Global Warming vs Terrorism

[maplesyrup]

James Lovelock: Nuclear power is the only green solution

We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger

24 May 2004

Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist, was far-sighted to say that global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism. He may even have underestimated, because, since he spoke, new evidence of climate change suggests it could be even more serious, and the greatest danger that civilisation has faced so far.

Most of us are aware of some degree of warming; winters are warmer and spring comes earlier. But in the Arctic, warming is more than twice as great as here in Europe and in summertime, torrents of melt water now plunge from Greenland's kilometre-high glaciers. The complete dissolution of Greenland's icy mountains will take time, but by then the sea will have risen seven metres, enough to make uninhabitable all of the low lying coastal cities of the world, including London, Venice, Calcutta, New York and Tokyo. Even a two metre rise is enough to put most of southern Florida under water.

The floating ice of the Arctic Ocean is even more vulnerable to warming; in 30 years, its white reflecting ice, the area of the US, may become dark sea that absorbs the warmth of summer sunlight, and further hastens the end of the Greenland ice. The North Pole, goal of so many explorers, will then be no more than a point on the ocean surface.

Not only the Arctic is changing; climatologists warn a four-degree rise in temperature is enough to eliminate the vast Amazon forests in a catastrophe for their people, their biodiversity, and for the world, which would lose one of its great natural air conditioners.

The scientists who form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2001 that global temperature would rise between two and six degrees Celsius by 2100. Their grim forecast was made perceptible by last summer's excessive heat; and according to Swiss meteorologists, the Europe-wide hot spell that killed over 20,000 was wholly different from any previous heat wave. The odds against it being a mere deviation from the norm were 300,000 to one. It was a warning of worse to come.

What makes global warming so serious and so urgent is that the great Earth system, Gaia, is trapped in a vicious circle of positive feedback. Extra heat from any source, whether from greenhouse gases, the disappearance of Arctic ice or the Amazon forest, is amplified, and its effects are more than additive. It is almost as if we had lit a fire to keep warm, and failed to notice, as we piled on fuel, that the fire was out of control and the furniture had ignited. When that happens, little time is left to put out the fire before it consumes the house. Global warming, like a fire, is accelerating and almost no time is left to act.

I think this scientist has a point about global warming being more serious and more urgent than terrorism.

Can we safely ship nuclear waste into outer space - has this option ever been explored?

[Hugo]

What do we think we know about the environment? The data we have collected about climate change has been gathered using a variety of methods that aren't mutually comparable. More to the point, we've been seriously gathering environmental data for, what, 50 years? Compared to the age of the earth, that's like taking your pulse for 20 seconds and claiming you know your heart rate for your entire life. We believe the Middle Ages were significantly warmer than today. We know that the Meditteranean Sea was once a dry basin. The sphinx shows signs of water erosion. Humanity had no role in these events.

Environmentalism is based on ignorance. We don't have the faintest clue what we're doing.

[maplesyrup]

What do we think we know about the environment? The data we have collected about climate change has been gathered using a variety of methods that aren't mutually comparable. More to the point, we've been seriously gathering environmental data for, what, 50 years? Compared to the age of the earth, that's like taking your pulse for 20 seconds and claiming you know your heart rate for your entire life. We believe the Middle Ages were significantly warmer than today. We know that the Meditteranean Sea was once a dry basin. The sphinx shows signs of water erosion. Humanity had no role in these events.

Environmentalism is based on ignorance. We don't have the faintest clue what we're doing.

Warning of global warming 'insanity'

VAST tracts of northern Australia will turn to desert, the nation's alpine vegetation will disappear and thousands of plant and animal species will become extinct this century.

Dried out ... scientists are warning that much of northern Australia could become a desert / File

These predictions were made by internationally renowned botanist Peter Raven as he arrived in Brisbane to deliver the keynote address today to the International Congress of Entomology.

Dr Raven said he was concerned the public was becoming complacent about global warming because a "small handful" of scientists were generating widespread publicity for their view that world temperatures are not rising.

British botanist David Bellamy and Swedish statistician Bjorn Lomborg are among those who say the hot weather of recent years is not unusual historically and that greenhouse gas emissions are not causing a global warming crisis.

Dr Raven, a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a foreign member of the Australian Academy of Science, said the "overwhelming" view of climate experts was that the crisis was real.

He said experts agreed that if current trends continued, global temperatures would rise 3 or 4 per cent.

In Australia, global warm ing would combine with habitat destruction and invasive pests to eliminate a significant proportion of the nation's estimated 450,000 plant and animal species, of which only 100,000 had so far been detailed by science.

Dr Raven said present rates of rainforest destruction globally would leave just 5 per cent of the world's rainforests intact by mid-century

Hugo.....right on, you tell 'em.

[maplesyrup]

'Boiling Point': Who's to Blame for Global Warming?

Part of what makes this book important is its indictment of the American news media's coverage of global warming for the past two decades. Indeed, when the author investigates why the United States is virtually the only advanced nation in the world that fails to recognize the severity of this growing crisis, he concludes that the news coverage is ''a large reason for that failure.''

At a time when prominent journalists are writing mea culpas for allowing themselves to be too easily misled in their coverage of the case for war in Iraq, Gelbspan presents a devastating analysis of how the media have been duped and intimidated by an aggressive and persistent campaign organized and financed by coal and oil companies. He recounts, for example, a conversation with a top television network editor who was reluctant to run stories about global warming because a previous story had ''triggered a barrage of complaints from the Global Climate Coalition'' -- a fossil fuel industry lobbying group -- ''to our top executives at the network.''

He also describes the structural changes in the news media, like increased conglomerate ownership, that have made editors and reporters more vulnerable to this kind of intimidation -- and much less aggressive in pursuing inconvenient truths.

So more media related problems here as well. Isn't it about time citizens starting demanding better from all involved, starting with a suggestion for politicians, industry, and scientitists to stop muddying the waters with gobblygook.

[Hugo]

Maybe the world is getting warmer. However, there's a huge difference between knowing what is happening and knowing why it is happening. 30 years ago everybody was going nuts about global cooling - where's that now?

The UK Telegraph reports that "a review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today’s temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather – in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists." This study also showed that "a little ice age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again – but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the middle ages."

A lot of environmentalists take their cues from an article in Nature by B. D. Stanter showing 20 years of rising temperatures in the southern hemisphere. Unfortunately, this has been proven wrong by several other studies showing that the data he gathered was incorrect and that there were no significant changes in temperature between 1955 and 1995.

The Harvard study that showed us the "little ice age" in 1300 proved that this caused famine from poor harvests and the failure of the English vine industry, amongst other things. Bearing that in mind, the report argues that a slight warming will be beneficial. The study, as confirmed by other sources, also shows that as humans are accountable for 3% of CO2 emissions, an increase in CO2 content could well be just the result of the world's oceans emitting CO2 in response to the planetary recovery from the little ice age.

Now, tell me what's wrong with CO2 emissions. CO2 is an environmental fertiliser that stimulates growth rates and enhances efficiency of water use in virtually all plants.

C. R. de Freitas, in an article for the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland, showed quite a few examples where CO2 emissions were altered by temperature changes rather than vice versa. These cases were observed over months or millenia, and prove that CO2 = global warming is a simple case of confusing cause and effect.

Nor are the sea levels rising. There has been no increase in long-term sea level rise during the last 100 years. Several scientists have also argued that global warming will cause greater snowfall over the polar caps and would actually arrest sea level rise.

I'm hoping you'll respond with an argument, MS, rather than more citations from researchers denounced as "junk scientists" by their peers.

[Black Dog]

nvironmentalism is based on ignorance. We don't have the faintest clue what we're doing.

Is that a license to carry on potentially damaging practices, then? Common sense would indicate its not a brilliant idea to pump toxins into the air, ground and water, yet we continue to do so, despite ample evidence of the negative impact humanity has had on the global ecosystem, including mass extinctions of plant and animal life.

[maplesyrup]

Hugo.......a few initial observations:

1 - one gets the idea that when you use the term environmentalist it is done in a derogatory sense.

2 - you seem to confuse the words scientist and environmentalist.

3 - I think you have it backwards. My impression is that the vast majority of the scientific community, apart from a few folks who are apologists for the fossil fuels industry, etc., are extremely concerned about global warming, and humans contribution to it.

These predictions were made by internationally renowned botanist Peter Raven as he arrived in Brisbane to deliver the keynote address today to the International Congress of Entomology.

Dr Raven said he was concerned the public was becoming complacent about global warming because a "small handful" of scientists were generating widespread publicity for their view that world temperatures are not rising.

I doubt Dr Raven is the nutbar you make him out to be.

4 - my take is that you are a part of or have bot the Bush WHite House or pro industry position, who are famous for their attempts to bamboozle, hook, line, and sinker.

5 - not being an authority on the subject, I rely on the scientific community for my information.

6 - what if the scientists who suggest we humans are causing global warming are correct, but we ignore them? :angry:

[Hugo]

Common sense would indicate its not a brilliant idea to pump toxins into the air, ground and water, yet we continue to do so

I don't think we "continue to do so" at all. The strides made by the free market in favour of environmentally sound policies have been enormous and should be lauded. Look at the hybrid cars, the industry in solar heat and electricity generation, biodegradeable clothing, biodegradeable cleaning products etc.

I'm not arguing for wanton pollution. What I'm saying is that global warming and the greenhouse effect is simple fearmongering with little basis in scientific fact.

one gets the idea that when you use the term environmentalist it is done in a derogatory sense.

As Walt Williams said, "if you know nothing, be an environmentalist." Environmentalists don't tend to be well-informed scientifically. Just look at the Exxon Valdez fiasco. You say that "the vast majority of the scientific community... are extremely concerned about global warming" which isn't my impression at all. The scientific community as a whole seem to regard the global warming doomsayers as quacks. I've read a lot of highly regarded career environmental scientists offering such opinions, such as those I cited, whose points you completely failed to address.

It's a matter of selling books and getting publicity, quite frankly. "Disaster waiting to happen" sells a lot better than "everything's fine".

you seem to confuse the words scientist and environmentalist.

Where do I confuse these terms?

my take is that you are a part of or have bot the Bush WHite House or pro industry position, who are famous for their attempts to bamboozle, hook, line, and sinker.

Ad hominem argument, invalid. Without evidence, you are simply slandering people.

This is in addition to your unfounded and unproven libel that scientists who oppose your viewpoint must be beholden to big business. That's actually two logical fallacies rolled into one: an ad hominem attack and begging the question.

Mud-slinging will get you nowhere, the only person you discredit is yourself.

what if the scientists who suggest we humans are causing global warming are correct, but we ignore them?

What if they're incorrect, and we act on their suggestions and cause untold damage?

Now, MS, do you have any rebuttal to my arguments, or are you going to persist in trying to sideline this debate with attacks on my character and populist logical fallacies?

[Black Dog]

I don't think we "continue to do so" at all. The strides made by the free market in favour of environmentally sound policies have been enormous and should be lauded. Look at the hybrid cars, the industry in solar heat and electricity generation, biodegradeable clothing, biodegradeable cleaning products etc.

Feh. Look at Humvees, disposable everythings, tract housing, tyoxic waste dumping, clearcutting, open-pit mining....

The "free markets" contribution to the environment has been, on balance, a negative one. Furthermore, when the "free market" does act to clean up its act, its generally as a result of government regulation and intervention.

[Hugo]

Look at Humvees, disposable everythings, tract housing, tyoxic waste dumping, clearcutting, open-pit mining....

And look at those problems 50 or 100 years ago. Progress, you see? Rome wasn't built in a day.

The "free markets" contribution to the environment has been, on balance, a negative one. Furthermore, when the "free market" does act to clean up its act, its generally as a result of government regulation and intervention.

Empty rhetoric and sweeping generalisations made without evidence.

I'll give you some evidence. How about a few examples of private industry acting without government prompting? Like Ford's Rouge plant? Nike's disposable sneaker? The ecofriendly cleaning products in your local grocery store (Zehrs stocks a wide range)? The Insight, Civic Hybrid and the Prius? GM and Ford propane-fueled fleet vehicles? The diesel-electric Humvee hybrid?

Show me the government regulations and interventions that forced these private companies to produce these products against their will, please.

[Cartman]

Hugo I agree that making causal statements about changes to our environment is difficult at best, but what is your solution? Should we just let the market go its own and hope for the best? I am also skeptical of claims made, but I would rather err on the side of caution.

I remember when tobacco companies used to say that statistical significance was not the exact same thing as proof. They used to say (and technically they were right) that it could not be "proven" that smoking kills because not everyone who smoked died from it.

[Hugo]

What I am afraid of is that efforts to counteract this "problem" will divert attention from the true problems. Kyoto, for instance, addresses CO2 emissions at the expense of all other environmental issues, when all the evidence shows that CO2 is not even an issue. What we are effectively doing is damaging our economies and wasting our resources on a problem that doesn't exist.

We also run the risk of falling into false complacency, we may believe that since we are in compliance with Kyoto, there's no need to worry, when in fact Kyoto compliance has solved nothing and we still have every need to worry.

There is also the matter of trying to get water to flow uphill. Global warming is probably part of the natural cycles of the planet, just as it grew colder in 1300 or so, so it grows warmer now. Trying to arrest this is like trying to get water to flow uphill, and it's a question of how many billions of dollars and how many thousands of jobs we will sacrifice to this Canuteian white elephant.

If global warming is nothing to worry about - and the scientific consensus confirms that - then we are creating additional headaches for ourselves. Ruining our economy and shedding thousands of jobs will cause us far more problems and social ills than climate change that is natural, unavoidable and, by all accounts, probably beneficial anyway.

They used to say (and technically they were right) that it could not be "proven" that smoking kills because not everyone who smoked died from it.

But this is not the situation here. The tobacco companies could play statistical games but all the scientific evidence proved that smoking was bad for your health. Not all the evidence proves that human CO2 emissions are causing an environmental catastrophe, quite the opposite, in fact.

[Cartman]

I admit that I know little about environmental issues. I am somewhat socially conservative though and believe that we should all drive smaller cars (less often), use less water, recycle etc. etc. Seems like Cdns are really lazy when it comes to these kind of things that can only be helpful to our environment.

How do you respond to the fish crises on both coasts (salmon and cod), BSE, beluga whale etc. etc? I actually accept your point that not all corporations are alike, but I do believe that some are pretty archaic in terms of how they treat the environment. I have witnessed first hand the innappripriate dumping of chemicals into the ground (no, I didn't do it).

[maplesyrup]

We're recognizing global warming; will it be resolved?

Hollywood fright movies aside (such as "The Day After Tomorrow'), global warming truly is our most immediate environmental threat. And the fact that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by over 30 percent since the Industrial Revolution, before which it was relatively constant, confirms that the problem is largely created by we humans.

The magnitude of recent atmospheric changes is further evidence. Mountain glaciers are receding, the Arctic ice pack is melting and global sea level is rising at an unprecedented rate. However much we may depend on such fossil fuels as oil and coal to heat our buildings, run our factories, generate our electricity and power our cars, trucks and trains, we have become our own worst enemies.

But are we capable of joining together for the long-term well- being of all of us and of our planet? A lot depends on whether we can and will do so, and that could depend on how well we understand the problem.

The global warming process isn't difficult to comprehend. The burning of fossil fuels releases what we call greenhouse gases, which increase with deforestation, and contribute to changes in the Earth's climate.

In broad brush strokes, the sun's energy heats the Earth's surface by passing through the atmosphere in much the same way that sunlight passes through a greenhouse's windows, which is how the greenhouse effect got its name.

Then this energy radiates back to space as heat, and en route, due to CO2 and other heat-trapping gases, some heat remains in the atmosphere. As the level of greenhouse gases rises, therefore, so does global temperature, and when temperatures get high enough, they will change climate.

The Earth's temperature is taken by thermometers on ships, buoys and land-based weather stations. The data is then collated and analyzed by such networking organizations as NASA, the World Meteorological Organization and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It's a good example of humans joining hands for mutual benefit.

The temperature record, which dates back to 1860, shows an average global rise of about one degree during the 20th century, making last century the warmest in the last 1,000 years. The 1990s were the warmest decade and 1998 wars the warmest year.

CO2 and other greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for decades and sometimes centuries, and the level of these gases is still rising. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations-sponsored body of prominent scientists formed in 1988, projects an average global temperature rise of 2.5-10.4 degrees by 2100 if no major remedial efforts are made.

This is an excellent basic article which helps to explain global warming to the layperson.

All indications are that we are heating up our planet and we need to take remedial measures. President Bush I believe has done us all a huge disservice and should be replaced for his position on global warming if nothing else.

Canada's scientific community needs to ally itself more with some of the progressive Northern European communities, rather than the backward looking tired old outdated US policies that promote corporate profits over any societal cost.

[Hugo]

All indications are that we are heating up our planet and we need to take remedial measures.

I just told you of 240 studies that prove the opposite. Will you please address the points levelled at your arguments rather than going off on tangents? I don't need you to read the news to me, MS, I can read on my own.

Canada's scientific community needs to ally itself more with some of the progressive Northern European communities

Like whom? Norway, who has 25% of the population below the poverty line and whose workers spend more than 6 months of the year goofing off? Great idea.

[August1991]

The "free markets" contribution to the environment has been, on balance, a negative one. Furthermore, when the "free market" does act to clean up its act, its generally as a result of government regulation and intervention.

I agree with BD on this one.

Show me the government regulations and interventions that forced these private companies to produce these products against their will, please.

Sorry, Hugo. Government regulations did precisely that. Consider unleaded fuel. Without regulation, it wouldn't exist.

The strides made by the free market in favour of environmentally sound policies have been enormous and should be lauded. Look at the hybrid cars, the industry in solar heat and electricity generation, biodegradeable clothing, biodegradeable cleaning products etc.

Wrong again Hugo. These are unfortunately all the result of (US federal/state) government regulation.

Environmentalism is based on ignorance. We don't have the faintest clue what we're doing. 

Entirely true, Hugo, IMHO.

----

No one owns the "environment". There are no defined property rights on the atmosphere. The environment is an example of John Lennon's Imagining. Without an owner, everyone uses it without cost. (Corporations don't use it. Individuals use it.)

Does this matter? Simply put, we don't know if we are peeing into a bath tub, a swimming pool or a lake.

On balance, I'd argue that if the price is zero (0), then demand is greater than supply. I'd say we should study this question more than we do now. And I'd follow my grandmother's advice: leave a place better than you found it.

[maplesyrup]

And I'd follow my grandmother's advice: leave a place better than you found it

Nice sentiment.

[Hugo]

Sorry, Hugo. Government regulations did precisely that. Consider unleaded fuel. Without regulation, it wouldn't exist.

No, August, it is you who is wrong. Government regulations set a precedent and an expectation, however, it's simply wrong to imagine that corporations have gone along fighting and pulling against every environmental safeguard. Compulsory unleaded fuel may have been the government's idea, but the hybrid car was not. The car companies involved developed this technology at massive cost to themselves without government regulations stating that they had to.

The happy fact at this time is that environmentalism is, ironically, big business and corporations are happily jumping on the eco-friendly bandwagon. The idea that governments should regulate corporations in this way is therefore misguided and wrongheaded. If you can make the market demand environmentally sound industry, the suppliers of that market will bring it. You will get far more by voluntary co-operation than by forcible coersion. Therefore, the correct way to develop an environmentally sound economy is not to invest power in government to interefere wholesale in the economy, a statist policy that inevitably leads to ruin, but to educate the public in such a way that they demand environmentalism of their own accord.

[maplesyrup]

One mandatory component , for this coming rush towards nuclear power, needs to be included as part of the deal of erecting any new nuclear plant.

The Board of Directors, the CEO, and all top management, and their immediate families, are to be required to live on the plant grounds. Just a little insurance policy for the rest of the citizens in our society. In other words, let's let these fat cats put their money where their mouth is. If these plants are so safe there should be no problem with this policy, eh?

It is called thinking outside the box.

[Guest eureka]

For any who are interested in science searches, the above search engine may be useful as it reports only scientific links.

If that is too long, just search Scirus and bookmark it.

I have deleted the link: it is eight lines long

[maplesyrup]

Climate fear as carbon levels soar [/URL]

An unexplained and unprecedented rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere two years running has raised fears that the world may be on the brink of runaway global warming.

Scientists are baffled why the quantity of the main greenhouse gas has leapt in a two-year period and are concerned that the Earth's natural systems are no longer able to absorb as much as in the past.

The findings will be discussed tomorrow by the government's chief scientist, Dr David King, at the annual Greenpeace business lecture.

Measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere have been continuous for almost 50 years at Mauna Loa Observatory, 12,000ft up a mountain in Hawaii, regarded as far enough away from any carbon dioxide source to be a reliable measuring point.

In recent decades CO2 increased on average by 1.5 parts per million (ppm) a year because of the amount of oil, coal and gas burnt, but has now jumped to more than 2 ppm in 2002 and 2003.

So for the non-renewable energy business community global warming is not an issue, eh!

Does anyone know how to spell: "L-E-M-M-I-N-G-S" ?

I don't care what those idiots think, but isn't it about time we put our future existence in more capable hands?