Blue Crab Boulevard

Living With It

The increasingly hysterical warnings about global warning continue to take on an almost surreal air. Global warming being blamed for gingerbread houses collapsing in Sweden; grim warnings of enormously overweight moose, the list of dire predictions becomes sillier with each passing day. With the release of the latest news that man is "likely" involved in the warming trend and that the trend cannot be stopped, it is about time to take a look at the reality of the situation instead of the extremist positions. Patrick Michaels, in today's USA Today, does just that.

However, actually "doing something" about warming is a daunting endeavor. The journal Geophysical Research Letters estimated in 1997 that if every nation on Earth lived up to the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol on global warming, it would prevent no more than 0.126 degrees F of warming every 50 years. Global temperature varies by more than that from year to year, so that's not even enough to measure. Climatically, Kyoto would do nothing.

In the past four years, the Senate has voted twice against "cap-and-trade" legislation — sponsored by New Mexico senators Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat, and Pete Domenici, a Republican — that would set quotas on carbon emissions and let companies buy and sell them. If adopted, their cap-and-trade law would reduce emissions by less than the Kyoto Protocol specifies. In other words, the Senate has been loath to even adopt something that does less than nothing.

The stark reality is that if we really want to alter the warming trajectory of the planet significantly, we have to cut emissions by an extremely large amount, and — a truth that everyone must know — we simply do not have the technology to do so. We would fritter away billions in precious investment capital in a futile attempt to curtail warming.

Consequently, the best policy is to live with some modest climate change now and encourage economic development, which will generate the capital necessary for investment in the more efficient technologies of the future.

Despite what many people insist, the evidence of how much of global warming is tied to human activity is marginal at best. There are strong arguments that a lot of the warming trend is natural and has nothing to do with man at all. But even if we start with a presumption that this trend will continue no matter what we do in the short run, then it is time to look at dealing with the changes intelligently. Not by throwing money away. Please read all of what Michaels wrote, it is short and to the point.

Environment | Gaius February 2, 2007

By David (SNAFU Principle), February 2, 2007 @ 6:20 pm

Ever heard of the Thermohaline circulation? Probably not.

For what it’s worth, most of the relevant data in regard to global warming comes from NASA and NOAA, two government agencies well known for their sober analysis in such matters. Lives depend upon it and all.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm

There’s is nothing entirely new in the “urgency” presented. It’s just that the press has begun to pick up the story, loving a good thriller as they do.

As with all things that go media circus, some is true, some is not true.

This fact doesn’t mean that the affects of global warming, no matter HOW they have come about, aren’t a real threat.

Still, many conservatives are hung up on “how can it be global warming if it’s so cold?”

Whether the “urgency” was real or not, the fact is undeniable: the polar caps are melting and if it affects the Thermohaline circulation (mixing cold fresh water with warmer circulated sea water) we will be in for a world of hurt.

A smaller such incident occurred in the late 1800’s when the Hudson Bay cap broke apart and millions of gallons of fresh ice water seeped into the northern Atlantic. It affected the weather pattern for decades and created a “mini ice age” all throughout the Northeast part of North America and great droughts and heat waves in summer months.

It is also known that the Thermohaline circulation is interconnected with the magnetic ebb and flow of the poles, and their axial rotation, which directly affects weather as well.

But, it’s only science, right?
By chris, February 2, 2007 @ 8:03 pm

What’s that? The sound of global warming ’skeptics’ saying absolutely NOTHING in response?

I’m still waiting for someone to say ‘it’s only one report’. ie 2500 scientists globally, 113 countries, EVERY major scientific institute on the planet.. but it’s only ‘one report’.
By Gaius, February 2, 2007 @ 8:17 pm

I posted this, so what the heck is your point?

Again, global warming is trending up, but cutting our Western economies off at the knees while allowing China and India to just forge ahead is what is commonly known as suicide.

You first.
By David (SNAFU Principle), February 2, 2007 @ 8:52 pm

but cutting our Western economies off at the knees while allowing China and India to just forge ahead is what is commonly known as suicide.

America has the technology, the workers and the money to do what Henry Ford did originally - sell the car to the entire world.

But, this time, is would be the electric car. Except, it was scuttled by the Big Three in favor of hydorgen fuel and hybrid fuels.

America needs to lead. Not look at China and India and say: “They’re doing it, so we should do it too.”

Getting America off the oil teet is the smartest thing at the moment.

Our dependency upon foreign oil has become a national security issue.

Let the Chinese and the Indians and everyone else fight over the scraps.

That’s called leadership.
By David (SNAFU Principle), February 2, 2007 @ 9:25 pm

There are strong arguments that a lot of the warming trend is natural and has nothing to do with man at all.

I’d be interested in reading some of these arguments. From what I’ve read, most of them dismiss the findings of the many to cite the dissent of a few.

And, of course, the affect of fossil fuels emitted into the atmosphere upon the climate has been documented and studied for going on 30 years now.
Recent iIce core samples bear out basic scientific hypothesis’ that were established two decades ago - that fossil fuel emitted into the atmosphere causes the temperature of the planet to rise.

If ever there was an example of ostrich like behavior, it is the rights continued efforts to ignore science fact in favor of something less… tangible.

As said, many are still having a problem dealing with the “global warming causeâ€™s colder temperatures” riddle. (Which isn’t a riddle at all, if you simply understand the science, which is actually pretty simple.)

http://newsbusters.org/node/10559

It would be amusing if it weren’t so frightening.

The Earth is flat all over again.
By Gaius, February 2, 2007 @ 10:03 pm

Very nice, David. Now tell me, are you an engineer? Where exactly does the electricity come from? You have a lot of very quick answers. Answer that one. Where does it come from?

Because if you can’t you’re trying to get money from nothing.
By David (SNAFU Principle), February 2, 2007 @ 10:59 pm

Really Gaius, your attitude is sorta sad. Does one need to be an engineer to talk about such issues? Of course not. But, by your logic, I can easily ask “Are you an engineer? Tell me why alternative forms of energy are not viable.” But, I’m not going to do that because I know that there are indeed many forms of alternative energy available.

But, with you, it can’t be done. In the 60’s, the world was full of naysayers such as you Gaius, those who said that going to the moon could not be done. That is was a lost cause, too expensive, too difficult, too risky and would fail in the end. But, we did it.

When Germany and Italy declared war on the US on December 11, 1941, the US had a military not able to wage the war. The air force was pitifully small to wage a war across the globe, guns, ammo and support vehicles simply didn’t exist. Yet, in a short 2 and 1/2 years, the greatest mobilization in the history of the world was underway.

Yet with you, it can’t be done. You’ve gone on and on on this site about how we’re at war, and yet, as a nation, we are completely reliant upon not only the Saudi’s, but the Iranians for our oil needs.

Forms of renewable energy are not only abundant, but feasable. The problem is, at least here in the US, the oil compmanies run the show and the White House. And, the predominant propaganda is that renewable forms of energy are not feasable. Which is completely untrue.

Solar. Wind. Hyrdo. Micro-Hydro. Nuclear. Geothermal.

All viable. All perfectly suitable to replace fossil fuels. But, the prevailing propaganda is that such a change will destroy the economy of the US. (A claim you make yourself.)

Yet, we are being left in the dust in moving towards renewable energy by the EU, who are also leaving the US in the dust in the economic area. Has it hurt their economy? Hardly. It’s been a boon. Even Lou Dobbs marvels at the growth industry it has become. In Europe and around the world. But, here in the US…

People like you go on and on about how it’s HARD to switch from oil. Where’s the electricity going to come from? Oh dear. It’s too HARD.

Yes. It’s hard Gaius. So was going to the moon. So was launching the greatest war effort in the history of the world.

But, we did them both.

Even with the naysayers like you.
By Gaius, February 2, 2007 @ 11:56 pm

You really are not even conversant with the realities. You have your glib “we can do this” answers. But you cannot overcome the actual laws of physics with your glibness. Will you repeal the law of gravity because it is not convenient?

Yes we sent people to the moon. But we did not wish away the realities to do so.

So, give an actual solution that does not entail a wish or a “something magic happens here”. Or shut up and quit wasting my time. Because you really do not have a clue about the reality. All you have is a lot of wishes and should be sentiments.

Trust me on this, English majors did not get people to the moon. And your opinions will not save the world. Get a clue. Wishing does not make it so.
By David (SNAFU Principle), February 3, 2007 @ 3:06 pm

So, give an actual solution that does not entail a wish or a â€œsomething magic happens hereâ€. Or shut up and quit wasting my time. Because you really do not have a clue about the reality. All you have is a lot of wishes and should be sentiments.

Gaius, you really are pathetic. And, a perfect example of the whining do nothing conservative mindset.

I’ve given multiple examples of alternative energy sources, all of which are completely viable and workable on a mass scale. You ignore it all for your own glib and arrogant stance.

Please Gaius, tell me the “reality” in your view? It can’t be done?
That is all you’ve given us. “It can’t be done.”

Why won’t alternative energies work Gaius? Because you say so? Please, some enlightenment on why the alternatives I’ve presented won’t work would be nice. What do you know that we don’t? Nothing.

That is what you’ve given us here so far. Nothing.

While I’ve actually mentioned several alternatives, all viable and all helping to ignite real economic growth around the world.

All you can say is: “It can’t be done.” And, your instant response it to automatically attack me, and simply dismiss the information presented entirely with a glibness that is simply sad.

Nice. Crawl back into your hole Gaius. We’ll do the work.

As usual, the great conservative mind stops when things get difficult.

I guess we have to live with it. We can’t change it. Better to just give up, right Gaius?
By David (SNAFU Principle), February 3, 2007 @ 3:16 pm

For the record, there are many many people from all walks of life - education, business, social sciences, etc. - working to establish real alternative energy in the US, that is self sustaining and can guarantee true US national security and eliminate our dependence upon foreign sources of energy.

It’s going to happen. And, you can look back at it Gaius and know that you didn’t see it coming, pretty much fought it all the way and did what you could (nothing) to make sure that it didn’t happen, helping to spread the dominant corporate propaganda that an alternative economy (one that the US can build upon with jobs and profits) was just too hard, and couldn’t be done without destroying the old economy.

Take a bow, Gaius.
By Gaius, February 3, 2007 @ 3:20 pm

Yeah, thanks for the advice. Notice you didn’t include engineers there. Because engineers know that the laws of physics are not set aside because you find them inconvenient. Take a bow, Davey.

Don’t waste my time. Go troll somewhere else.
By David (SNAFU Principle), February 3, 2007 @ 4:23 pm

Notice you didnâ€™t include engineers there. Because engineers know that the laws of physics are not set aside because you find them inconvenient.

Actually, engineers would be included in education, business, and social sciences. Isn’t that obvious? Apparently not.

What laws of physics are you referring to specifically? I’d like to know.
If asking questions is trolling to you, then you truly are pathetic.

And, of course, even the Pentagon takes global warming seriously. I wonder why?

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0504editors.htm

You’re great (not really) at grand denial statements Gaius, but when it comes to real facts… you lose.

Your wasted time it all your own. Most especially since you don’t have a leg to stand upon.

I’m surprised you haven’t banned me from your site already.
By Gaius, February 3, 2007 @ 4:34 pm

You are now. I’ve had it with your fondness for calling names.
By Lizzie, February 3, 2007 @ 5:21 pm

It’s all of a piece. There is a tremendous push to get Global Warming taken seriously and completely credited in 2007 - hence the hysteria - because with the entrenching of leftist leadership in 2008, this hysteria will be able to excite legislation that no one wanted in 1997. If you can’t break America one way, you do it another.

Thus, we see scientists who disagree with GW being silenced or ignored, and meteorologists who won’t board the train threatened with their jobs. This sort of totalitarian “you will obey the whims of the party” thinking has existed before. Guess where. Go ahead, take a guess.

No, funnily enough, it didn’t exist in the GOP or George W. Bush’s America. The left, projecting wildly, simply wanted you to think so. Think hard…where have you seen this before?
By Lizzie, February 3, 2007 @ 5:22 pm

Hmmm I probably should have spelled it out for the peanut gallery, GW is Global Warming.
By Gaius, February 3, 2007 @ 6:43 pm

< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Comment policy is on the "About" page, and it is enforced.
By Sweet Land Of Liberty, February 3, 2007 @ 6:45 pm

And if an intergalactic battalion of smoking asteroids was heaeded this way: due to hit us in ten years, would you be saying…

“What do they know? its just those fool astronomers!”

There is nothing anti-American, or anti business about facing up to scientific facts. Heres some:

1. All previous natural (non-manmade) warmings or coolings took place veeeeeeeeeeryyyyy slowly, over thousands or millions of years not within a couple decades like this one.

2. The ice cores show that it is 650,000 years since Co2 has been this high.

3. That there are also natural causes to raise Co2, and they caused warming too, but because it was over thousands of years, it caused only gradual extinctions. And they could cause non manmade warming also in the future, over thousands of years, with gradual extinctions resulting. But the speed of the current manmade Co2 rise is unprecedented.

(The fact that there have been warmings/coolings naturally in prehistory is not an argument for allowing a rapid Co2 rise now over the next few decades, which will cause an unprecedented sudden warming with disastrous unprecedented results.)

If we don’t do something about changing the way we fuel our civilization we will burn in Hell. (Our great grandkids, that is) And it will be right on this earth.

Don’t you see insurance companies are onto whats happening. Rates are up fivefold now on the coasts. Asthma is up already from the last 30 years because of dust from the drought-caused desertification in China and Australia have doubled from global warming.

You should read foreign business news like the Financial Times to get an accurate picture http://www.ft.com because you are mistaken.

Theres nothing new about the science as any reader of The National Geographic will attest, its just got media attention because it is getting PRETTY DAMN NEAR the tipping point.

My grandkids are worth it. Yours are too.

You can get with the solutions. Or you can drag the rest of us down by delaying action to fix it. Your choice.

This is serious folks.
By Gaius, February 3, 2007 @ 9:02 pm

< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Heh.
By buddy larsen, February 4, 2007 @ 12:23 am

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html

A must read.
By Sweet Land Of Liberty, February 4, 2007 @ 9:16 am

If every car got 40 mpg we would not need any Middle Eastern Oil: google it.

So what if every car got 60 mpg …? That would put a dent in Co2.

What if instead of approving that $100 billion in trying to hang on to an oil supply in Iraq, we invested that money in 80% rebates to buyers of a government order to US carmakers to build Prius knockoffs.

Apparently only 17 million new cars were sold last year to us 300 million people. Say if this government order was for 20 million 60 mpg cars a year for the next ten years, we’d replace every vehicle on the road I think.

Now is the time for massive effective investment collectively by our government in Co2 reduction.

For WWII we built an entire airforce in 3 yrs from nothing. We could fix this.
By Gaius, February 4, 2007 @ 9:41 am

Enough. This is not your place to post endless amounts of campaign material.
By buddy larsen, February 4, 2007 @ 10:42 am

green goblins
By change needed, February 4, 2007 @ 11:48 am

A conservative columnist, David Brooks, had a common sense approach today on Sunday talk show…a basic summary: he used to discount the global warming news, but after the near concensus report by scientists this week, he is trusting people who know a lot more about science than he does! I think back to my grandmother,and mother; their generations were the original reduce, reuse, recycle crowd. I’m sorry we are so far removed from their values.
By Jim, February 4, 2007 @ 12:13 pm

Hum. Pluto, Jupiter and Mars show evidence of global warming as we speak. It must be our fault. Obviously we need extend the reach of Kyoto.