Global Warming backdown

[Guest TrueMetis]

...a finite planet with finite resources cannot sustain the projected populations...

No but a infinite universe with infinite resources can.

[wyly]

In 200 years we'll be probably living on Mars, on the Moon, on the moons of Jupiter and on Titan, in orbital and in asteroid colonies, and may well be in the process of colonizing other star systems. Or we might not exist as physical beings at all and instead simply exist as patterns of information in the computer banks of our machine civilization. Or we might be extinct. Or we might be engaged in a desperate battle for survival with alien civilizations. Or almost an infinite number of other possibilities.

hmmm I think you've been reading to many sci fi books...but there's nothing wrong with optimism...

Trying to frame the issues we might face 200 years from now in terms of today's problems is almost unbelievably shortsighted. Who 200 years ago could have foreseen today's world?

200 years ago no one foresaw man could alter the planets ecosystem and climate and that in the past those same changes brought massive extinctions, but we're quite a bit better a projecting the future now...

[Bonam]

hmmm I think you've been reading to many sci fi books...but there's nothing wrong with optimism...

200 years ago no one foresaw man could alter the planets ecosystem and climate and that in the past those same changes brought massive extinctions, but we're quite a bit better a projecting the future now...

We cannot possibly project events related to our civilization more than 30 or 40 years in the future because the impact that technological progress will have on our civilization in the next several decades is completely unfathomable at this point.

[Alta4ever]

Sure...and meanwhile, you can race your fat SUV at a hundred and twenty clicks through the school zone, blasting Nugent and screaming insults at queers, on your way to the Seven-Eleven to buy scat-porn.

"Yeaaahhhhhh, Cheney!"

What bigoted thing to say. So much wrong with this post. I don't own an SUV, I hate Ted, I haven't been to a 7 11 in years. I won't even speed on the highway, I don't yell insults at people who are free to live their lives the way they want and I have no idea what scat porn is.

From the looks of your post I am light years ahead of you in a civilized society.

BTW I imagine my home is far more energy efficient then yours. Since I have re insulated the entire home, replaced all the windows, installed a hi efficiency furnace, a high efficiency hot water on demand system. Installed all high efficiency appliances. I put a new foundation under it which is an insulated form type. The best insulated basement money can buy. Oh and by the way my home is what is called a recycled home.

I just happen to think that earth hour is a load of BS. Those that participate are fools, thinking they are contributing to something but in fact are doing nothing.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Alta4ever

[waldo]

What bigoted thing to say. So much wrong with this post. I don't own an SUV, I hate Ted, I haven't been to a 7 11 in years. I won't even speed on the highway, I don't yell insults at people who are free to live their lives the way they want and I have no idea what scat porn is.

From the looks of your post I am light years ahead of you in a civilized society.

oh my! That you would take it literally... some would attest that your comment that reveled in wanton, wasteful, excessive power consumption... a mocking of Earth Hour... certainly doesn't fit to your claimed ranking within civil society.

[Alta4ever]

oh my! That you would take it literally... some would attest that your comment that reveled in wanton, wasteful, excessive power consumption... a mocking of Earth Hour... certainly doesn't fit to your claimed ranking within civil society.

To who, some putz like you?

I think my protest is apt and visible.

[waldo]

To who, some putz like you?

I think my protest is apt and visible.

this just gets better... you see, I certainly didn't take you literally. I certainly didn't take your verbosity as practiced intent. But to read you, now, attaching an apt, visible enacted action qualifier... you actually protested Earth Hour by doing exactly what you said. Oh my! Civilized society, indeed!

Waldo and Wyly I will be thinking of you tonight and dedicating all the power consumption to you, as I turn on everything in the house and the holiday trailer, and run all three vehicles. Cheers

[Michael Hardner]

when I was a wee kid teachers were telling us we'd be driving nuclear powered cars...nuclear power would power the entire world, but reality set in...some science will always remain science fiction

in forty years population will climb from the 6.5 billion we have now to 9 billion if fertility rates drop the population will still be by UN estimates 11.5 billion by 2100, if it keeps climbing at todays rate 40 Billion...

we cannot assume there will improvements in agricultural technology and agricultural land is being overrun with urban development, planning must be done with what we know now not what we hope we'll have 100 or 200 years from now...a finite planet with finite resources cannot sustain the projected populations...add in climate change and the potential environmental damage that goes with it we have disaster looming...

I have never seen an estimate that says the population will reach 40 billion. Population growth is slowing. We can't assume things about the future, but if that's true why do you post anything about Global Warming. And agricultural productivity is, similarly, a line that keeps going up.

The same types of scientists who make temperature models make population and economic models.

Like I said, don't wade into the pool of predicting the future, but instead urge that we plan for a reasonable worst-case.

[Shady]

FINALLY!!! An AGW True-Believer that actually admits to what they're really all about!

In his first in-depth interview since the theft of UEA emails, the scientist blames inertia and democracy for lack of action

Link

Yeah, that damn democracy. If only there was a way to subvert it!

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is "modern democracy", he added. "Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

Link

Yes. I'm sure him and his ilk would love to put democracy "on hold" for a while.

[BubberMiley]

Yes. I'm sure him and his ilk would love to put democracy "on hold" for a while.

I suppose if a person refused to take climate change seriously, no matter how much evidence has been presented to them, any reaction at all to climate change would appear extreme.

[waldo]

Yes. I'm sure him and his ilk would love to put democracy "on hold" for a while.

would you like a perogy pie to go with your whine!

[waldo]

continued Harper Conservative clown-foolery! Apparently, exclusivity has it's privileges.

Clinton blasts Canada for exclusivity of Arctic talks

"Significant international discussions on Arctic issues should include those who have legitimate interests in the region," said Clinton, "and I hope the Arctic will always showcase our ability to work together, not create new divisions.

"We need all hands on deck because there is a huge amount to do, and not much time to do it."

"What happens in the Arctic will have broad consequences for the earth and its climate. The melting of sea ice, glaciers, and permafrost will affect people and ecosystems around the world," she said "and understanding how these changes fit together is a task that demands international co-operation."

At a post-summit news conference where Cannon was unexpectedly left alone to answer questions, the event's host was left on the defensive. Cannon insisted that the "Arctic Five" is not intended to be a permanent institution and asserted that their second meeting in two years was in no way intended to undermine the Arctic Council, which includes Iceland, Finland and Sweden, as well as indigenous groups and other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Germany, with observer status.

[Shady]

continued Harper Conservative clown-foolery! Apparently, exclusivity has it's privileges.

Clinton blasts Canada for exclusivity of Arctic talks

Yes, more smart power from the Obama administration!

What a great idea! Let’s convince Canada to have its soldiers die on the Af-Pak theater front by insulting them at their own conference. After all, the troops that Sweden, Finland, and Iceland have in Afghanistan — not to mention those of “indigenous groups” — are so much more important strategically to the US and its mission in Afghanistan. While Canada merely contributes almost 3,000 combat troops, Sweden has 500 non-combat personnel in Af-Pak, while Finland has 95. Iceland has … 4.

Canada, not surprisingly, responded by politely telling Hillary Clinton to pound sand. The extension of the mission in Afghanistan is politically untenable anyway, but Barack Obama’s snub of Stephen Harper last December certainly didn’t help matters. Neither does a pointless rebuke at a conference hosted by Ottawa.

Link

My feelings exactly!

[waldo]

My feelings exactly!

Shady... the ever present "Great Deflector"!

this was an ill-conceived, purposeful Harper Conservative snub to the established intergovernmental forum, the Arctic Council. Instead of fostering cooperation and inclusiveness, we have the Conservatives excluding prominent Arctic Council member states and permanent participant organizations.

The Ottawa Declaration of 1996 formally established the Arctic Council as a high level intergovernmental forum to provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, with the involvement of the Arctic Indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues, in particular issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic.

Member States of the Arctic Council are Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States of America.

In addition to the Member States, the Arctic Council has the category of Permanent Participants. This category is open equally to Arctic organizations of Indigenous peoples with a majority of Arctic Indigenous constituency representing:

* a single Indigenous people resident in more than one Arctic State; or

* more than one Arctic Indigenous people resident in a single Arctic State.

The category of Permanent Participation is created to provide for active participation of, and full consultation with, the Arctic Indigenous representatives within the Arctic Council. This principle applies to all meetings and activities of the Arctic Council.

these are the same knee-jerk reacting Conservatives who blocked the European Union from receiving 'observer status' within the Arctic Council based on the European ban on Canadian seal products... and yet, Canada's Inuit were refused participation in these latest Arctic talks by these same Harper Conservatives. Boneheads!

[bush_cheney2004]

these are the same knee-jerk reacting Conservatives who blocked the European Union from receiving 'observer status' within the Arctic Council based on the European ban on Canadian seal products... and yet, Canada's Inuit were refused participation in these latest Arctic talks by these same Harper Conservatives. Boneheads!

What a shame...I hear they also blocked participation by Superman, who maintains his Fortress of Solitude in the region.

[waldo]

What a shame...I hear they also blocked participation by Superman, who maintains his Fortress of Solitude in the region.

what a shame... all you ever have to contribute is your one-quip pony trick

[Michael Hardner]

what a shame... all you ever have to contribute is your one-quip pony trick

Let's apply credit where it's due, though. I certainly won't begrudge a witty opponent the odd "dig" at my expense. Those types of posts are preferable to the 'dumbed down' angry kind, don't you think ?

[waldo]

Let's apply credit where it's due, though. I certainly won't begrudge a witty opponent the odd "dig" at my expense. Those types of posts are preferable to the 'dumbed down' angry kind, don't you think?

certainly, bush_cheney is a half-wit opponent... his one-quip pony show is offered at his own expense. Apparently, he feels he has a MLW "record" of substance. In recent days another MLW member offered a most astute and concise assessment of the foreign interloper, Bush_Cheney2004:

That repetitive drone we hear is the sound of an inferiority complex hiccuping with aggrieved patriotism. No doubt accompanied by little red, white 'n blue tears at the sheer effrontery of those (ie. the Earth) who disagree with the combative little pussies of the American Right.

[Shady]

Shady... the ever present "Great Deflector"!

this was an ill-conceived, purposeful Harper Conservative snub to the established intergovernmental forum, the Arctic Council. Instead of fostering cooperation and inclusiveness, we have the Conservatives excluding prominent Arctic Council member states and permanent participant organizations.

these are the same knee-jerk reacting Conservatives who blocked the European Union from receiving 'observer status' within the Arctic Council based on the European ban on Canadian seal products... and yet, Canada's Inuit were refused participation in these latest Arctic talks by these same Harper Conservatives. Boneheads!

Complete nonsense. But it doesn't suprise me coming from you. You're part of the blame Canada first crowd. Believe it or not, but sometimes other countries are in the wrong. Not always Canada. Who cares if certain countries didn't receive 'observer status?' Why the hell should countries like Germany have any significant influence? They have zero arctic territory. I'd be like Canada being given 'observer status' for desertification discussion in Africa. As for some of the other land-locked European countries complaining. Well, actions have consequences. Perhaps they should rethink their opinion on our seal products?

[Oleg Bach]

That's actually not correct. Most pollutants (things that make the sky dirty), such as particulate matter, actually tend to reduce the temperature by reflecting the Sun's radiation back into space. This was the reason for some people being concerned over global cooling in the 70s and 80s. However, cutting particulate emissions was relatively easy, by using filters, improved efficiency processes that don't leave as much not fully burned material, etc. Greenhouse gases like CO2 and water vapor, on the other hand, are fundamental byproducts of any typical combustion reaction, and cannot be eliminated by simply using filters or improving efficiency. These gases do not make the sky "dirty". A sky with 600ppm of CO2 can look as perfectly clear as a sky with 200ppm of CO2.

I won't even read that...don't tell me that carbon ---that is black, does not attract heat.

[waldo]

Complete nonsense.

we agree Shady... it most certainly is complete nonsense for the Harper Conservatives to undercut the significance and role of the Arctic Council by denying 3 prominent Arctic Council countries a presence at these latest Arctic talks.

the lil' observer reference was simply to point out the additional contradictions of the Harper Conservatives... if they would presume to offer a show of support to Canada's Inuit people's over the EU import ban on products derived from the seal hunt... you wouldn't think they (the Conservatives) would, in turn, upset the Inuit (and other indigenous peoples) by not allowing them at these latest Arctic talks.

keep on deflecting, Shady - the "Great Deflector"!

[Shady]

denying 3 prominent Arctic Council countries

I guess your idea and my idea of the definition of 'prominent' definitely differs. Oh well.

[Oleg Bach]

Those that generate money from pollution and the spillage of industrial waste in the air and water..............hate being called imbalanced...in fact they attack you for saying they are nuts for destroying the world for needless habitual profit.

[waldo]

Phil Jones exonerated! (oh my - Shady/Simple meltdown in the making)

The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

In their report, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."

... well, of course!

[Michael Hardner]

Phil Jones exonerated![/url][/b] (oh my - Shady/Simple meltdown in the making)

This is a good article: it outlines what has happened, and what is still pending, i.e. the Muir Russell report. It's important to note that it says:

But the lawmakers did criticize the way Jones and his colleagues handled freedom of information requests, saying scientists could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by aggressively publishing all their data instead of worrying about how to stonewall their critics.

While it doesn't constitute fraud, the behavior is unprofessional and unbecoming. Thus, the UEA investigation may have worse ramifications for Professor Jones.