Global Warming Just Happened

[KOM.Nausicaa]

There are encouraging signs already - the companies that built gas guzzler behemoths have learned the hard way, that there is no longer a future in that mindset.
Hopefully the smarter outfits will read the signs, and move early.

Yes there are encouraging signs -- but not much in America. I don't know about NZ or Australia, but the European Union has done a series of actions, like completely banning the classic lightbulbs in favor of a new energy efficient model (up to 60 times less consumption for 300 million people, thats not to be dismissed) and a whole series of other measures. Sarcastically enough, all studies show they actually have produced jobs. So much for the nay sayers who claim green energy destroys jobs. Some, including in this forum, claim America has gone green. Nothing is further from the truth. Ok, its greener than in the past, that is true, and some states, like California, are greener than others. But the big picture is grim: Energy efficient cars: don't start looking. Energy efficient housing and construction: almost inexistent. Energy efficient consumer electronics, like timed leds for example: zero. Air conditioning: turned on day and night, regardless if someone is at home or not. Same goes for lighting in office buildings: switched on day and night. Timer for the night? Not really. Recycling? Sparse at best. Public transport? Thin on the ground. The list goes on and on really.

 

[Wing_Z]

... all studies show they actually have produced jobs. So much for the nay sayers who claim green energy destroys jobs...

Yes we had the lightbulb thing. This was actually some horsetrading with the Green Party who felt they needed some appreciation for supporting other legislation.
Alas the stuff that was rammed down our collective throat proved to have limited life, quite poor lighting qualities, and enough mercury to poison all the landfills for a century.
This illustrates why you should not be going Green on emotional grounds!
Things are being rectified now, though, as a result of exactly the kind of discussion we are having here.
Improved products are on the shelves which better fit consumer requirements.

One excellent source of jobs here is subsidised home insulation.
Given home heating can be half the energy bill, a 30% reduction there is hugely meaningful.
And doesn't hurt a bit.
There are plenty of other examples.

This kind of discussion is also valuable, even somewhere as random as a flightsim forum.
If it were not happening on a large scale everywhere you go, how would that seed of thought be planted?
Mercifully we do not have to believe that Luckies will make you cough less, any longer...

 

[Piglet]

Let's ban volcanos! Heck, Al Gore inverted the Internet, he's gotta be able to outlaw volcanos!
Just don't get BP to try to cap them off!
P.S. If we were able to plug up all the volcanos, would the planet bloat and , like a giant zit?!?

 

[luckydog]

You guys ( sheeples ) really crack me up...........
After this thread, lets get into some real FANTASY........like Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Wing_Z]

Let's ban volcanos! Heck, Al Gore inverted the Internet, he's gotta be able to outlaw volcanos!
Just don't get BP to try to cap them off! P.S. If we were able to plug up all the volcanos, would the planet bloat and , like a giant zit?!?

Nah, volcanos are Good.
Without them, the planet would bloat and , like a giant zit :d

You guys ( sheeples ) really crack me up...........
After this thread, lets get into some real FANTASY........like Dungeons and Dragons.

Didn't I say Stay! and here you are again...so start D&D and I'll give you hell in there...

 

[TeaSea]

I believe Wing Z that the challenge to addressing any concern on global warming is not the science (although despite the assertions, is in doubt), but the perception of how the science is used, what's the underlying agenda to the research, and how any such mitigation measures would be implemented.

The environmental movement and environmental sciences, rightly or wrongly, have lost most of their credibility over the past 20 years and has allowed itself to be transformed (co-opted) by political implementation into a means of extending governmental control. I personally believe this to be the result of a core concept of environmentalism which is that human beings are some sort of blight on the environment rather than a part of it.

If you re-read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" I think you will see that theme running from chapter to chapter. Carson's disdain for people who would like to have a little something for themselves (a home, a decent living) is clear between the lines to anyone who pays attention and is a result of the intellectual elitism evident throughout the mid to late 50's to the mid 60's in both the U.S. and Europe. Rachel's pretty clear that the biggest problem with the environment isn't human activity, it's humans period. Rachel Carson is the mother of the modern environmental movement and whether she intended it or not, she passed that outlook on to her environmental grandchildren.

Don't get me wrong, much good has come from this moment, but it has a sinister side to it as well, and as long as environmentalists ignore basic humanity along the Carson lines, then they will suffer in their aims and when they are successful, humanity will suffer as the general trend towards freedom is crushed under the boot of environmental "right" thinking. The idea that all must be done that can be done in the name of the "common good" is an essentially fascist concept. One cannot step away from that. I think environmentalists would argue that's not their intent....but its an easy leap from "don't send raw sewage into the river" (good common sense) to "no more private use of private property" (hey, what happened!)....if you think I'm dealing in hyperbole with that last assertion, then you haven't been paying attention to what the EPA has done with inland lakes and streams here in the states.

The example I use here points back to the problem with the underlying agenda of the global warming debate. Like it or not, when you start to talk about "solutions" to a problem you may not have, or you may not be able to influence either way, you start to talk about politics and economies and the rule of unintended consequences -- and here is where everything breaks down. I have to FORCE you to act the way I want. If the environment is indeed all inter-related (except for mankind...who's the blight, remember Rachel?) then the political execution of environmental policy means that government will extort money from you, restrict you in your personal actions, limit your economic rights, make you a pariah for trying to interfere with the "common good", teach your children "the right way" of thinking (as defined by others), and continue to exercise control over every part of your life and the lives of everyone around you. And that will be the "fix" for global warming....except of course that it probably won't be.

By then it will not matter in that "we the people" will have no ability to affect the discussion either way. Such decisions will be reserved for the deserving elite. Environmentalists will be happy for a bit, until those governments and world bodies we've handed control to, no longer held accountable, decide that maybe global warming wasn't such a big concern after all, and move onto something else.

So, my contention is that if there's such a thing man-made climate change, a "crises" if you will (note the recent "right thinking" change in terminology), then there is also absolutely no fix that would be:

a) acceptable to environmentalists
b) acceptable to a free peoples

nor perhaps, should there be.

 

[safn1949]

and some states, like California, are greener than others. But the big picture is grim: Energy efficient cars: don't start looking. Energy efficient housing and construction: almost inexistent. Energy efficient consumer electronics, like timed leds for example: zero. Air conditioning: turned on day and night, regardless if someone is at home or not. Same goes for lighting in office buildings: switched on day and night. Timer for the night? Not really. Recycling? Sparse at best. Public transport? Thin on the ground. The list goes on and on really.

Ah yes,California.Over 3000 people a week are fleeing because of the high taxes imposed by the nitwits there,as far as public transportation I go back to scale.This is a huge country and the type of rail system they had in Germany when I was there in the 70's won't work here.

Why? People don't want to use it,and the infrastructure needed would bankrupt any country.There is a tremendous amount of recycling here,I have worked in a plastics factory and we reused all of the scrap,that was my only job to make sure it was sorted correctly.....tons of it.I drive a truck and haul waste paper and cardboard to be recycled all the time.Aluminum is worth a good piece of change here so people gather it up and recycle it all the time.

I hate to be impolite but you are full of crap,as you are so fond of stating to us in the US you don't live here and sorry to say you have no real idea what goes on here.We also make the choice of how we live,we don't care to have government or anyone try to cram their ideas down our throat.

Walk through some Wal Marts where they have the lights on motion sensors in the isles and the freezers to save energy.Turn the A/C off in the house during the day? Kinda silly as it will run full blast for hours to try and cool the house back down saving nothing.I'm all for energy efficient homes,it got to -29 F last winter here with a wing chill of -45 F.If you don't do something you will go broke trying to heat your home here.

But it's our choice as to what we do.....not some pinhead bureaucrat or environmentalist.And a lot of people hate that,the fact that there are millions of us who won't just get in line and shut up.And to those who don't like that or don't agree...tough.


Excellent post TeaSea,spot on.

 

[cheezyflier]

We also make the choice of how we live,we don't care to have government or anyone try to cram their ideas down our throat.

while there are many examples i could list to show that there are plenty of unpopular ideas getting crammed down our throats, i don't think it's really neccessary. i only call attention to them because i think wether we like it or not, the gov't will use the environment as tool to further control people, just as they have with the threat of terrorism.
but the bottom line is:

this discussion is alot like discussing religion.

both sides of the argument firmly believe they are correct, and hold the only solution to save mankind.

neither side can produce the type of evidence that will satisfy the other sides need for irrefutable proof.

both sides get really frustrated at the other side's inability to be convinced by what they see as a water tight argument.
that this thread hasn't degenerated into the stabbings and shootings that occurred over the FSX vs. FS9 debates truly amazes me.

 

[jmig]

...
The environmental movement and environmental sciences, rightly or wrongly, have lost most of their credibility over the past 20 years and has allowed itself to be transformed (co-opted) by political implementation into a means of extending governmental control. I personally believe this to be the result of a core concept of environmentalism which is that human beings are some sort of blight on the environment rather than a part of it.

...
By then it will not matter in that "we the people" will have no ability to affect the discussion either way. Such decisions will be reserved for the deserving elite. Environmentalists will be happy for a bit, until those governments and world bodies we've handed control to, no longer held accountable, decide that maybe global warming wasn't such a big concern after all, and move onto something else.

So, my contention is that if there's such a thing man-made climate change, a "crises" if you will (note the recent "right thinking" change in terminology), then there is also absolutely no fix that would be:

a) acceptable to environmentalists
b) acceptable to a free peoples

nor perhaps, should there be.

I find this to be one of the most prophetic and dead on posts I have read in this entire thread. Excellent thoughts and excellent presentation.

Easy Ed and KOM.Nausicaa you two also presented your views in an excellent manner. You obviously believe in what you write and your passion shows. I would be happy to sit and discuss this and other issues with either of you. It would be an enlightening evening, I am sure.

On this issue, I have does a fair amount of studying and reading. As a consultant to companies who depend on my information to be accurate, I find being up on the latest climate and environment news to be important to my business.

I have found in my sixty plus years of life that elitism fosters arrogance. With this arrogance you feel that only you know the truth and only you can save the ignorant fools from their well deserved fate. Mr. Al Gore is probably the most obvious example of this elitism in the environmental movement. He has also make a lot of money from it, while not practicing what he preaches. Which, says sometime about his character to me, none of it good.

In reading through all of these posts I noticed a pattern. It seemed that every argument brought up by the "denialists" against the scientific method used by the environmentalist scientists was proven to be a "myth". While at the same time, any argument for the "denialists" was already proven to be untrue.

This strikes me as rather arrogant in it self. Am I to believe that ALL arguments against climate change are false and ALL arguments for the "denialists" are myths? My readings on the matter do not show this to be true. I would say there is plenty of "unknowns" and plenty of "subjectivity" when it comes to climate prediction and control.

Mankind is the most powerful creature on earth. We are also the most arrogant, to think we can control mother nature. When have we stopped one major flood, earthquake or hurricane?

Now, you are telling me we can control the entire global temperature. Somehow, I doubt it.

 

[KOM.Nausicaa]

I hate to be impolite but you are full of crap,as you are so fond of stating to us in the US you don't live here and sorry to say you have no real idea what goes on here.We also make the choice of how we live,we don't care to have government or anyone try to cram their ideas down our throat.

Walk through some Wal Marts where they have the lights on motion sensors in the isles and the freezers to save energy.Turn the A/C off in the house during the day? Kinda silly as it will run full blast for hours to try and cool the house back down saving nothing.I'm all for energy efficient homes,it got to -29 F last winter here with a wing chill of -45 F.If you don't do something you will go broke trying to heat your home here.

But it's our choice as to what we do.....not some pinhead bureaucrat or environmentalist.And a lot of people hate that,the fact that there are millions of us who won't just get in line and shut up.And to those who don't like that or don't agree...tough.


Excellent post TeaSea,spot on.

I'll skip the insults and thank you for your information Safn. That there is some recycling is good news. Still, in energy efficiency, the USA is a long way behind. I have been there, the spilling I observed on all levels of the society was remarkable to say the least. That is just personal observation, but there are tons of studies and written books that back it up. I am not inventing this out of the blue. As for trains, the European Union in it's present state is almost as big as the USA and successfully linked throughout the Union with high speed trains with competitive ticket prices that make the travel in many cases cheaper than by car. To say it won't work in the US is really a lot of nonsense. It's really a question of ideology and has no foundation whatsoever on a geographic or economic level.

I am neither a particularly left person or ecological person. I am just reading up honestly on issues, and there is only one thing I can't stand: distorting facts for ideological reasons, your own, or the "group" you think you belong to. There is nothing I hate more in life. I would not vote green for any green party I know of in Europe, but that doesn't stop me from coming to the conclusion to think that global warming is happening. Again, the USA does what they want, I don't care if there is a high speed train or a energy efficient car industry. But I also know that the economic problems the USA is struggling with are not linked to that or that President, but to the core of the people who are stuck in the loop of a "way of life" which is every year more antagonistic compared to the rest of the world. They are home made. That is the reason the car industry broke down, and the reason nobody here buys American products (except computers like Mac, or Coca Cola, or cultural exports like the movie industry to put it simply), because they have nothing to offer to a society which steams full speed ahead into a competitive green energy future. That and intelligent political decisions, is why we have a economic upwind in Europe, especially in Germany where we have an outright economic boom. I don't even know of a American product in any shop here I could buy or which would be competitive in that area. That is a sad thing, if you compare it to the past, in which American products were desired quality products everybody wanted to have.

 

[KOM.Nausicaa]

both sides of the argument firmly believe they are correct, and hold the only solution to save mankind.

neither side can produce the type of evidence that will satisfy the other sides need for irrefutable proof..

Just to comment: I don't believe mankind can be saved, or minimum, the world as we know it. Reading up on the matter since years, with real investment, not only forum talks and blogosphere, I have come to the conclusion we won't make it this time around. The comprehension of this complex matter is too slow, the lobby of the fossil industry too strong, and the time too short.

About the evidence: There is overwhelming indication that AGW is happening backed up by thousands of data an observations as I have tried to explain, but most are too lazy to really read up on it because it takes a lot of time (and money), and the matter is complex. Add to that, some sadly only look for proof of what they already believe for ideological or religious reasons, fired up by the ever present denial propaganda. Humans are apes, we had a lot of luck in the past, but luck is running out.

 

[KOM.Nausicaa]

I find this to be one of the most prophetic and dead on posts I have read in this entire thread. Excellent thoughts and excellent presentation.

Easy Ed and KOM.Nausicaa you two also presented your views in an excellent manner. You obviously believe in what you write and your passion shows. I would be happy to sit and discuss this and other issues with either of you. It would be an enlightening evening, I am sure.

Well thanks for the compliments. I also think that personal knowledge of each others would be interesting and mutually beneficial.

About Teaseas post: I can't really see what you read in there. I read there that ecological concerned people are basically dangerous guys who have to be observed before they become eco fascists or eco terrorists about to destroy your society, which as I know, is a very wide spread view in America. If I have missed something please tell me.

 

[safn1949]

No insult intended I can assure you,simply my way of stating things.I have never felt the need to make personal attacks because I disagree with someone.I am simply saying that you have no more idea what goes on over here then I have about what happens there.

The media distorts most of what they report so it all has to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Cratermaker]

But I also know that the economic problems the USA is struggling with are not linked to that or that President, but to the core of the people who are stuck in the loop of a "way of life" which is every year more antagonistic compared to the rest of the world. They are home made. That is the reason the car industry broke down, and the reason nobody here buys American products (except computers like Mac, or Coca Cola, or cultural exports like the movie industry to put it simply), because they have nothing to offer to a society which steams full speed ahead into a competitive green energy future. That and intelligent political decisions, is why we have a economic upwind in Europe, especially in Germany where we have an outright economic boom. I don't even know of a American product in any shop here I could buy or which would be competitive in that area. That is a sad thing, if you compare it to the past, in which American products were desired quality products everybody wanted to have.

I was thinking of all sorts of nasty retorts this, but I think I'll just leave it with the roll eyes smiley.



You REALLY want to start something, don't you?

 

[KOM.Nausicaa]

I was thinking of all sorts of nasty retorts this, but I think I'll just leave it with the roll eyes smiley.



You REALLY want to start something, don't you?

No, I am just saying what I am thinking.

 

[mississippi]

Play nice guy's .

 

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

In 1963 or 1964 I was staying at my Aunt and Uncle's farm. As was common the buildings were of course located on a highly erosive (during high water spring runoff events) flood plain. To protect the buildings my Uncle would bulldoze the creek into the channel he wanted it to take through his and my Aunt's bought and paid for property. He also liked to use old car bodies to stabilize the banks as best he could. Now that creek was and is an irrigation source, a drinking water source for towns downstream and a blue ribbon trout fishing stream. Now one day that summer of 63 or 64 when I was 8 or 9 Montana Fish and Game came to the gate to talk to my Uncle about driving his bulldozer in the creek, putting old cars in it and rearranging it in ways that affected people downstream and fisheries values. My Uncle met them at the gate with a 30-30 a big dog and me and told them to get the Hull off his land. I have never forgot that day.

Now my question to you is simple - was my Uncle in the right or in the wrong?

Over the years since I have come to the realization that 25 years earlier about 1940 or so he would have been absolutely in the right while about 25 years later he would have been absolutely in the wrong.

Why? That creek was and is a shared resource that a lot of people depend on. When the population was low along that creek what one guy did with a bulldozer didn't matter much but as the population grew along that creek what one guy does does matter. Because he was there first and claims the right to do as he dam well pleases with his property doesn't matter other people moved in and since they too became dependent upon that stream and they voted in the laws that said so and my Uncle's freedom to do as he pleased became more restricted.

This is the lesson that American agriculture has had to learn over the last 50 years and quite frankly there are a lot of farmers who still don't want to accept this although they generally have. To them that fundamental freedom to do with their property matters more than the welfare of the public. It gripes some of them even more that much of this environmental improvement has clearly been socialist - the expenditure of their tax money for a public good. Of course some of them also gripe about all the other socialism in America like public highways, public schools, social security, etc.

In 1963/1964 the population of the earth was around 3 billion. It is now near 7 billion and will reach 9 billion in another 20 odd years. The environmental impact of that many people is huge just as the increasing numbers of people on that creek in Montana was having ever increasing impacts.

The atmosphere of planet earth is no different that that stream my uncle lived on. It is a shared resource upon which we all depend. It is a shared responsibility to take responsible care of that resource. Climate change due to anthropogenic activities potentially threatens the fundamental "health" of that resource just as CFCs did earlier. It will require global action to deal with the problem. But first we'll have to get by this "head in the sand" due to socialist implications and increased restrictions on freedom attitude. Make no mistake about it - there will be more restrictions on freedom to pollute and more socialism (investment in public good) if for no reason other than unending population growth.

It is irresponsible to future generations for a conservative to draw a line in the sand basically saying - my freedom to pollute and do what I want with my property matters more. This is the lesson that the conservative right in America has to continue to learn and learn it they will - even if they get it learned to them by China and India - the rising powers on this earth. The question is how painful will the lesson be? The other option is to step up and lead.

At the end of the day the issue is simple. You cannot have all the freedoms that you think were envisioned by the founders of America when you have far more people than land. It simply isn't practical and does a disservice to your neighbors and future generations. The best you can do is to preserve the core freedoms that the founders of America created in the Constitution of the United States of America. You will note that none of those core freedoms gives you any right to do harm to the environment, your neighbor or future generations - the Founders of America understood that - their wisdom continues to amaze me.

I grew up more redneck conservative that 99.99% of the people on this site but I came to realize that many of those core beliefs only work in a certain kind of world - to put it simply - an uncrowded world where the impacts of people - both negative and positive - are relatively easily absorbed by the earth. I know that is not the world we live in anymore and is not the world of the future on earth. I saw some of that world and saw the beginning of it vanishing in 1963 or 1964 on a farm in Montana. My Uncle rests peacefully in a grave in a cemetery in Roberts Montana no longer an anachronism from another time.

-Ed-

PS We can get back to discussing the reality of GW anytime.

 

[TeaSea]

Mississippi is going to make us get out of the Pool!!

Kom.Nausicaa, I do think you miss the point of my post...however I doubt I'd be adroit enough to convince you of that. That's okay. I've learned that in debates like these few people's minds are going to be changed either way, but it is a good thing to at least hear the other person's way of thinking on an issue. Also, please be assured, I have nothing against the concept of the environmental movement...but I do have much against the way that concept is implemented, and I question the ultimate goal and yes, the basic underpinnings of the movement. When you want to figure out where you are, go back to where you started.

Let me add that this debate on "Climate Change" is sort of like a conspiracy theory. If you deny the conspiracy, then clearly you're a part of it. If you first question the data that's led us to believe we are experience dramatic climate change...then you're somehow you're not intelligent enough to understand the problem. Then, if you dare question that this issue is related to human activity, well, you are even dumber than we thought and the product of some sort of warped upbringing....I'm being factious here obviously, but the point is that there has been no tolerance for dissent in any way shape or form in any climate change discussion. Clearly a violation of the scientific method, which draws largely on healthy skepticism. Usually our use of the scientific method churns right along, but occasionally it gets thrown off track, normally by politics and economics.

I would go back to Rachel Carson here for an example. Recall that "Silent Spring" was written specifically about the use of pesticides and in particular DDT. Ms. Carson condemned DDT as causing cancer in humans and called for a worldwide ban. She was not the only one to do so. The U.S. Government was also concerned over the use of DDT, especially since it's use worldwide had grown by leaps and bounds. There were other governments concerned as well. There were some who tried to say that DDT was not a cancer causing agent, and that any potential risks far outweighed the benefits. Very quickly that position became untenable as any dissent was crushed. The banning of DDT was pushed by the West (U.S. in particular) and the use of DDT was halted. Let me add that while there was much discussion on DDT being a potential carcinogen, there was no direct data the said that it was. All was conjecture, hearsay, and anecdote. However, to get funding for your lab, you would not hesitate to state your intense concern over the use of DDT, and that you needed funding to test for that.

DDT was used primarily to spray for mosquito's in malarial areas. These would be areas not in Europe or the U.S. but rather Africa and South East Asia. Malaria is one of the top killers of human beings in the world (competing with pneumonia, dysentary, and in the case of some developing countries, HIV/AIDS). Up to a million people a year die from malaria (most of those are brown people, not the white people who made the DDT decisions). Since the banning of DDT over 50 million people have died from the disease. There are those who believe Carson is progenitor of the greatest genocide ever inflicted on the human race. I am not one of those who believe that contention. I strongly suspect that constant warfare in some of these areas, economic deprivation, and absolute poverty have more to do with it than the loss of DDT, but having DDT as a weapon in the anti-malarial fight certainly would have helped since nothing as effective has yet to come along.

Oddly enough, it was ultimately determined that DDT is not a carcinogen. Ironically Ms. Carson died of breast cancer in 1964 -- obviously not from DDT exposure.

I use this as an example of why a fair degree of healthy skepticism is called for when these "trust us, we know better" calls for action come in. Particularly regarding this issue, where so much governmental funding depends upon having the "right" outlook.

We've been down this road before.

 

[Ken Stallings]

The next part of the discussion might focus more on exactly how we are going to wean ourselves from fossil fuel dependency, rather than "if"...

I will try to give a very succinct answer ...

We will never accomplish this goal, nor do I think the goal is even meritable.

It's not merely for fuel that we use petroleum. The bigger impact is on petro-chemicals, and the largest portion of that use is plastics. They have revolutionized human life in ways hard to appreciate. About the only way is to ask you to look around in whatever room you are now in reading these words and consider how much of what you see are plastics or other petro-chemical products.

It is easy to say, "I want something." It is far harder to accurately say, "I will achieve something." Achievement requires not only a plan and a desire, but also a rational method.

Petroleum will no longer be used for fuels when something better is found. Better means not only equally effective, but also equally affordable and available. In terms of petro-chemical applications, I think it is very accurate to say it will never be truly replaced and most certainly not in the lifetimes of any human over the next century or two.

Ken

 

[Ken Stallings]

Brilliant post, TeaSea. Let me add that I also recall that recently DDT has been used in some of these infested areas as the need has overriden any previous concerns.

Unfortunately, as often happens with insects, their sheer numbers and reproduction rates mean that even a sliver population immune to the pesticide will rapidly produce swarms of resistent insects. That appears to have happened with DDT in some areas.

But you are right, nothing better has been developed. And many people have died because it was prematurely banned from use.

Ken