Disappearing world: Global warming claims tropical island

Parent Cafe
81

<p>Note the source of the document and the country that was being referenced - Canada. The impact on the US is considerably greater:

<a href=“http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/gore-roars-on-global-warming-wrong-again[/url]”>http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/gore-roars-on-global-warming-wrong-again&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Given that this is the impact of just following Kyoto - which most experts claim will have negligible impact on the environment, to make a meaningful impact, the measures and their resulting economic harm would be considerably greater. </p>

<p>Of course, that all assumes that the whole world chips in to make these changes. A major problem with the Kyoto agreement was that the third world nations to which most of our jobs are being exported have been exempted. What is to stop companies in the developed world from responding to the increased cost of doing business in the developed world and shifting even more production to India/China, etc. ? The net effect will be no decrease in CO2, increased pollution, and loss of jobs in the US and increased jobs in India and China. </p>

<p>All this for following recommendations that are not even agreed to in the scientific community? I don’t think so, not without more understanding of the issues:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In the meantime, kindly desist from the the blatantly false nonsense that “there is no harm” in trying to address man made global warming. If you are truly serious about the issue, you will do your argument much favor by avoiding such overblown rhetoric.</p>

82

<p>"52 percent increase in gasoline prices "</p>

<p>so if Detroit made cars that gave 50% increase in mileage, the net cost to consumers would be zero + reduction in CO2 emissions. Correct?</p>

<p>Looks like a winning strategy to me.</p>

83

<p>While the world slowly begins to burn, fundingfather fiddles. </p>

<p>The ability of democracies – and a world of different governments – to react to something long-term and consequential as global warming will turn out to be is always called into question when I see educated people such as fundingfather saying to wait until certainty is attained through total consensus. </p>

<p>Barnett’s study at UCSD in conjunction with Lawrence Livermore Lab definitively put to rest any notion in mainstream and even partial fringe academic and research communities that man-made global warming is occurring. There is no MAYBE left in these findings.</p>

<p>It is a psychologically difficult thing to realize that your very way of life and that of your children is unsustainable as is and that it is dependent on a collective response. But that’s essentially the position that a lot of folks such as fundfather are in. Others, like gas companies, adopt a more cynical approach sometimes – funding people to fuel doubt about the science.</p>

<p>Reference to Barnett’s study:
<a href=“http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1490248,00.html[/url]”>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1490248,00.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

84

<p>Sure, it’s simple. The next time you go to the gas station you just turn in the keys for your old gas hog in an equal exchange for a gas sipper and voila - problem solved. As they say in the beer commercials, “Brilliant!”</p>

85

<p>For those who still can’t wrap their heads around the idea that manmade polution is effecting our world…try this little experiment. While your car is the garage with the garage door closed… start your car and sit and read the paper with the car running for say 30 minutes. See what happens. :slight_smile: </p>

<p>If you still think what “man” puts into the air has little or no impact on the blue marble…well, ok.</p>

86

<p>So let’s say we have decided that man’s activities are altering the earth’s climate and the consequences will be dire. So what do we need to undo? It could be that we have replaced a large portion of the natural environment with houses, buildings, roads and other structures. Do we need to cut back some or do we need to get rid of 90% or so? …and the inhabitants of these buildings and structures, do they go also? We have replaced much of the natural environment with agricultural crops, livestock, and have irrigated many of the fields and to do so we have created huge lakes. Do we also need to cut back drastically? I guess it doesn’t matter, if most people have no where to live, we don’t need to worry about feeding their ghosts. </p>

<p>Let’s say we are not willing to believe we have altered the earth’s climate due to the huge tracts of cities, or agriculture or massive use and re-distribution of fresh water. Let’s say we have decided the only problem of significance is pollution due to the burning of hydrocarbon fuel. We have a couple of choices, we could drastically conserve and go back to a simpler lifestyle. We could give up our mechanized, industrial lives and go back to the basics - subsistence farming without mechanization. Actually, we cannot make that choice on a global basis, because much of the earth’s population is not far from that level and is pushing for modernization and industrial growth. Our only choice would be alternate sources of power. I guess we could consider covering tens of thousands of acres with solar collectors, voltaics and wind farms. It would take tremendous amounts of materials, energy and ecological damage to try to build those structures and distribute the energy, if that approach was even feasible. It seems that the only choice for the future is nuclear energy. Would you like a reactor in your backyard, or would you rather wait until we know more or can consider other options?</p>

87

<p>opie you are assuming we can get the car * into * the garage, what with the lawnmowers, weedeater, leaf blowers, compressors, generators …</p>

88

<p>“Sure, it’s simple. The next time you go to the gas station you just turn in the keys for your old gas hog in an equal exchange for a gas sipper and voila - problem solved. As they say in the beer commercials, “Brilliant!””</p>

<p>are you suggesting that 52% increase in gas prices would be ‘sudden’?</p>

89

<p>fundingfather: not quite so simple. While you are trying to exchange the keys of your gas hog for a gas sipper, they will have put another 1000 cars on the road in China.</p>

90

<p>My view:</p>

<p>yes to nuclear power; yes it’s got real downsides in terms of waste disposal issues and the fact that in some cases processed materials from the supply and waste chain can be diverted to weapons manufacture, but it’s a great source and if we built the reactors like France does (all the same design everywhere), we’d do well. This from a self-professed liberal greenhead.</p>

<p>Yes to edad’s point about another 1,000 cars on the road in China. What may be worse for our overall health and not just from a global warming perspective are the numbers of coal plants China is building.</p>

<p>What we do here will have only a limited impact. There needs to be a world solution. And yet, in one of our most advanced nations, here the US, we don’t have consensus about the problem.</p>

<p>I am not optimistic about our chances to avoid the results we are facing.</p>

91

<p>“For those who still can’t wrap their heads around the idea that manmade polution is effecting our world…”</p>

<p>I absolutely believe that manmade pollution is a huge problem and I’m willing to believe that it might be causing global warming (the totality of the pollution, not just American automobiles), but I think fair-minded people can believe that, want to fix it, and still think that “An Inconvenient Truth” is a piece of propaganda. And as a side issue, be deeply offended by the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, and consider “true believers” of either of those things to be total whackjobs.</p>

92

<p>"Yes to edad’s point about another 1,000 cars on the road in China. What may be worse for our overall health and not just from a global warming perspective are the numbers of coal plants China is building.</p>

<p>What we do here will have only a limited impact. There needs to be a world solution. And yet, in one of our most advanced nations, here the US, we don’t have consensus about the problem."</p>

<p>I’m applauding this post because I find it fair, honest and thoughtful. Thank you!</p>

93

<p>We also need to view current pollution in comparison with the pollution of the past decades and centuries. A century or two ago, London and other European cities were incredibly polluted with soot and gases from burning coal. Many of the America’s cities were no better during the same time period. Small cities and rural areas were no better. Houses were heated with inefficient, highly polluting wood burning stoves and furnaces. A single fireplace must easily put out 50 times more particulates and pollutants than a modern residential furnace. Rather than over-react and look for drastic solutions, it might make sense to continue to take steps to use energy wisely and reduce the most obvious pollutants.</p>

94

<p>ZOOSERMON (for your last post): Thanks for the praise, but I think you misunderstood my post. Global warming is a global problem and will require a global solution, but I don’t think that excuses people from driving gas-guzzling machines when they have choices or thinking that America’s consumption of carbon fuels hasn’t been a huge contributing piece of the problem. </p>

<p>I don’t know why you’d bother to single out An Inconvenient Truth for criticism. Personally, as I watched it, I found Gore’s writing himself into being a major messenger of this problem a little much, but then we like personalities to sell us ideas in this country. What was far more important than Gore the man was what Gore said about the facts and trends of global warming. There may be minor disputes as to some of the stated facts, but reasonable people don’t disagree with the thrust of his propositions. What didn’t make a lot of sense to me were his prescriptions at the end – all very good, but only adequate as a first, minor step. To call his film propaganda, I think, is too strong though. To put it in the same category as a 9/11 conspiracy theory is sheer ridiculousness. </p>

<p>I can’t help but think your doing so is driven from a personal/political animus against Gore himself. I am a democrat (for disclosure purposes) who finds Gore to be a Bore of the sort that would make him, in my mind, a failed leader. My hope, in seeing his good work on an Inconvenient Truth, was that it would launch only a further understanding and urgency about global warming – and not his next presidential campaign. </p>

<p>It is precisely because I see global warming as a global problem that I am not optimistic the world will sort it out before irreparable harm is done. I believe this especially when I see that in the US our political culture has delayed the time of consensus regarding such a huge threat (if the world’s arguably strongest democracy can’t get it right, who can?). But I cheer those who are not waiting to put it on everybody’s mind as much as possible. </p>

<p>But where do you really stand? You can’t say you think global warming is a real threat and not agree with at least a significant portion of what An Inconvenient Truth said. If Dick Cheney delivered that documentary, I would cheer it as well. Of course, that’s a moot point, given that he derided conservation as a personal virtue.</p>

<p>Maybe I don’t understand what you were trying to say. It just doesn’t add up to me, though. </p>

<p>Oh, but now that I read it I see that you think that global pollution only MIGHT be a cause of global warming, this was in the post prior.Well, in that case, you’re the whackjob, right up there with those freaks who believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories. So save your praise for someone who cares what you think.</p>

<p>And if you think I am being mean, remember you’re the one that started calling folks whackjobs.</p>

95

<p>Hey FF,</p>

<p>“86 percent increase in electricity prices”</p>

<p>Guess what? MY electricity prices increased 50% six years ago JUST because ENRON manipulated the industry. Even after those turds are gone, I’m still paying for their manipulated problem. At least with this situation some good might come from it beyond creating the Houston Texasans and a handful of godawful wealthy people. If the air’s a little cleaner, temperature more like it used to be…fine. I’d take that any day over ken lay.</p>

96

<p>zooz,</p>

<p>The thing I try and remember about the messenger is to make sure I listen to the message and block out whose making the delivery. If satan came to you and told you your kids were in trouble, would you not check and make sure at least a couple of times? Maybe Satan is lying, maybe not. </p>

<p>I tend to enjoy South Park for many reasons, the main one being no one is above being made fun of. It’s helps to remember this cartoon characterizations when listening to the real people speak. It disarms my personal distain for the messenger so I can listen. </p>

<p>As SP’s Gore would say “I’m serial, manbearpig exists…serial.” I know it makes no sense, but it helps.</p>

97

<p>“ZOOSERMON (for your last post): Thanks for the praise, but I think you misunderstood my post. Global warming is a global problem and will require a global solution, but I don’t think that excuses people from driving gas-guzzling machines when they have choices or thinking that America’s consumption of carbon fuels hasn’t been a huge contributing piece of the problem.”</p>

<p>My Response: I absolutely did not misunderstand your post, rather I agreed with it. I absolutely think that America’s consumption of carbon fuels is a mega-contributing factor and, in fact, my daughter has been working (as a student, I mean) toward researching, promoting and educating about alternate sources of fuel since she was in sixth grade and has won many awards for her work. As I specifically said, that is NOT the only cause of pollution and I think it is enormously important to remember that there are are other countries who need to be brought into the fold and many on the American left (remember I live in NYC) are fond of overlooking that critical fact.</p>

<p>“I don’t know why you’d bother to single out An Inconvenient Truth for criticism. Personally, as I watched it, I found Gore’s writing himself into being a major messenger of this problem a little much, but then we like personalities to sell us ideas in this country. What was far more important than Gore the man was what Gore said about the facts and trends of global warming. There may be minor disputes as to some of the stated facts, but reasonable people don’t disagree with the thrust of his propositions. What didn’t make a lot of sense to me were his prescriptions at the end – all very good, but only adequate as a first, minor step. To call his film propaganda, I think, is too strong though.”</p>

<p>That’s fine, people of good will can agree to disagree. And you hit the nail on the head of my objection (my objection, my opinion, not yours): Mr. Gore’s insinuation of himself. I believe the film to be propaganda for Mr. Gore’s aspirations. You don’t have to agree, that’s ok.</p>

<p>" To put it in the same category as a 9/11 conspiracy theory is sheer ridiculousness. "</p>

<p>My response: Really? Did you read this entire thread? I was referring back to LealDragon’s posts, specifically. That is the connection here, in this thread on this message board. Now, for a person who views “An Inconvenient Truth” through the lens of other facts and information and can filter out what is useful and leave what is not, that’s a whole other ball of wax.</p>

<p>“I can’t help but think your doing so is driven from a personal/political animus against Gore himself. I am a democrat (for disclosure purposes) who finds Gore to be a Bore of the sort that would make him, in my mind, a failed leader. My hope, in seeing his good work on an Inconvenient Truth, was that it would launch only a further understanding and urgency about global warming – and not his next presidential campaign.”</p>

<p>My response: You are 100% incorrect about that. I have no political (or personal animus) toward Mr. Gore, absolutely none whatsoever and you have no basis for that assumption. In fact, I was a HUGE supporter of Mr. Gore back in the days before he was on the Clinton ticket. I may not have agreed with him on many issues, but I have a serious soft-spot for men of conviction, which is how I viewed Mr. Gore for many, many years.</p>

<p>“It is precisely because I see global warming as a global problem that I am not optimistic the world will sort it out before irreparable harm is done. I believe this especially when I see that in the US our political culture has delayed the time of consensus regarding such a huge threat (if the world’s arguably strongest democracy can’t get it right, who can?). But I cheer those who are not waiting to put it on everybody’s mind as much as possible.”</p>

<p>My response: Agreed. But in order to “get it right” we really have to set priorities and use good information. I find it hypocritical that some of the people who are sounding the alarm on global warming are (a) traveling the country in private jets or fleets of SUVS and, most particularly (b) refusing to consider alternate sources of fuel like nuclear or even locating wind farms in their backyards. Everything has to be on the table if we are going to be serious.</p>

<p>“But where do you really stand? You can’t say you think global warming is a real threat and not agree with at least a significant portion of what An Inconvenient Truth said. If Dick Cheney delivered that documentary, I would cheer it as well. Of course, that’s a moot point, given that he derided conservation as a personal virtue.”</p>

<p>My response: I think there is some merit to the information contained in
“An Inconvenient Truth,” but still believe that it is a propaganda piece. Why is it so hard for some people to accept that two things can be true at once?</p>

<p>“Maybe I don’t understand what you were trying to say. It just doesn’t add up to me, though. Oh, but now that I read it I see that you think that global pollution only MIGHT be a cause of global warming, this was in the post prior.Well, in that case, you’re the whackjob, right up there with those freaks who believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories. So save your praise for someone who cares what you think.”</p>

<p>My response: Obviously nuance is well above your ability to comprehend. The world isn’t black and white and it is people like you, with your narrow points of view and extreme sanctimoniousness that prevents serious discussion about serious issues.</p>

98

<p>“The thing I try and remember about the messenger is to make sure I listen to the message and block out whose making the delivery. If satan came to you and told you your kids were in trouble, would you not check and make sure at least a couple of times? Maybe Satan is lying, maybe not.”</p>

<p>Opie, thanks for the comments! I don’t have anything against Mr. Gore (I’m a Willie-despiser but don’t hold him against Mr. Gore) and I thought I had confined my comments specifically to my view of the film. If I didn’t make that clear, I apologize.</p>

99

<p>“fundingfather: not quite so simple. While you are trying to exchange the keys of your gas hog for a gas sipper, they will have put another 1000 cars on the road in China.”</p>

<p>are you high on something?</p>

<p>The 2005 annual auto+light truck sales in US were 17 million unit. The projected number for 2006 is 16.7 million units.</p>

<p>So if Chinese put 1,000 car on the road for every keys exchanged in US they should sale about 17 BILLION cars in their own country.</p>

<p>For 2006 China is projected to produce 7 million units.</p>

100

<p>“My response: Obviously nuance is well above your ability to comprehend. The world isn’t black and white and it is people like you, with your narrow points of view and extreme sanctimoniousness that prevents serious discussion about serious issues.”</p>

<p>ZOOSERMOM: Well, I don’t want to get into a peeing match with you. Actually, though, you didn’t articulate a nuance, but rather a contradiction. You said Gore’s film was propaganda (which implies it is a lying piece) and that though you agree that it is at least partly accurate you think that people who buy into it are whackjobs. But I think what you wanted to say, to try to untangle your logic is that you didn’t appreciate Gore’s film as an advertisement for the man (hence, propaganda), though you might concede that some of its content is accurate. We are asking you to use some nuanced thinking: separate the man from the message. Most of the film is a fairly straightforward recitation of facts and trends. If you don’t like the film because Gore is using it as a vehicle, say that. Calling it propaganda is suggesting rather broadly that the film distorts and lies, and since it’s been so heavily associated with the topic of global warming, to say that its propaganda is to say that global warming is a fleece job run on the public and that people who believe it are whackjobs on the order of the 9/11 conspirists (sp?). In other words, you are saying it is a lie, but saying at the same time that at least some of the information is accurate. I am saying: which is it? It’s not a question of nuance. I am not being sanctimonious, by the way. I am being didactic or possibly pedantic. I admit my manner may be gruff, but I don’t disrespect you enough to say that what you said was clear. It wasn’t.</p>