Global Warming

[maplesyrup]

I heard a story about Suzuki, and apparently it's true. He had enrolled in an economics course at university. On the first day of classes the lecturer was going on about a business economic equation and so Suzuki asked how the impact on the environment was factored into the equation. The instructor said it wasn't. Suzuki resigned from the course the same day, stating that the course was absurd.

How moronic and what a tragedy for all of us that this is the mentality our future business leaders are learning.

That's why business schools are BS and need to be put out to pasture.

[Slavik44]

I heard a story about Suzuki, and apparently it's true. He had enrolled in an economics course at university. On the first day of classes the lecturer was going on about a business economic equation and so Suzuki asked how the impact on the environment was factored into the equation. The instructor said it wasn't. Suzuki resigned from the course the same day, stating that the course was absurd.

How moronic and what a tragedy for all of us that this is the mentality our future business leaders are learning.

That's why business schools are BS and need to be put out to pasture.

Maplesyrup can you tell me how long ago he took the course?

[Pateris]

maplesyrup,

One reason why most business economics don't really consider environmental impact beyond meeting the current regulations is that NO ONE has figured out what the numbers mean...

I mean, it's so arbitrary you can make a project live or die based on what you set as a price for some emission...

That's why accounting for the environment is absurd...

[Pateris]

eureka,

Hey - I said the warming is happening...

And yes, the CO2 in the oceans is reducing the pH and killing coral reefs...

Guess what - it has HAPPENED BEFORE.

And will happen again.

And if you have a solution to make it go away without killing BILLIONS of people - please enlighten us

[Guest LLL]

Guess what - it has HAPPENED BEFORE.

And it will happen again.

And if you have a solution to make it go away without killing BILLIONS of people - please enlighten us.

So you believe it'll kill billions of people, THIS TIME?

[Guest eureka]

It has not happened before in the way it is happening now. And, it may already be too late to make it go away. Thus the urgency to try.

The solution may be beyond us now but we could make an attempt. We could do Kyoto plus and not listen to the American energy lobbies. Are you aware that Shell and BP have already more than achieved reductions beyond what would be called for as their share of the national contributions to the effort? Others could do the same if they were not cosily shielded by Bush and the gang.

Coral reefs are only one component of the problem: one that has drastically reduced the world's fish stocks already.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Pateris,

What has NOT however been proven is that there is a CAUSAL link from #2 to #1.

The Causal argument is the same one that the tobacco industry relies on to counter the argument that cigarettes are harmful. The have a battery of paid 'scientists' who say that there is no demonstrable link.

However, I think the more fundamental questions are not whether or not humanity is the primary cause of climate change:

Q1: Would any action at all by humanity result in a difference in result?

Absolutely. The answer is before your eyes. Change objectives, and choose your end.

[Pateris]

Eureka,

In the history of our planet, the atmosphere has changed composition before, often more abruptly than the current change. Major volcanic events (ie. Deccan Traps) or asteroid impacts (ie. Chixilub) have had far more drastic and rapid impacts on the atmosphere.

Another bit of information for you about the claims of oil companies to have reduces emissions...

Shell, BP, Suncor, etc have reduced THEIR emissions by SELLING assets that produce emissions. They can claim their emissions have gone down, but in most cases the facilities are still there and are run by other companies.

As for humanity doing enough to reverse the impact on the atmosphere, here are things we would have to do to actually REDUCE the CO2 content in the atmosphere:

• Abandon fossil fuels almost entirely
  
• Replace all fossil fuel power generation with nuclear power
  
• Add additional nuclear power to supply electricity to power transportation vehicles since fossil fuels will not be available. One option would be to produce hydrogen from sea water using nuclear power, but this is less efficient than electric powered vehicles.
  
• Abandon the use of plastics (since they are made from fossil fuels).
  
• Develop technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and fix it in a solid form (like limestone). If we simply wait for nature to do it, the oceans will do it - with the resulting low pH for a long period.
  

Think that is going to be cheap or even doable?

[ndpnic]

The Right's unwillingness to admit Environmental Crisis goes beyond adbsurd, it is down right OBSCENE!!!!

That kind of SELFISH, GREED driven atitude makes me shutter at the thought of the future world my 5 year old will live in.

The Right are right about Leftists wanting the Government to implode - we are all living proof that Democracy does not work!!!!!

Democracy is nothing more than a pretty word meaning Materialism, Hypocracy, Greed, Control, Elected Dictatorship!

The Right cares nothing of the planet, as they know they won't be alive in 50 years, so they carry on thier destructive path, and F*CK the younger and new generations to come!!!

The Third world may have natural disease and famine wiping out the populace, but the Western world has Democratic Greed wiping out our populace at a slower, more torchureous pace!

[Guest eureka]

Cataclysmic events have no place in any consideration of Global Warming. The suggestion that they have occurred is in itself an admission of man-made GM since nothing of that nature has happened.

Oceans are overloaded and, if you think they can take care of "it," it will not be until long after the disappearance of the human species. The Oceans will not take care of CO2 - there is no scientific basis for that statement.

Perhaps you are convinced that your choices are all that are left to us. It is odd that the scientific community does not think so. If you continue to read only the prolific outpourings of the charlatans, then I suppose that you will continue to keep your head firmly under the sands - until the sands are under water.

[Pateris]

Eureka,

The higher CO2 content in the oceans will eventually fall if the CO2 content of the atmosphere does not keep rising. This is because a high CO2 content in the oceans will slowly be converted to carbonate materials by shelled lifeforms. After cataclysmic events in the past, this is EXACTLY how the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were reduced. That and acid rain falling on exposed rocks...

I never denied that the current warming trend MIGHT be anthropogenic. But PROVEN? that is a stretch.

So, you don't like my solutions... What are yours?

[Guest eureka]

My solution is to let the scientific community propose and carry out its solutions and not pretend that I can provide the answers.

That community has considered all your points and discarded them as invalid. Only a small band of self interested (mostly not scientists) now give any credence to your views. All the information is there for you to read, including the error of your ideas about the Oceans.

From the massive loss of ice cover in both the Arctic and Antartic to the accelarating rate of remperature increase. You could even find sites that go back many millions of years in the CO2 measurements and discover that there was never a time in the habitable history of Earth that had the buildup of that gas that we are experiencing.

[Pateris]

Eureka,

You are correct. The geologic record does not show a similar CO2 increase as we are seeing now.

It does show much FASTER CO2 increases to much HIGHER levels though. And life survived. Sometimes it had to adapt, but life survived.

And we have seen faster changes in climate in geologic history, in fact in the time modern humans have walked the earth. The end of the last ice age for instance. Or the medieval warm period. Or the little ice age. Climate changes. Life Survives.

And finally, how much are YOU willing to pay for these scientific solutions.

Even if we do nothing this time, life will survive. It may have to adapt, but life will survive.

[Guest eureka]

Life may not survive. The changes you refer to in the time of human existence, were not from a liveable level to one that destroyed the capacity of the earth to support life. There has not been in the time that higher life forms existed, change of the magnitude that we are experiencing. Never has there been a growing concentration of Greenhouse gases such as are facing us.

Life survived extremes in the geologic past. But, it was primitive life.

Actually, it may not be a bad idea to let it go on. We have proved ourselves to be irresponsible stewards of our galactic home. Perhaps it is time for us to go and to let nature, or whatever is responsible, start all over again.

[Pateris]

Eureka,

Our ancestors (the mammals) survived an asteroid impact. They may not have been intelligent, but they survived.

Higher life forms (more than bacteria) have survived volcanism that resurfaced parts of the earth.

The coral reefs have been killed before.

In geologic history there has been far greater change to the atmosphere than what is happening now.

I find it a little bit arrogant of humanity to think we can kill off life on this planet with a minor change to the climate...

[Guest eureka]

What is your evidence for that? What was the effect on the habitability of the Earth? When did the coral reefs die off in human history?

Why do you conclude that the change in climate is minor? Is not the firm opinion of the world scientific community that the change is not minor and is, indeed, calamitous, sufficient for you?

[Pateris]

Eureka,

Just because SOME scientists believe the current situation is calamitous doesn't make it so.

There are THOUSANDS of scientists who doubt the "consensus", but you write them of as non-credible because they don't agree with your point of view.

The coral reefs haven't died off in human history... but they HAVE died off BEFORE that. And many of the coral reefs in the world today are POST ice age anyway...

I conclude this climate change is minor because it has been FAR DIFFERENT in the pre-human past. Difference air composition, different air pressure, higher temperatures, colder temperatures, etc.

Did you expect that just because humans are walking around the world would never change?

Back in the 1970s were you on the "ice age is coming bandwagon" that every scientist believed was coming?

[Guest eureka]

Your whole position is shown for its absurdity when you claim that thousands of scientists that doubt the consensus. There are not. You will find no body of scientists anywhere that doubts it. Those that say they do are the employees of the energy industry and they have lost the right to call themselves scientists since they promote the discarding of science.

I won't get into coral reefs with you: your statements are just too silly for words. Your whole posiiton is. As I said at the beginning, I will not argue about what is scientifically known to be fact. Every reputable body in the world is concerned: the American National Academy of Sciences has told Bush that the situation is even worse than was suspected when he urged that comprehensive body to support his attempts to hide the problems and help him enrich his pals.

BTW, Shell and BP reduced their emissions before credits came into existence. Much of Europe is on target. It is here in North America that emissions are increasing dramatically while the world lurches to disaster.

Is your capacity to argue being reduced to the childish "were you on the ice-age bandwagon." I could tell you a lot of things about that, too. For instance, one of the signs that led to the forst erroneous conclusions was the thickening of the Greenland Ice Cap. That is still thickening as a consequence of increased precipitation due to WARMING. The 1970's scientists who thought an ice age was coming were not alarmists. They gave early analyses based on observation that turned out to have a differnt genesis.

Nothing unusual or strange about that. Now, the evidence is in.

[I miss Reagan]

Two days after the tragedy, the executive director of Greenpeace UK told the British newspaper The Independent, "No one can ignore the relentless increase in extreme weather events and so-called natural disasters, which in reality are no more natural than a plastic Christmas tree."

Friends of the Earth Director Tony Juniper told the same British newspaper, "Here again are yet more events in the real world that are consistent with climate change predictions."

enviro's capitalize on tragedy

Crichton's book seems to hit the bullseye with the chicken little tactics of these unethical organizations.

[Black Dog]

Crichton's book seems to hit the bullseye with the chicken little tactics of these unethical organizations

Bah. I find it interesting that climate change deniers (I wonder: what's Michael Chrichton's scientific background?), like their counterparts in "creation science" seldom put their findings up for peer review (Lomborg is a prime example). Indeed, the tendancy is to publish sensational books and watch the fat cheques roll in, even as the mainstream scientif community consistently repudiates their claims.

As for "capitalizing on tragedy" I would expect that's something FOXNews knows plenty about (ahem911).

[I miss Reagan]

Ah yes Bjorn Lomborg, the evil villian. Nothin like an original greenpeacer Phd in statistics who goes out to prove opposing science wrong, only to find out they're right. Talk about a leftist's nightmare. I love it how accolades and letters at the end of one's name are so relevant until you guys disagree with them. Then it's "oh well he's a sell out to industry" or "oh he got into Harvard and Yale because of daddy". Lol. As for Crichton's qualifications, I guess you could say he's as qualified to talk about climatology as many of the other self- purported experts, like Suzuki (a biologist). He has an MD from Harvard and years of study on climate change. I don't really think he needs the money, he has quite enough from other successes. If we're going to talk about money as a motivation I think we should look at the incentive for environmentalist leaders to keep everyone afraid that the sky is falling. After all, environmentalism is now a multi-billion dollar industry.

[Black Dog]

Ah yes Bjorn Lomborg, the evil villian. Nothin like an original greenpeacer Phd in statistics who goes out to prove opposing science wrong, only to find out they're right. Talk about a leftist's nightmare. I love it how accolades and letters at the end of one's name are so relevant until you guys disagree with them.

Accolades and degrees mean plenty: thing is, Lomborg is a statistician, not an environmental scientist or engineer. Not to mention the fact he's not even a good statistician. But hey, I'll leavethe debunking of Lomborg to the real scientists.

As for Crichton's qualifications, I guess you could say he's as qualified to talk about climatology as many of the other self- purported experts, like Suzuki (a biologist). He has an MD from Harvard and years of study on climate change

You seem to be under the impression that the simple fact of having a doctorate is a guarantor of credibility.

Crichton is a Medical Doctor and a pulp novelist. Suzukie an internationaly respected biologist (which would make him a little more qualified to talk about the biosphere). It's pretty obvious to me which one would have more crediblity on this issue. But again, I must point out that neither Chrichton's novel, nor Lomborg's book ever had to undergo the rigourours peer review process that the scientific findings they seek to refute did.

If we're going to talk about money as a motivation I think we should look at the incentive for environmentalist leaders to keep everyone afraid that the sky is falling. After all, environmentalism is now a multi-billion dollar industry.

[I miss Reagan]

Accolades and degrees mean plenty: thing is, Lomborg is a statistician, not an environmental scientist or engineer. Not to mention the fact he's not even a good statistician.

No accolades and degrees are only worth anything when you agree with them, as is clearly evident with your comment "he's not even a good statistician". A technique David Suzuki has perfected, when you can't prove his science wrong, go for the personal attack. Nevertheless, I think a statistician is an ideal candidate for tearing apart those who choose to lie using stats.

But hey, I'll leavethe debunking of Lomborg to the real scientists.

Well that article itself was described as "highly political, rhetorical" and used hand picked biased scientists rather than random experts. The editor himself displayed his own lack of objectivity in using emotionally charged language calling the book worthless. Even more the editor wouldn't even allow Lomborg to respond. If we're going to look at reviews by respected scientists, lets look at some who describe his work as "brilliant" or "credible" Of course I understand why so many scientists would be up in arms. It threatens not only their political agenda but their livlihood.

[I miss Reagan]

The whole problem with the environmental movement is it's radicals have turned people off. No one wants to die of cancer or live in filth from polluters. The same way radical evangelicals have turned people off religion with their preaching, blowing up abortion clinics, and self-righteous attitudes so have eco-facists with their blowing up SUV's, ski lodges, oil wells, self-righteous preaching, and exagerating and lieing about the environment. Now people are beginning to throw the baby out with the bath water, because of irresponsible organizations like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.

[Cartman]

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/About_us/Dr_Dav...kly11080005.asp

Suzuki is a great scientist.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/About_us/Dr_Dav...d_Suzuki/CV.asp