the industrial era was about 275 ppm, it is now ca 390 ppm.
There is some consensus that 350 was a tipping point. Here is a short history.
We have improved our efficiency so as to reduce our CO2 output somewhat. Not nearly enough.
Anything that is burned produces CO2.
The Chinese have now passed us as the world CO2 leaders. It is bad news. They are less efficient and produce less energy with more CO2 output. They also produce massive particulate matter. I am not optimistic of the global cooling effect this time. Even if that were a solace when you are choking on the particles.
The recent US energy bill (stalled now, thankfully) has centered on an unproven technology, carbon capture, which will keep us burning fossil fuels, mainly coal, with the attempt at capturing the CO2 and burying it somewhere.
It is a foolish and dangerous proposition.
One approach is to liquify it and put it in the bottom of the ocean.
This is untested, it is unproven and it is dangerous in my mind. They also have the trade option of carbon credits which opens the specter of financial system rigging.
A carbon tax is favored by the real left, like me. It avoids the pain, that CANNOT afford to avoid.
The ONLY thing we can do that really impacts and limits our damage to the ecology is MASSIVELY CUT BACK ON OUR USE OF FOSSIL FUELS.
IMMEDIATELY. That means because we haven't planned for it (see my link to Jimmy Carter here) we will have massive economic dislocation.
Ultimately we will reduce our CO2 output because we are running out of fossil fuel. Peak oil is on us now. Peak natural gas is ten years beyond that and peak coal is ten years beyond that.
If we burn all of the fossil fuel in ground, the CO2 level will be 550 ppm.
The planet will be uninhabitable except in the polar regions. Where, when the ice sheets have melted off of Greenland and Antartica we may find more fossil fuel.
We won't find soil to grow anything. The few tens, maybe hundreds of millions, at most, of us that survive that is.
Do you think it won't happen? It is on its way. There is no scientific disagreement that climate change is man made.
The economy is a subset of the ecology. When we have ruined the ecology we will have NO economy.
Alternative energy is promising, but we are not prepared. Wind and solar currently produce 0.17% of our needs. We are a long way from ramping them up, they are NOT going power Disney World, Hollywood and our wasteful lifestyles.
Besides, our infrastructure is based on fossil fuels.
The future will be very different. It is much nearer than you think.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
The recent US energy bill (stalled now, thankfully) has centered on an unproven technology, carbon capture, which will keep us burning fossil fuels, mainly coal, with the attempt at capturing the CO2 and burying it somewhere.
.
I'm not so sure this is a foolish venture.
From what I've learned, it entails a series of water filters. Then, in the end, enzymes consume the by product.
I don't know exactly how this all works. But it seems plausible.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
The technology does not yet exist. What they are trying to do is just kick the can down the road twenty more years. And make a bunch of money in the process.
It is short sighted.
Jimmy Carter showed perfectly well what happens politically when you have substantial foresight.
You lose elections.
Unfortunately we even let out children's text books say that climate change is not universally believed by scientists. That is nonsense.
Consequently we have an ill informed public.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Ask Germany how solar energy is working for them? The special I watched on tv said very well
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
being skeptical of the global warming alarmists does not mean i do not want to see us switch from carbon fuels. but we have to go about things rationally. decisions made when people are in the grip of hysteria arent usually the most well thought out.
imagine if we had made the wholesale switch to ethanol? well it turns out that ethanol is more carbon intensive (ie, more pollution) than refining oil. not to mention that all the land formerly devoted to producing food, now does not. we would be in an even worse condition than we are currently, provided we believe the alarmists about our current condition.
Ethanol when done from sugar cane as in Brazil is energy positive. When done from corn it is energy negative.
It was a boondoggle for the agribusiness lobby. Not conservationists.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
such monumentally disingenuous red herrings. BTW, plausible deniability is the refuge of the intellectually dishonest.
Got a townhall meeting to go to.
I see that I've left this conversation in better hands. Adios.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
so now you're calling me intellectually dishonest. hmm. i wonder what you would label someone who resorts to name calling in an intellectual debate.
have i called anyone here a name? and how am i being dishonest? all im doing is raising questions. i'm sorry my refusal to subscribe to your belief system angers you.
Study the science. It is universally held, by scientists.
Climate change is real. It is man made. If it is not the only component, then it is far and away the largest component. Which means it is something we can correct.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Do you mean that the scientists who were paid to say cigarettes are harmless and deny climate change are somehow...suspect?!?
Cui Bono…
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Global warming is a fact
You may believe with a 100% certainty it is a fact, but i do not. call me crazy, but i have doubts.
global warming is a fact. how much of the recent warming trend is manmade? i dont know.
Climate change is perhaps more accurate.
But whatever you want to call it, it's a hard rain that's going to fall.
Comments are closed on this entry