backtop


Print 200 comment(s) - last by Screwballl.. on Jul 12 at 1:20 PM


Coal mine fires in Baijigou and Urumqi, which have burned for more than 100 years, are visible from space. It's estimated that Chinese coal fires alone release 360 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year. (Source: NASA)
Should we worry about China's growing CO2 emissions?

In an announcement guaranteed to change the face of the climate debate, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Office released figures showing China is now the world's top emitter of CO2. It was also revealed that China's emissions are now growing six times faster than U.S. levels, and the nation is building two new power plants each and every week.

Officials were quick to point fingers elsewhere. The UK's top climate change official, John Ashton -- who has spent years blaming Western nations for emissions -- says there's "no point" in blaming China. Greenpeace director John Saueven went further, saying ultimate blame for this lay not with China, but with those Western nations who buy its cheap products.

The Kyoto Treaty was roundly criticized for excluding China and other developing nations from emissions limits. EU nations signed, but then went on to increase its emissions twice as fast as the United States. Germany even went so far as to exempt its entire coal industry from Kyoto entirely. Non-EU member Canada signed as well, but since then has also increased emissions faster than the States.

But is this a cause for concern? All this occurs amid increasing controversy over carbon dioxide's possible role, if any, in global warming. Some research would indicate global warming has essentially stopped since 1998. Further research shows that CO2 increases in the earth's past were actually the result of higher temperatures, not vice versa. And new data shows cosmic ray-influenced cloud cover may be responsible the earth's temperature changes.

Environmentalist and author Professor David Bellamy calls CO2 not a pollutant, but "the most important airborne fertilizer" we have. In the earth's history, higher CO2 levels led to an explosion of plant life and a rich, diverse biosphere.  CO2 has never been a problem in the past; why should it be now?

Given all this, should we be worrying about China's new role as the world's top emitter -- or applauding it?


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

another climate myth from Masher
By jmn2519 on 6/21/2007 10:22:35 AM , Rating: 3
The biodiversity myth has been debunked by newscientist.

Here's the text:
According to some accounts, the rise in carbon dioxide will usher in a new golden age where food production will be higher than ever before and most plants and animals will thrive as never before. If it sounds too good to be true, that's because it is.

CO2 is the source of the carbon that plants turn into organic compounds, and it is well established that higher CO2 levels can have a fertilising effect, boosting growth by as much as a third. Higher temperatures can boost growth even further. Plants also lose water through the pores in leaves that let CO2 enter, so higher CO2 can decrease water loss in plants as they do not need to open these pores as much.

But it is extremely difficult to generalise about the overall impact on plant growth. Numerous groups around the world have been conducting experiments in which plots of land are supplied with enhanced CO2, while comparable nearby plots remain at normal levels.

While these experiments typically have found initial elevations in the rate of plant growth, these have tended to level off within a few years. In most cases this has been found to be the result of some other limiting factor, such as the availability of nitrogen or water. (See also Climate change warning over food production.)

Actual yields do always not rise as much as overall growth, as the ratio of seeds to overall biomass tends to fall. The regional climate changes that higher CO2 will bring, and their effect on these limiting factors on plant growth, such as water, also have to be taken into account.
Levelling off

Some have suggested that the increase in plant growth due to CO2 will be so great that it soaks up much of the extra CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, significantly slowing climate change. But the levelling-off effect means that plants will not simply soak up ever more CO2. Furthermore, studies of past climate suggest that as the planet warms, the land and oceans will start emitting more CO2 and other greenhouse gases than they absorb.

Another complicating factor is ground level ozone due to air pollution, which damages plants. This is expected to rise in many regions over the coming decades and could reduce or even negate the beneficial effects of higher CO2.

As for food crops, the factors are more complex. The crops most widely used in the world for food in many cases depend on particular combinations of soil type, climate, moisture, weather patterns and the infrastructure of equipment, experience and distribution systems. If the climate warms so much that crops no longer thrive in their traditional settings, farming of some crops may be able to shift to adjacent areas, but others may not. Rich farmers and countries will be able to adapt more easily than poorer ones.

Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains.
Biodiversity loss

Even if plant growth does rise overall, there could be a decline in biodiversity. Species that thrive on higher CO2 will drive others to extinction. In the long run, this might limit the resiliency of some ecosystems.

In addition, fertilisation is just one of carbon dioxide's effects. Increased CO2 causes acidification of water, especially in the oceans. Recent research has shown that the expected doubling of CO2 concentrations could inhibit the development of some calcium-shelled organisms, including phytoplankton, which are at the base of a large and complex marine ecosystem (see Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem). That may also result in significant loss of biodiversity, possibly including important food species.




By James Holden on 6/21/2007 10:28:01 AM , Rating: 2
Make them sign Kyoto? Oh wait, look how well that's turned out.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Rovemelt on 6/21/2007 11:06:30 AM , Rating: 2
While CO2 levels will promote new growth and sequestering, trees are still being clearcut far faster than they are being replaced. Which leaves one less path for CO2 to be sequestered.

China is also producing a lot of the solar panels that will be used in the coming years. Hopefully some of the new low-CO2 technology will find a home there.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/21/2007 11:13:03 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
trees are still being clearcut far faster than they are being replaced
Not in the US. Our percentage of forest cover today is higher than it was 100 years ago, due most to the reclamation of farmland.

In any case, its not clear that trees reduce CO2 levels at all. They do while growing. But then they release it all back when they die. Its now thought that the carbon footprint of an 'old growth' forest is basically zero-- neither adding or subtracting any.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Rovemelt on 6/21/2007 11:30:11 AM , Rating: 3
You may be correct about trees being cut in the US, but around the globe (and we're discussing a global phenomenon) trees are being clearcut faster than they are being replaced.

quote:
In any case, its not clear that trees reduce CO2 levels at all. They do while growing. But then they release it all back when they die. Its now thought that the carbon footprint of an 'old growth' forest is basically zero-- neither adding or subtracting any.


Interesting. Maybe you should do some research on this subject. Do you know where coal comes from? It's mostly lignin biomass from trees that never completely decomposed. That's one way CO2 is sequestered and part of the reason why CO2 levels decreased from early in earth's history.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/21/2007 11:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'm confident I've done more research on the subject than you. Coal is indeed sequestered carbon. But it takes million of years to form, and the percentage of the original biomass that actually converts to coal is extremely tiny.

Tossing out the word "coal" to try and prove that planting trees will have any effect on CO2 levels anytime in the next 10,000 years is just silly.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Rovemelt on 6/21/2007 12:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
Based on your statements here, I'm confident you haven't done more research than I on the subject of organic structures in coal.

If you plant a tree, it can sequester tons of CO2 in just 100 years time. Yes, it takes a long time to become coal. However, it's still sequestered carbon while it's becoming coal. A tree, living or dead and partly decomposing, still has taken a net amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere. That CO2 that the tree used to grow can be put back into the atmosphere by completely decomposing the tree (which may or may not happen depending on the environment) or burn it completely to ash. Generally speaking, the cellulostic components of the plant or tree are decomposed first. The lignin-like aromatic structures are generally most resistant to biotic decomposition and typically contribute the most, by weight to the aromatic component of coal.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 12:16:53 PM , Rating: 3
It amazes me how smart people reach such wrong conclusions, even with all the facts in front of them.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/21/2007 12:29:06 PM , Rating: 3
Now you're just being ridiculous. The great masses of coal formed on the planet were primarily from swamp and oceanic biomass, where being submerged greatly facilitated sequestration. Not from old growth forest.

Yes a tree locks up carbon when its growing. But when it dies, it falls down and rots, and releases it back. Depending on conditions, it might release 100% of it. If conditions are just right, some 0.1% may be sequestered permanently.

Go into any forest in the US. Some of them contain tens of billions of trees. By your figures, over the past 100 years alone, they've sequestered a few tons per tree. Where's all that carbon at? Dig down in the ground and measure. You won't find anything but tiny amounts.

Some of those forests have been growing for hundreds of thousands of years. And yet you won't find coal or permanent carbon deposits under them. Long-term carbon sequestration by trees is not only extremely slow, but it affects only a trivial percentage of the carbon in them.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Ratwar on 6/22/2007 3:28:08 AM , Rating: 3
Well, don't write your thesis on these theories. You see, when a tree dies, a clearing forms, allowing young trees to grow (I'm kinda tempted to break out into a chorus of 'Circle of Life' here...). These trees lock up Carbon, so the dead tree doesn't actually release any net Carbon into the atmosphere, unless new trees are unable to grow in the location. This means that forests do provide a sink, which by locking in the Carbon, keeps it from entering the atmosphere and thus increasing CO2 levels. Yay for Environmental Engineering!

Of course, sinks are only a temporary solution, and in the long run, we'll need to decrease our CO2 production rate (Or dump iron into the Ocean, which could wreck that ecosystem, and by the same note, the fishing industry). Even if CO2 isn't the source of Global Warming (or Man-Bear-Pig for that matter), changing the composition of the atmosphere WILL cause changes. Obviously, these changes may be good or bad in the long run (some would even say that Global Warming might be a good thing in the long run), but why play Russian Roulette? Especially when changes (whether bad or good) will have high initial costs.


By therealnickdanger on 6/22/2007 9:57:48 AM , Rating: 3
I just want to chime in and say how much I love the DT comments section. So much good info!


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/22/2007 10:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the dead tree doesn't actually release any net Carbon into the atmosphere, unless new trees are unable to grow in the location
Did you read the posts before this? This is just what I said. In the stable situation of an old growth forest, the total carbon footprint is zero. Old trees are dying and releasing carbon; new trees are consuming it. The forest is not sinking any additional carbon. And (as another poster mentioned) forests in high latitudes are believed to actually increase global warming, as they absorb more sunlight. If you thhink you're going to plant a tree and reduce global warming you're wrong.

In the very long run, plants do sink CO2, especially submerged plant life in swamps and the ocean. In fact they've been able to change the composition of the atmosphere from several thousand ppm CO2 down to a few hundred. Had this process continued unchecked long enough, they would have eventually brought it down to near zero, effectively killing all the plant and animal life on the planet. Yay for natural environmental engineering eh?

Through most of history CO2 was much higher than it is now. There was no runaway warming or any other bad effects. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. Methane is 20 times worse, water vapor 40 times worse. At the current rate CO2 is increasing, we have a hundred thousand years before it even gets back to where it once was.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Ratwar on 6/22/2007 11:41:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you thhink you're going to plant a tree and reduce global warming you're wrong.


As you've said yourself, growing trees take up carbon, therefore, planting a tree will remove Carbon from the atmosphere and place it into the biosphere. Old grown forest do not reduce CO2 concentration, but planting a tree in a field does reduce the amount of Carbon in the air.

Yes, CO2 concentration has changed before, but so has the earth's climate. Just because it has been at higher concentrations than it is now doesn't mean that high concentrations are good for us. The black death (Yay for hugely bias example!) was naturally occurring.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/22/2007 11:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
trees take up carbon, therefore, planting a tree will remove Carbon from the atmosphere
Until that tree dies, then it releases it all back. Therefore not reducing global warming at all.

You also ignored this bit. If you plant that tree outside the tropics, the amount of sunlight it absorbs is a much bigger factor than any CO2 change. It slightly raises global warming, exactly the opposite effect you say you want.

But then, some people just love trees; they don't need logical reasons to plant them, right?

quote:
Just because it has been at higher concentrations than it is now doesn't mean that high concentrations are good for us.
Likewise, it doesn't mean those concentrations are bad for us either. Changing CO2 doesn't look like it'll affect us much either way. It might make things slightly better, it might make them slightly worse. Either way we have much bigger problems to worry about.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By LogicallyGenius on 6/23/2007 11:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
If dead wood can be burnt and releases Carbon compounds then from where did they go in the wood.

These evil people will tomorrow say burning wood dont release CO2. I hope someone kills such people


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/26/2007 4:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope someone kills such people

Another shining example of the kind of reasonable debate that occurs amoung the MAsherians. No extremist remarks found here. MAsher's contributions just bring out the best in people.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By hubajube on 6/26/2007 7:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose your purpose here is to discredit masher, huh? That way, we'll all follow the "party line" blindly instead of weighing the the facts presented and making our own decisions from them.

You'll say next that I am blindly following masher and you are here to "set us free" so to speak.

If you truly wish to free our minds, present your case and leave it for us to figure out on our own. In reality, that's all any of us can do.


By TheGreek on 6/26/2007 8:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I suppose your purpose here is to discredit masher, huh?

No need, he does that himself.
quote:
That way, we'll all follow the "party line" blindly instead of weighing the the facts presented and making our own decisions from them.

Where was it suggested you follow anybody?
quote:
You'll say next that I am blindly following masher and you are here to "set us free" so to speak.

Not at all, you have to set yourself free. Its the red pill or the blue pill, you decide.
quote:
present your case and leave it for us to figure out on our own.

My case was always very simple, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Better safe than sorry.

MAshers case:
quote:
...should we be worrying about China's new role as the world's top emitter -- or applauding it?

What did you figure out from his quote? Who's leading who with the statement he made here? You decide.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Moishe on 6/21/2007 11:44:59 AM , Rating: 2
internationally.... so then lets focus on countries like China who are NOT balancing their tree usage with replanting. Trees are a crop and the supply should be maintained.

Having a piece of toilet paper like the "Kyoto Treaty" exempt anyone is exactly why the U.S. didn't sign it. Why shackle yourself to the bed (to prevent you from hurting your neighbor) when your neighbor is running around free. It's idiocy. Double standards are horrible. Surprise, surprise nobody in their right mind wants to buy into that.


By Ringold on 6/21/2007 3:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
Recent research also indicated that deforestation at higher latitudes (North America, Europe) has a net cooling effect on the global climate due to much lower absorbtion of sunlight during the winter. It also led to slightly higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere but the net cooling effect was too powerful to be overcome by the slight increase.

Forests did have a net cooling effect closer to the equator though in areas such as Brazil, however, and a couple other nice side-effects.

In that sense tree's are indeed just a crop in most of the developed world and, asides from any scenic beauty aspects, ought not really to be mourned.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Moishe on 6/21/2007 11:33:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
trees are still being clearcut far faster than they are being replaced.
In China , which is why China should cut back on polluting as much as anyone.

Forest wilderness in the U.S. has grown hugely in the past century as the U.S. tries to balance out growth and environmentalism. China has a vastly higher population and a government that couldn't care less about polluting (other than PR) and it growing rapidly. To ignore the environmental impact of a nation like China is stupid at best.

Reminds me of living in El Paso TX... While citizens of Texas are paying through the nose for increase environmental costs, 100 feet of nothing separates Juarez Mexico and El Paso. Juarez dwarfs El Paso and is a highly polluted and polluting city. Not to say that the U.S. shouldn't be responsible and reasonable, but lets face it, no amount of taxing and cleaning and burden is going to fix the pollution problem in El Paso until Juarez is cleaned up. That's not gonna happen any time soon.

Another analogy , you can have a beautiful lawn were you keep up with the fallen leaves and if the guy next door lets leaves go on his side, you'll be spending all your time picking up after him. You have three responses.
1.) clean up for him
2.) force him to clean up
3.) accept a lesser level of perfection

What do you do?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Rovemelt on 6/21/2007 12:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What do you do?


It's certainly not an easy question to answer. I think a combination of your three answers is going to be the most likely outcome.

Forcing action through trade agreements (link trade to the environmental impact of producing an item in a particular area). For example, if country X produces a widget that generates a ton of CO2 and country Y makes the same widget making a half ton of CO2, then country Y gets a 2:1 leverage in trade. This would serve to actually benefit the US in trade agreements with China. IMO, we should do something similar with labor and trade, but that's an entirely new subject.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 1:16:56 PM , Rating: 2
Basing trade agreements on environmental targets (especially for something very unproven like CO2) is exactly how you come up with trainwrecks like Kyoto.

Besides, restraint of trade is almost always a bad thing - it hurts people on both sides of the equation.

It's like this - you can't put the policy before the science, otherwise, there's a good chance you'll be dead wrong. And the whole argument of, we'll we can't wait for the science because it will be too late, is kind of like the cheesy used-car salesman who tells you the deal is only good until 5pm, so you need to make sure you make your decision now.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 2:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
trainwrecks like Kyoto.

What exactly did it wreck? Doesn't that kind of imply some companies or government went out of business because of it? Isn't a more accurate name for it a non-event? Perhaps that's not as nasty a name as they like it around here?

quote:
you can't put the policy before the science

And yet didn't Europe do just that successfully when they addressed emissions from computer monitors? Should they have waited another 20+ years for science to give them stats or did they do the right thing by curbing what they could with minimal commercial impact?

And why did it work? Was it because there weren't a lot of extremists on either side of the issue? Of course without a huge fight the lobbyists had no work.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 3:13:27 PM , Rating: 1
> my question was what action was actually taken besides gathering signatures?

You're right, the countries that signed the treaty took no action on it. They just did it for a feel-good measure that accomplished nothing.

All the more reason for us to have not signed, isn't it?

> Don't CRT monitors...end up in landfills?

Yes. And that extra shielding, added to solve a nonexistent EMI problem, therefore made another problem worse.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 7:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
> I can't tell if I'm reading ignorance or desperation

I don't think you're reading at all. Extra shielding on a monitor means extra metal and other resources, which not only needed to be mined, refined (all at a cost in energy and environmental damage) but also takes up more space in landfills. All things we want to try to minimize? And forcing us to waste resources to solve problems which don't exist doesn't help that.

> Steel rusts

So you dont see a problem with mining vast amounts of metals, then turning them around and dumping them in a landfill for no good purpose at all?

Yes steel rusts. Aluminum too, though it takes a lot longer. So why recycle it? Mercury and lead will eventually leech down below the ground. Paper will eventually self-recycle back into trees too. Dangerous organic compounds will break down. EVERYTHING we put in a landfill isn't a problem in the long run...if you wait long enough. Does that mean we need to waste resources and fill our landfills?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 7:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you dont see a problem with mining vast amounts of metals, then turning them around and dumping them in a landfill for no good purpose at all?

That's why my 11 year old still runs and looks like new. And my monitor went to a place where the lead won't contaminate anyone's ground water. Today or tomorrow.
quote:
Does that mean we need to waste resources and fill our landfills?

Im not the one selling electronics or appliances that are no longer economically feasible to repair. I've never understood that philosophy.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 7:49:59 PM , Rating: 1
> That's why my 11 year old still runs and looks like new

You didn't answer the question. Monitors wind up in landfills. Wasted steel in monitors is more steel to be mined, and more junk in our landfills. Do you see a problem with that or not?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 7:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
You choose to believe I didn't answer your question, that's not the same thing. My statements can't change that.

Have you tested your drinking water for lead?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 8:04:39 PM , Rating: 1
> You choose to believe I didn't answer your question...My statements can't change that.

Lol, of course your statement can change it. You can answer the question. Or, you can continue to run and hide from it. Is the wasted steel in monitors a problem in landfills or not?

A simple yes or no will suffice.


By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 8:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yes a clamp can make a huge difference once I went over and looked at the huge pile of stuff in a landfill. The clamps I saw dwarf refrigerators, cars, even abandoned freight ships.

You're so right that I am trembling at the thought.

I'm keeping all clamps I own forever, I'll clamp something down somewhere! And the car is going to the junkyard first thing in the morning.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 9:10:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A simple yes or no will suffice.

Well, I was willing to drop it, but you insisted on making a mountain out of a molehill. You wouldn't let up, so that's exactly what I did.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/22/2007 12:16:05 PM , Rating: 1
> Well, I was willing to drop it, but you insisted on making a mountain out of a molehill.

There's no mountain here, just you waffling back and forth and refusing to admit your own words. First you say filling up our landfills with wasted metal isn't a problem, then you say it is. Then you get angry and blame us for not being able to understand your position here.

A simple yes or no will clear this all up. Is it a problem or isn't it?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/22/2007 3:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A simple yes or no will clear this all up.

What part of this prior response escapes your grasp?
quote:
You're so right that I am trembling at the thought.

You know I had to buy a microscope to be able to see your point. How many resources were required for that?

And what is PorkPie anyway?


By porkpie on 6/22/2007 3:46:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "What part of this prior response escapes your grasp?

The part where you failed to answer the question. Why are you afraid? It's a simple yes or no question.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 7:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Im not the one selling electronics or appliances that are no longer economically feasible to repair. I've never understood that philosophy.

No, but you're the one buying them. You can't wash your hands of that responsibility so easily, if you decide to worry about things like that.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 8:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, but you're the one buying them.

Not when I have a choice. But in some cases corporations force the issue.

But I buy high end electronics when available. Stuff like Conrad Johnson is far cheaper in the long run. My Mitsubishi VCR lasted 7 years of hard usage, while my neighbor filled the landfill with Goldstars.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 11:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not when I have a choice. But in some cases corporations force the issue.

A corporation forced you to buy something? How did they do that - did they hold a gun to your head and make you drive to the store? Poor guy, LOL.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/22/2007 10:18:14 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, trying to make a point by being simple minded. Interesting concept.

One is forced to buy what is available. That is determined by ummmmm, availability. If all companies only build $29 VCRs that yes, that's what is forced to buy, as opposed to being allowed to buy one that will last for more than 6 months or 14 inserts of a tape. How can I buy it if its not available, please explain my freedom to choose under these conditions.

Of course, since your twisted what I said all around for your personal gratification why would it be different this time around?

quote:
Poor guy, LOL.

Ignorance is bliss.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/22/2007 11:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
> If all companies only build $29 VCRs that yes, that's what is forced to buy

Since when is one "forced" to buy a VCR or any other consumer product? We're not talking about food and shelter here now are we? Talk about rampant commercialism!


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Hawkido on 6/25/2007 7:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since when is one "forced" to buy a VCR or any other consumer product?


Do you (or did you) ever have or make use of (and thus necessitating someone else having) a VCR? Does it have to be a VCR? Why not Electricity? Horse and wagon? The Wheel? Freedom? Isn't freedom a luxury? Isn't freedom a commercial product, because it seems only the wealthy are free in the world, right? Or is it only the free are wealthy? Which came first?

Back on topic: Africa kinda missed the VCR boat, where were they? They kinda missed the boat before that called electricity, and before that democratic/representative freedoms given by a different form of government.

Sounds like if you miss one of these important boats you are doomed to a miserable existance in which your children live bleak lives and die horrible deaths at young ages. How many people have died from landfills conpared to starvation in America... Probablly about even in the USA, that's why we are having this discussion, I presume. In Africa they don't talk about landfills causeing health problems... Is it because they are sooo ecofriendly and don't waste anything? or is it because none of them live long enough to turn on the electricity (which they don't have) turn on their computer (which they don't have) and connect to the internet (which they don't have) and excercise their freedom of speech (which they don't have) and complain about their landfills (which they don't have). Know what they have in the ground that causes death and disease in Africa? Mass Graves... filled with disease victims, warlord victims, famine victims. Yes, land fills are far from their foremost concern. I guess they should have bought that first commercial product that came along.

When I was in college we used a VCR in our classes. Before that it was film projectors and slides on an overhead projector using transparencies. Before that actual slide projectors. So by your very reasoning, no one should have bought the first commercial product. Well, you didn't say that, you said no one is forced to buy it.

I think if you look at history, you will see that no one is forced to be a pawn of a state or a slave to some horrible empire... All you have to do is not choose to be free. There is a price for freedom. Those who have paid will attest. Not buying that one thing that makes your life better, you will slide right into the crapheap called the humanity landfill, just like the majority of Africa. If only they would have made that one investment in bettering themselves.

Perhaps freedom isn't the product, but the currency, and others haven't used it wisely.

PS: I'll save you the trouble of spelling out your only rebuttal. Okay here goes:

"But I wasn't talking about Africa! I was talking about him buying a VCR! How wasteful he is! How dare he better himself, his life, his family! He should live in abject poverty and die from the first disease of opportunity that comes along because medicine is a product of a wealthy society and I don't want THAT, no not that, cause wealthy societies have land fills! I much prefer mass graves to land fills cause humans are an abomination on the earth and not part of the 'Natural Order'!"

Sound about right?

Good night!


By TheGreek on 6/26/2007 4:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
My choice is to vote for a president that does what's good for the people and represents the people first, not the lobbyists first. There are many handles in the voting booth, but my choice is not there. And not voting is also something forced upon me if I take that path, I take it under duress, and that's not a free will choice.

I choose not to give any money to oil companies. Do I have that choice? A real one OK, not some extremist viewpoint yet again.

So many college classes make a point of how the world is not just black and white. MAshers extremists "choose" to live in that black and white world.

And the funny thing is I'm the one who's arguing just for the sake of arguing. Yeah right.

Regrettable.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 3:30:52 PM , Rating: 1
Well Canada's apparently spent billions chasing Kyoto so far, and they have nothing (positive) to show for it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/timeline.h...

OK, $5 each times hundreds of millions of monitors sold -> large economic cost. Benefit? Were any lives saved? I'm not aware of any studies that show any harm from low-dose non-ionizing radiation. You?

Funny you bring up catalytic converters and claim they don't add much cost. Do you know how much cost they add? Here's a hint:

Catalytic converter theft
Due to the use of precious metals including platinum, which is worth up to $1,200 an ounce; palladium, which can fetch $320 an ounce; and rhodium, which can go for up to $6,000 an ounce on the market, catalytic converter theft is on the rise.


I wouldn't exactly say that change was accomplished without significant cost - they were expensive to implement. What's your point again, I'm confused.

Regarding RoHS, I can't tell you what the costs were, but as someone working in an electronics-related business, I can tell you that the costs were significant for the changeover. That is pure overhead that had to get factored into the costs of products. Maybe it didn't add much to the cost of a particular product, but maybe the company also had to cut costs elsewhere to pay for the changeover. Change costs money in business, period.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 10:42:33 PM , Rating: 1
OK, I spoon fed my kids when they were young, so I guess one more time won't hurt...

Never heard of such a thing, and referenceless as well.

http://www.google.com/search?q=catalytic+converter...

The particular quote was pulled from Wikipedia, but there are lots of reports of the same. $70 is not typical, by the way - usually its a bit more than thay.

Since you probably haven't seen any studies one way or the other how did you reach a scientific conclusion?

Well, considering how long humans have been using electricity, and no problems so far...

I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Enjoy.


By TheGreek on 6/26/2007 4:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, considering how long humans have been using electricity, and no problems so far...

What kind of person suggests that no one has been killed or injured by electricity? Besides the obvious methods, your statement suggests that there is not one single cancerous tumor ever caused by anything having to do with AC, and you know this for a scientific certainty.

Who would make such claims? An extremist?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 11:16:04 PM , Rating: 1
No, my point is that Kyoto has apparently had a tremendous cost for Canada, and I suspect many of the other countries that have attempted to implement it have also faced large costs - and all for nothing.


By TheGreek on 6/22/2007 3:20:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
and all for nothing.

So I have to repeat
quote:
So that article proves that if they had simply ignored Kyoto and made no efforts at all, the current levels would not have been even higher, is that your conclusion?

Yes or no? Ala Porkpie.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By ziggo on 6/21/2007 3:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
A link between the lead in fuel and heavy metal poisoning was never really proved.

The unleaded fuel now has its octane rating adjusted by a known carcinogen.

Better or worse? Who knows.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 4:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
Lead was removed from gasoline in order to prevent fouling of catalytic converters. It was removed from paint for direct health reasons.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 7:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lead was removed from gasoline in order to prevent fouling of catalytic converters.

But even if that wasn't the case it would have probably been removed sooner or later.

Obviously a much bigger indirect health issue in large cities.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 7:25:26 PM , Rating: 1
> Obviously a much bigger indirect health issue in large cities.

Why? Because you say so? Are you aware that many nations are *still* using leaded gas...and they're not seeing any of the health problems environmentalists predicted from using it.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: another climate myth from Masher
By rsmech on 6/23/2007 11:19:17 PM , Rating: 1
I can't help but have the voice of HAL from 2010 in my head every time I read your post. Your sound fake & simulated. You argue just to argue. When you have no point you can intellectually defend you have hurt feelings (like HAL) and snivel & name call. Then when someone makes a personal comment to you, you talk about how small minded they are. Probably posted too late to read, but you seem to idolize Mesher.

I can tell you I've read Mesher & you sir are no Mesher!


By TheGreek on 6/26/2007 4:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can tell you I've read Mesher & you sir are no Mesher!

That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me here.


By Lord 666 on 6/21/2007 11:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
Completely off topic, but Chinese toy factories manufacture goods with lead tainted paint and kerosene filled balls for kids for US import.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/business/worldbu...

If Chinese industries don't care about the hazards to children, doubtful they care about some greenhouse gasses and smog


By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 9:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The unleaded fuel now has its octane rating adjusted by a known carcinogen

Which chemical are you refering to?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Ringold on 6/21/2007 3:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This would serve to actually benefit the US in trade agreements with China.


If by benefitting America by reducing capital inflow and increasing prices paid by consumers at retail, absolutely you are correct.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By arazok on 6/21/2007 4:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
lol. You hit that one square on the head.

Nobody seems to recall when a cheap fridge cost $1,200. You can get them for $300 now, and the top models are generally under $1,500.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 7:26:00 PM , Rating: 1
Yep, you can see that by how many more are in landfills.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 7:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Whoa Cubbie! When we complained about wasted steel in monitors going into landfills, you tossed it off with a snide "steel rusts" comment. And you've changed your tune already?

Want some butter on that waffle?


By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 8:14:14 PM , Rating: 1
Your comparing bare metal clamps with full refrigerators? Have you been to any communities with space issues that behave that way?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By arazok on 6/21/2007 9:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
You're beyond stupid. You know that right?


By TheGreek on 6/22/2007 10:12:02 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, measuring the costs of a product after it's useful life is just total nonsense. Thanks for the scientific input.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By UppityMatt on 6/24/2007 3:02:07 AM , Rating: 2
I think i have created a higher carbon footprint by having to sort through your stupid posts. If you want to reduce CO2 levels get off your computer because your not lending any support for either side of this argument.


By TheGreek on 6/25/2007 4:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
your not lending any support for either side of this argument.

You mean just like your post?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 11:10:09 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
it is extremely difficult to generalise about the overall impact on plant growth...This is expected to rise in many regions over the coming decades and could reduce...farming of some crops may be able to shift to adjacent areas, but others may not ...Even if plant growth does rise overall, there could be a decline in biodiversity...Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible ...
I highlit the important part of your posts. Nothing but "maybe", "possibly", and "we just don't know".

Its funny how enviromentalists can claim they're 100% sure a little warming will be a catastrophe. But when presented with the other side of the picture, they suddenly start saying how difficult is it to predict the effects of warming.

It IS nearly imposible to predict whether warming will be good or bad for us overall. But all the past times this happened, things got better, not worse. Ice Ages are the real killer.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: another climate myth from Masher
By dever on 6/21/2007 3:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
You are not understanding what balance means. If you have your way, you steal money from everyones pockets to "fix" the problem that doesn't exist.

Those who propose to take my earnings by force must assume the burden of proof . There is no burden of proof needed for a retention of liberties.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 7:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
Are you really on our side, just pretending to be an environmentalist to make them look bad? Most people will at least attempt to discuss the issue...maybe even throw out a fact or figure now and then.

You, though, seem content though to do nothing but make hundreds of posts labelling anyone who disagrees with you with something unsavory.

If you're trying to discredit environmentalists, you're doing a better job than all of us put together.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Moishe on 6/21/2007 11:16:00 AM , Rating: 3
Funny that you call one article from one source a "debunking".

Your text from NewScientist supports the basic concept that higher CO2 levels could contribute to a "temporary" increase in plant growth. It seems to me that it would naturally level off and that's OK (we don't want too much of anything). We're talking about cycles over time. I'm NOT going to go out of my way and say for sure that more warming is guaranteed to be "good" in the long run, but there is an equal chance it could be good, or at least balance out. Having it level off is good! This is not a matter of higher(or lower) numbers being always better. Too cold is bad, too hot is bad. Warm might be good for awhile, but bad for a long time (same with cool).

I just don't think someone can make a statement like "more CO2 is bad". The earth produces a lot of "bad" stuff in large quantities for eons and has been able to recycle it all.

According to NewScientist
quote:
But it is extremely difficult to generalise about the overall impact on plant growth.
That statement is perfect. It's hard to generalize about the effect. But geez, I'm seeing a lot of generalization on the side of global warming proponents too. So lets all stop generalizing and cut out the political BS and set about accurately measuring the problem so that we can know for sure what is happening and why. Meanwhile the whole "sky is falling" routine is getting really annoying.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/21/2007 11:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The earth produces a lot of "bad" stuff in large quantities for eons and has been able to recycle it all.
Right. And rarely mentioned is that even today, mans CO2 emissions are still only about 4% of what nature produces each year.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Moishe on 6/21/2007 11:37:21 AM , Rating: 2
Humans like to arrogantly accept blame for all of nature's problems. We're not God. If we're going to get so high and mighty to assume that we should force ALL entities to stop ALL polluting then we should make sure to plug every volcano and remove every last living thing that produces any negative substance (like cow farts).

This would entail removing humans and most of nature.


By TheGreek on 6/25/2007 4:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we're going to get so high and mighty to assume that we should force ALL entities to stop ALL polluting

But who suggested that?


By TheGreek on 6/26/2007 8:47:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Humans like to arrogantly accept blame for all of nature's problems.

Not Bush, God's on his side (as opposed to the slightly less arrogant Bush is on God's side.) And when did he accept blame for anything? Shall we ask Valerie Plame?
quote:
We're not God.

But some of us actually talk to him.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Hare on 6/21/2007 12:01:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
quote:
The earth produces a lot of "bad" stuff in large quantities for eons and has been able to recycle it all.
Right. And rarely mentioned is that even today, mans CO2 emissions are still only about 4% of what nature produces each year.

Quick idiom: Straw that broke the camel's back

I personally don't believe that humas have had a big impact but on the other side what humas have done is something that wouldn't have happened otherwise so it's 4% extra. I agree, 4 percent is a tiny fraction but it might be enough to do something. You only need 0,001% more weight on the other side for a scale to tilt. After tilting the trend could accelerate (the other side gains more weight after the initial movement). That's why some people are worried. There are some who believe that if the trend continues, it will accelerate to a speed where it can no longer be stopped that easily. Then there are those who think that 4% is just a drop in the ocean and can't have any impact.

I'm personally somewhere in between. I think humans have had a small impact but not anything like the most fanatic environmentalists claim. I'm not going to loose my sleep over this but on the other hand believe that this needs to be carefully studied.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 12:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
> I agree, 4 percent is a tiny fraction but it might be enough to do something

True. But remember the amount the earth produces isn't a fixed quantity either. In the past it has produced much more than both it and we do today. It didn't tip the scales to a catastrophe then, why should it this time?



RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Rovemelt on 6/21/2007 12:34:10 PM , Rating: 2
Catastrophe is relative to the species. There have been lots of changes to the planet and atmosphere over the course of earth's history. Who knows...maybe insects and pigeons would happily thrive on a changed climate. However, a rapidly changing climate, from what I've read, will make life for humans on the planet much more difficult. Difficult in that there would be mass migrations as certain parts of the planet become uninhabitable. It's difficult to predict the effect on crop yields, but climate changes would certainly cause changes to growing seasons. And climate change would bring new diseases and parasites to species that we depend upon.

Food supply problems, diseases, flooding, severe weather are the likely result from having to deal with climate change and a large human population concurrently.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 12:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see any logic or data in your conclusions. Humans have adapted well for thousands of years of documented climate change. Warm spells and cold spells are common, as are mass migrations to more desirable locations.

Actually, now that I read your post, I realize is is an excellent example of FUD. Evreything you said is the very essence of FUD. I suggest you apply for a job in the marketing department of some less-than-repuatable corporation, or maybe join the environmental movement. Your talents will be appreciated there. Here, we're mostly fact-loving techie types.


By Ringold on 6/21/2007 5:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Difficult in that there would be mass migrations as certain parts of the planet become uninhabitable. It's difficult to predict the effect on crop yields, but climate changes would certainly cause changes to growing seasons. And climate change would bring new diseases and parasites to species that we depend upon.


Mass migrations: Moving out of the unproductive and marginally hospitable areas to more productive ones has been a mass migration that's been continueing at an accelerating rate since the foundation of Rome. Even worst-case-scenario alarmist propaganda shows changes occuring slowly over the rest of this very long century, meaning the mass migration will be similar to that of people in the Northern United States slowly trickling down to Florida, Texas and California, and NOT similar to millions of refugees running from death squads in Darfur that the UN is incapable of stopping.

Crop Yields & Growing Seasons: These have been rising at an amazing rate and by all indications will continue to do so with the only long-term risk being the "organic" movement and Europe's resistance to genetically modified crops. If growing seasons in the rest of the world "change" to be more like Brazil's, then this would be a massive positive.

Disease: Often cited, often completely discounted as propaganda, but it continues to be brought up. Assuming you're right, Canadians should be extremely concerned as Canada on any given day has a higher percentage of its workforce calling in sick than any other country -- except for I think Sweden, who is its primary rival. I tend to blame socialism, the destruction of the individual and individual work ethic but hey! Maybe you're right.

Severe Weather: One of my local meteorologists reported some weeks ago that we set a record this year for the number of days with no cyclone activity on Earth. (After which he said "so much for global warming") This point is FUD as much as the rest of them and environmentalists are just lucky that their propaganda happens to be peaking at the same time as the decades-long natural hurricane cycle. Blaming Katrina on global warming pulls on the heart-string more so than raising the spectre of individual responsibility and using it instead as an example of why living in poverty and ignorance is dangerous.

Human population: Given that hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians are rapidly on their way to joining the industrial worlds middle class, enjoying the quality of living that accompanies such status, where precisely is the indication that the population in the world is excessive? If anything it's clear evidence the level of socialism is excessive as it was capitalist reforms that have allowed both to flourish, replacing the communist and bureaucratic laws that were holding them back, not population levels.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Hawkido on 6/21/2007 1:48:27 PM , Rating: 1
WOAH!
Humans are a part of this planet. If you are of the EVO line then we evolved here. If your are of the Creation line then we were created here. If you think aliens dropped us off here "SHUT UP! AND PHONE HOME LOONEY!"

Since the only option that presents us as being alien has NO PROOF and NO BASIS in REALITY. The human impact on the enviroment is NATURAL. Either intended by creation, or the next step in evolution. Who are we to defy/change what put us here in the first place. Who are we to try to interfere. This is a self correcting problem. England: Industrial Revolution: Coal Power: Caused huge enviromental problems: Not a Problem anymore. THANK GOODNESS WE HAD KYOTO BACK THEN! It really made a difference.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Hare on 6/21/2007 2:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
What an insightful and intelligent reply.

Your logic is beyound stupid. What you are saying is that whatever humans do is natural and will correct itself? Why even worry then? Let the oil tankers sink and kill wildlife, hey it's just natural. In a million years maybe the oceans will be clean again, problems solved right? Why put out forest fires, it's completely natural. So what if half the population at California would die? Eventually people would fill the void. No problem there either?

Perhaps I'm just selfish but I would like to preserve the world in such form that my kids (if I ever have any) can enjoy their life. Maybe this is a new word to you but I believe we are responsible for our actions. We have the power to screw things up big time and it's something we need to avoid!


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 2:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
There are a lot of people with strong religious convictions that believe that God gave them the world to "do with what they will." It basically says that in the bible almost literally. I think this is the basis for that type of thinking.

I'm with you - we were also given the gift of intelligence - and it it clearly in our best interests to maximize the possible environmental outcome for present and future people. I just don't think that should be taken to irrational extremes.


By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 9:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just don't think that should be taken to irrational extremes.

By either side.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Hawkido on 6/21/2007 3:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
I re-read my post... I am sorry, you are right!

I never should have said "pour all the world's oil in the ocean that's where it's best kept."

Oh, which paragraph did I say that in? I forgot. Oh yeah in your head paragraph. That great empty void.

Okay, now that that's cleared up... Listen there have been many enviromental disasters in the world, I think 2 or 3 percent were even caused by man. Most haven't been repeated. (Okay, China and the Coal thing yeah I'll give you that one, what else?) If you say all natural disasters were caused by man or a high percentage, I will ask you to point out the scars. Even the Hiroshima and Nagasaka bomb sites are nearly 100% healed. Those were surely the greatest of the ED's. England... point to the soot damage from the coal.

Let the forests burn... now theres a NOT novel idea. My best friend's dad is a regional forrester in the Mid-South. He complains that the enviromentalists won't let them do burns. So once the forest catches on fire by lightening strike or careless camper, the trees themselves burn up. If we let every forest fire burn itself out (as by design or evolution) the forest would be better off. That is the way it is. If you let the dead fall build up too much, the heat will get so hot the trees will burn. Alot of people don't know this, but most forest fires don't burn the trees, only the leaves and deadfall. Plus, a large percentage of trees need fires to reproduce (again evolution or design doesn't matter)

So your rebuttal (other that the one where you claim I promote using the Ocean as an oil storage container, which I never did) is refutted. perhaps this world is capable of surviving humans (by evolution or heavenly design). The best, healthiest, forests in this country (USA) are owned by the lumber companies (WOW, don't they eat trees?). The healthiest cows in the world are owned by beef producers (WOW, doen't they eat cows?). Maybe we take better care of the world than the world takes care of us. Anything we value we take care of. You cannot make someone place value on something. It they treat it as worthless, it is because they think it is worthless. You cannot change it. Funny tho the country with the worst enviro image is the one that actually cares the most. But who's fault is that?

And your "Self-less" point about saving the world for the kids you don't have and may never have?

Here's my answer: I have kids... I will dump every barrel of oil in the ocean, burn every tree on the planet to make sure that they have every chance to succeed and live a better life than I have, if I have too. And, I have a pretty darn good life.

What'cha think about that. While you work on preserving the world as it is for your kids (non-existant as they are). I will be working to make the world a better place for my REAL kids. Funny how reality is SO much better than make believe.


By porkpie on 6/21/2007 3:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for repeating some of your post Hawk. Didnt see yours till after I posted.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By brandonmichael on 6/22/2007 5:32:45 PM , Rating: 2
I have kids... I will dump every barrel of oil in the ocean, burn every tree on the planet to make sure that they have every chance to succeed and live a better life than I have, if I have too. And, I have a pretty darn good life.

I hope they don't like swimming... Are you sure they will want to live in the world you have destroyed for their "better life"?

That has got to be the most arrogent, selfish, diatribe I have yet heard on this forum. You don't care who suffers so long as your children live a life you think is better than your own? Its ignorance of that type that we have tried to escape for centuries... Segregation, Slavery, Anti-semitism... All examples of ideology without concern for other human beings.

I have kids too and yes, I would kill, or die for them, but there are certain things I wont do just so they can eat caviar and drive hummers.


By Hawkido on 6/29/2007 12:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"better life"?


Better is a qualitative word not a quantitative word.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 3:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
> Why put out forest fires, it's completely natural.

Well most forest rangers believe we shouldn't be putting out all forest fires. We actually should be starting them-- little controlled burns.

But environmentalists freak out over this, so we put out every single little fire immediately. So the dead wood never gets burned off, and eventually a fire starts much too big for us to control. We've interfered with the natural process of small fires, eventually it comes back to bite us, and we wind up with a few hundred houses burned down and a few dead firemen.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Hare on 6/21/2007 3:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
You didn't get the point (and my example was stupid). What the previous poster said was that what ever happens, happens and it's all natural. So if we shouldn't worry about global warming or pollution why should we worry about forest fires. Both can threaten human lives and sometimes action needs to be taken to save lives.

I'm just saying that were are an intelligent species and have the power to actually decide our own fate (or screw us all up). We can stop a forest fire before it burns down a city. Why shouldn't we do the same to bigger global threats. (keeping in mind that I'm not saying that humans are the reason for global warming).


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Hawkido on 6/21/2007 6:58:00 PM , Rating: 4
Terrorism is surely a bigger global threat, one that can claim many more lives, than say, pollution. What was the death count from pollution in the 1990's? How about terrorism? To date in the new century? What about starvation? AIDS? TB? I bet more people died of TB in 1990 compared to pollution/global warming-deaths in the 20th century. Anyone have those numbers? TB: 2.5 Million world wide. GW/P: Maybe a couple hundred Confirmend cases but with contributing factors.

I would be far more concerned with real problems. Terrorism, Infectious Disease, Governmentally induced poverty in Africa, Central and South America. These things we know about... We have, to an incredible degree, mitigated them in the Western Industrialized world. Let's try to work on the rest of the planet. Or we can waste time trying to fix something that May or May Not be a problem, and if it is a problem it May Not have a solution.

Al Gore said the ocean would rise 70 meters if the southern polar ice cap melted.

Let's do the math (South Pole Ice area and water covered area of earth number from wikipedia):

Earth Water covered Area: 361,126,400 KM sq.
South Pole Ice cap area: 13,720,000 KM sq.
Gore prediction of +70 meters to Ocean level

Convert KM sq. to M sq. (just * by 1000)
70 * 361,126,400,000 = 25,278,848,000,000 M cu.
Now divide the projected volume by the SP Ice cap in M sq. of course.
25,278,848,000,000 / 13,720,000,000 = 1842 Meters

The super surface water mass has to have a thickness of 1842 Meters (oh wait... water, when frozen expands ~10%) *1.1 = 2026 Meter thick Ice sheet. over the currently ice covered land mass of antartica which is 13,720,000 KM sq.

13,720,000,000 * 2026 = 27,796,720,000,000 M cu. of super surface ice on the south pole

the volume of the moon is 21,958,000,000,000 M cu.

Al Gore (if you work his math backwards) says there is greater than the moons volume in water above ocean level on the South Pole.

If you wonder why I keep mentioning Super surface ice... or ice above Sea level. It's because Ice when melted shrinks ~9%. So, actually, any ice under water once melted will cause the oceans level to drop by about 9% of the sub-surface ice mass. If you see an ice burg tip with a mass of 100 M cu. you can bet there is about 900 M cu. worth of ice under it. If that ice burg melts the water level never changes. The super surface ice would shrink 9% and the sub-surface would also shrink 9% the amount that the sub-surface shrank equals the volume of the tip after shrinking. Balance. Human interaction needed "0"

Never mind how hot it would have to get to melt the southern ice cap, plus with increased temperatures the atmosphere can hold much more moisture in it (which ablats sun light by giving the earth's atmosphere a reflective quality, thus cooling it).

Ice Cap thickness has been recorded by real field scientists as increasing as a trend for the last decade. The pictures you see of ice cap shearing off at the edge...
Welcome to physics. Ice melts at 0 degrees C at STP (standard Temperature and pressure). Where those photos where taken, it was much colder. Why the shearing off? Pressure. Ice stays frozen longer at lower pressures, warm air is a low pressure front, so heat had nothing to do with it. What could increase pressure? Oh a build up of mass could increase pressure.

"Say, where would the pressure be the greatest? Cause that's where the melting point will drop low enough to actually melt in the sub freezing temperature!"

"Glad you asked little billy! The Super surface mass is pushing down with all its weight, while the subsurface mass is pushing up with about 10% of it's mass (cause it's bouyant in water) so the pressure is concentrated right at the surface of the water... as it melts a few inches in from the edge (due to pressure not increased temperatures) the super-surface ice above it is no longer supported by any ice below and begins to apply outward torque as well as downward pressure, thus shearing off large chunks that fall down."

"well what would it look like if it was melting due to temperature, Mr. Hawkido?"

"Well, little Billy, do you like ice in your soda?"

"Uh-huh!"

"After you ice begins to melt in your soda what does it look like?"

"All round and smooth like"

"What's that glacier look like before and after it broke apart?"

"all jagged and angley. Oh, I see, if it was melting because of temperature it would have melted the edges off just like the cube of Ice in my glass of soda!"

"That's right! Because water resists internal changes in temperatures. It is one of it's mysterious and fundamental properties. Why water is unlike most any other chemical compound in the universe. It's amazing what you can learn by keeping your eyes open and observing."

Source:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html

Plus wikipedia and an open and viable mind.

Class dismissed.


By brandonmichael on 6/21/2007 7:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
Environmentalists aren't the only ones who do math like Al Gore.

Doctor Robert Johnston, refuter of the global warming theory has the sea level rising 66-75 meters if the ice caps melt. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterw...

If the Antarctic ice sheet melted, sea levels would rise up to 65 meters (210 feet). Thats from Wikipedia one of the resources you cited.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 11:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Terrorism is surely a bigger global threat, one that can claim many more lives, than say, pollution

Actually you're wrong about that. Far more people are killed by air pollution (just one of several forms of pollution) each year.

The World Health Organization thinks that 4.6 million people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution.[2] Many of these mortalities are attributable to indoor air pollution.[3] Worldwide more deaths per year are linked to air pollution than to automobile accidents.[4] Research published in 2005 suggests that 310,000 Europeans die from air pollution annually. Direct causes of air pollution related deaths include aggravated asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, lung and heart diseases, and respiratory allergies.
quote:
Al Gore said the ocean would rise 70 meters if the southern polar ice cap melted.

Yes, but Al Gore wisely didn't say the Southern polar ice cap was going to melt, did he?

This is exactly the type of rhetoric that I find so reprehensible. "If <such-and-such> happens, there will be <some-tragic-outcome>," when in reality the odds of <such-and-such> happening are practically zero. It makes a real dramatic effect to say such things, and technically it is not a lie, but it sure is misleading.

I couldn't follow the rest of your post. Did you have a few beers while online? :o)


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Hare on 6/22/2007 3:19:54 AM , Rating: 2
Just because Gore makes wild assumptions about melting ice doesn't mean that global warming as a phenomenom should be considered humbug. No wonder you picked Al Gore. It's so easy to prove Al Gore wrong and feel like a winner, huh?

Btw. What does this issue have to do with terrorism? I didn't know it was one or the other. Either protect from terrorism or protect the nature? IF global warming will happen at a larger scale and change the world as some have predicted, what do you think it will do to the stability of the world. I can tell you that spreading diseases would be a ten times bigger problem then. Nice tunnel vision you got there. (btw. check out the figures in the message written by TomZ)

Since you quote Gore let me do a quick copy paste also.

Hawking 2006: "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of methane, trapped as hydrates on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so further global warming..."

This phenomenom is so complex that we have no idea what can and cannot happen. We only assume. That's why I personally believe that this should be taken seriously and studied. Your assumption that what ever we do will be fine because it's natural is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Hawkido on 6/22/2007 10:45:40 AM , Rating: 4
IF a metor the size of the Moon hits the earth how will that affect the stability of the world? IF everyone on the planet winns a million USD in some fluke lottery accident, how will htat affect the world? IF you are being pulled by a boat at the speed of light with no lifejacket on and you scream, how many pancakes does it take to build a doghouse? None, IceCream doesn't have any bones.

The problem with your argument is "IF". BTW, The last one is the only one with a sure and true answer.

If is a conditional statment, on the condition that the event occured, do this. You can not say take action because IF.
Example: (the right way) IF your house is on fire, exacuate so you won't die.
(the wrong way) Evacuate, because if your house is on fire you will die.

Notice how the wrong way instructs the people to do something, when no action is required? The right way the people are informed of the proper course of action should the event occur, but otherwise live their lives just as they always have been.

quote:
Hawking 2006: "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of methane, trapped as hydrates on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so further global warming..."


Hawking said that? Stephen Hawking?

I can hardly believe that... because GreenPeace did a study and found that the rainforest of the amazon is pretty much CO2 neutral.

He mentions melting of the Artic and Antartic ice caps. Funny because over the last ~decade they have been getting thicker.

Methane trapped on the ocean floor. That's a brilliant point. Say, how much methane has already been released over the past century or the century before that? As methane is FAR more potent as a Green House gas (factor of Many times) How come the looney greens aren't blaming it as a cause of GW? Every Volcanic eruption blows massive amounts of caustic gases, greenhouse gases, heavy metals. You name it if it is in the earth a Volcano blowes it in the air or pours it on the ground. I believe the figures are something to the effect of one large eruption does more "Damage" to the enviroment than 100 years of human civilization, and they are completly natural and there is nothing we can do about them. One oceanic earth quake can dislodge methane and cause it to boil out from its frozen state releasing hundreds or even thousands of cubic meteres of frozen methane as methane gas. Most don't have to even be felt to happen.

Discovery Science channel did a study as to mysterious sinking of ships in areas and found massive amounts of frozen methane under those areas and did tests to see if a methane upheaval could sink a ship. Answer yes. The methane release can be so large that is actually makes a hole in the ocean and the ship falls 10's of meteres into the hole then it closes up on them, crushing/flooding the ship and poisoning the crew.

As to Ice caps melting and therefore reflecting less light:
Water vapor in the air would do more to reflect solar energy than ice caps. Comparison: Would you rather have a bullet bounce of the fat layer under your skin or bounce off your spine. The melting of the ice caps due to temperature would mean there is an increase in temperature. Which means the water vapor threshold of the atmosphere is increased, which means more sunlight is reflected cooling the earth.

Here's some quotes from you:

quote:
This phenomenom is so complex that we have no idea what can and cannot happen.


I agree, so stop the greeners from telling everyone to act on this before it is too late. Because it may already be too late, or it may be too early, or the very actions you are proposing will have little affect on the issue but end up costing more lives and money than it would have normally.

quote:
That's why I personally believe that this should be taken seriously and studied.


Or Not. Who is going to pay for all the studing of the event that "MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN" Go to a college and take a course on statistics. There you go a study of what may or may not happen.

The Facts are:

1. This has warming has happened before, before human existance

2. It has happened during human existance, when humans had No impact on the enviroment. The human population increased during that time.

3. We still exist, and flourish. It is a non issue. However if the greenie in the bottle causes a panic and a riot and people are killed in the riot (already happened). Well enviromentalism will have killed more than their sworn enemy LOGIC.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By brandonmichael on 6/22/2007 4:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
If is a conditional statment, on the condition that the event occured, do this. You can not say take action because IF.
Example: (the right way) IF your house is on fire, exacuate so you won't die.
(the wrong way) Evacuate, because if your house is on fire you will die.


The issue at hand is a quantitative one, not a semantic one...
If there are to be any conclusions drawn, they will come from scientific data. Some believe we have enough to conclude that "our house is on fire", while some believe we don't.

The methane gas sinking ships is interesting but kind of tangential... also only a theory, without real hard evidence to back the phenomenon, although the methane on the sea floor is an issue that the global warming supporters are addressing... claiming it will be one of the "tipping points" that global warming will be the catalyst for (which according to theory, will start the chain reaction to the end... Yes rather gloom and doom.) The point is, they want to control global warming by curbing environmental pollutants, so the sea floor methane isn't released into the atmoshpere... There are several such tipping points, that have scientists worried. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/11/13...

1. This has warming has happened before, before human existance

Lots of species faced extinction. The point, I think, is we would like to not be one of them.

2. It has happened during human existance, when humans had No impact on the enviroment. The human population increased during that time.

What the science is predicting is an environment that humans have never faced before.

3. We still exist, and flourish. It is a non issue. However if the greenie in the bottle causes a panic and a riot and people are killed in the riot (already happened). Well enviromentalism will have killed more than their sworn enemy LOGIC.

Really melodramatic and condescending. I take issue with your use of the word "environmentalist"... The counter Global warming movement has succeeded in associating that word with the most extreme factions of the movement... and now alot of the people on this forum use the word itself as a slam on anyone who thinks there could be credibility to this globally accepted theory ...
Well listen, I have not once chained myself to a tree, sabotaged an oil tanker, or started any fatal riots, so please invent something else to call me and the majority of the populace .


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Ringold on 6/22/07, Rating: -1
By TheGreek on 6/25/2007 5:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the extreme-left devil calls itself these days

So in your world there are no people of moderation?

What a sad place that must be.

Nice score on your post.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By bubbacub616 on 6/21/2007 5:55:44 PM , Rating: 2
on a side note the desertification of Australia (from a continent full of jungle) has been attributed to forest fires (as a consequence of human inhabitation 40000 years ago).


By Hawkido on 6/21/2007 7:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
Imma hafta ask for a source on that. 'Cause... Ummm, what did they use to deforest it with 40,000 years ago... as the copper age didn't really begin till just a few thousand years ago.

Flint? They would have ran out of flint long before they ran out of trees. 'Cause flint doesn't regrow.

Forests regrow, they are not brain cells (according to old wives' tales they don't regrow when they die). matter of fact I went through YellowStone right before it burnt then the following summer after it burnt. The new growth tree density was dumbfounding. YellowStone burning was probably the greatest thing that ever happened to the place.

No, I would have to say some geo-enviromental issue caused the forests that were in greater Australia to perish. No human influance could cause that. The trees grew there because the enviroment was right for them. Not the other way around.

The great redwoods can only live at a certain latitude (their leaves only work well if the light strikes the at a certain level) Yet, there are frozen redwoods in Alaska. While I don't know for sure how that was (other than to say that obviously the earth's tilt or wabble wasn't what it is today), the Al Gorekintes will tell you it is because the humans pushed the earth into an unstable wobble. Go figure.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By brandonmichael on 6/21/2007 7:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
Fire fighters use controlled burns each and every summer to fight fires... you make it sound like the environmentalists have tied their hands which they haven't.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 7:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
Dozens of lawsuits have been launched to prevent and delay such controlled burns on federal lands. Ask any forest ranger if he feels his hands are being tied or not. He'll tell you the real story.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By brandonmichael on 6/21/2007 8:37:54 PM , Rating: 2
Lawsuits or no, controlled burning is still used hundreds of times every year to fight large fires. They are controversial for a number of reasons, and not just contested by environmentalists... Do you know allot of forest rangers?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Hawkido on 6/22/2007 9:48:46 AM , Rating: 2
My best freend's famly and all their friends are Forestry workers and cover millions of acres with thier responsibilities. As such I speak to most any forestry worker anywhere in the country on my travels. Same topics keep comming up.

quote:
controlled burning is still used hundreds of times every year to fight large fires


The burns you are talking about 90% of them are to contain a forest fire. Called a Firebreak. burn a swath of fuel out of the path of a fire to contain it... Sure people beg them to do that... after the fire has started. A controlled burn is setting the forest on fire when it isn't burning. the only forests that do that regularly are privately owned by logging companies, because they can't afford to have their carefully planted crop go up in smoke.

"Planted?" Yup most of the logging companies replant the ground they cut (unless they are contracted to clear a plot of land for some other purpose) It's alot easier to get the White or Red oak you need if your grandfather planted a whole forest of it 60 years ago. No need to sort, label, or waste a single tree. and once you cut it down you replant it again. Loggers are among the best Forest friends there are. They don't have picnics in the forest they work there so they can feed their family. Makes the forest alittle more important to them than to any enviromentalist.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By brandonmichael on 6/22/2007 5:46:48 PM , Rating: 1
No one wants the forests to burn, ranger or environmentalist.


By Hawkido on 6/29/2007 12:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
Are you daft?

A forrest burning is part of its life cycle!

Most of the seeds can't germinate unless the pine cone has been burnt first.

If you walked up to a forrest ranger and said "Do you want the forrest to burn?" He would say "NO"

I am not saying burn the forrest down. I am saying ask the ranger "Do you think we should have controlled burns in our forests?" He (or She) would say "Yes"

The only problem with contralled burns is if you don't do them every 4 or 5 years. The forrest bed becomes so cluttered with fuel, you can't safely do them anymore. Which is where we are right now. Green parties have stopped CB's back in the 60's and 70's now here we are 30 years later and any tiny fire in the forrest and millions of trees literaly explode from the ensuing heat of the fire. Where a controlled burn would have done little more than char the bark, but leave the tree unharmed.

Score one for the enviromentalist in "protecting" the enviroment!

Let a business man make his lively hood off the woods. I bet you will see more healthy trees, that are better taken care of, than you will now.

Just look at the elephant population in africa now. They outlawed ivory, because people were killing ele's for just the tusks. (sounds good doesn't it?) well the price of ivory went up, and poachers mooved in and really started mowing the elephants down. (aww, too bad try again) Round 2: *DING* sole ownership of the elephant heards were given to the tribal leadership in africa. Now they farm the animals, clip tusks without killing them. They use selective breeding to ensure a healthy crop, they get medicine for them when they get sick. Their population numbers have soared nearly back to their original numbers. WHY??? Because some greedy bastard started making money off them... HEY that's not the way it's supposed to work... Greedy people are supposed to wipe stuff out, and the Fluffy Green people are supposed to protect stuff.

Just like that stupis spotty owl in the washington Oregon area. "Don't cut the forrest down your wipe out the habitat for the Spotty Owl!! They are almost wiped out!! They live in the Old Growth Forrest!" The lumber mills were stopped "Yeah!!" The Spotty owls numbers continued to thin. Fortunatly for the spotty Owl an "act of God" stepped in to protect then from the fluffy greeners and the forest was struck by a massive ice storm, which knocked down most all the trees, the next spring in the "New Growth Forrest" the spotty owls numbers began to swell. Last I heard, their numbers were soo great they are concidered a nuissence to the locals. Funny, if the Lumber mills would have been able to do thier job, The spotty owl would still be alive, but now so numerous as to be a pest. The Lumber mill employees would not have had to go without a pay check for a year, and the cost of lumber products would not have gone up.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Kuroyama on 6/21/2007 12:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
When I saw that New Scientist cover story on the news stands I picked it up, hoping for some enlightenment. Unfortunately I was rather disappointed. There were some nice facts to rebut some of Masher's comments (eg. to exaggerate: "during the .... period the CO2 level was a gazillion times higher than now but the earth was like the garden of Eden"), but for the most part the article offered little of what it promised. If that story is the best the global warming believers (self included) have to offer then it should definitely lead to a crisis of confidence.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By BBeltrami on 6/21/2007 12:46:43 PM , Rating: 2
At the same time, the National Review, a cornerstone of Conservative Publishing, has Global Warming as it's latest cover story. The article begins with the statement (I'm paraphrasing here) that it is no longer politically or scientifically possible to deny that man has had an impact on Global Warming. The opening paragraph goes on to advise conservatives to get over the denial and "move on" to what we should do about it. (The irony!)

Paraphrasing Kuroyama, if that story is the best the global warming deniers (self included) have to offer then it should definitely lead to a crisis of confidence.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/21/2007 12:53:49 PM , Rating: 3
Focusing on media reports by either New Scientist or The National Review is certainly a bad idea. The real story is the science, and you won't find that anywwhere but in the scientific journals. Here, you see the real debate.

Professor Tim Patterson puts it very clearly. A theory like plate tectonics is well established. As a result, you rarely see any research papers on it. Climate change, however, sees several thousand papers per year, with the figure climbing. And each and every one of those papers changes our understanding somewhat.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 12:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
I think what is going on there is that the conservative leaders are realizing that they recently lost a major election and that they face another possible defeat in 2008. There are primarily two issues where they are out of step with mainstream American thinking - Iraq and CO2. So I expect to see some motion in these two areas on the part of conservatives and the GOP in particular.

It's sad, because I think the Bush Adminstration's take on CO2 has been right all along - up until now. But I guess it's more important for politicians now to be popular than right.


By porkpie on 6/21/2007 1:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
> I guess it's more important for politicians now to be popular than right

Why do you think Canada and all the EU nations signed Kyoto, even though they knew they couldn't meet the commitments and, even if they did, it wouldn't help with China and India's emissions growing so fast.

It was a popular move. They could care less that it was the wrong one.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By rsmech on 6/22/2007 12:38:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But it is extremely difficult to generalise about the overall impact on plant growth.


As you would also agree that it is also extremely difficult to generalize about the overall impact of Global Warming.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By rsmech on 6/22/2007 12:50:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Furthermore, studies of past climate suggest that as the planet warms, the land and oceans will start emitting more CO2 and other greenhouse gases than they absorb.


So what you are saying is that the earth has been hotter then it is today to have this evidence of the land & oceans emitting more CO2. Next that the land & oceans because of warming have accelerated there productions of this gas. But with the land & oceans increasing there output of CO2 more & more as the temps raised the earth somehow cooled again? Is there a missing piece to the puzzle? Does the earth have a natural cycle? Does the earth have a way to correct raising temps. on it's own as it has done in the past?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By rsmech on 6/22/2007 1:00:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the climate warms so much that crops no longer thrive in their traditional settings, farming of some crops may be able to shift to adjacent areas, but others may not. Rich farmers and countries will be able to adapt more easily than poorer ones.


This is not a climate issue. It's been an issue way before global warming & man has adapted. We say we can predict global warming but we can't plant a new field somewhere else? I just went to Alaska & nature made a major change to the river in just one season, it's been changing forever. The thing that makes man so superior is his ability to adapt. As for rich or poor the rich will move and still be rich and the poor will not & still be poor.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By rsmech on 6/22/2007 1:15:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even if plant growth does rise overall, there could be a decline in biodiversity. Species that thrive on higher CO2 will drive others to extinction. In the long run, this might limit the resiliency of some ecosystems.


It's called evolution, natural selection, whatever you want to call it but it's been happening since the beginning of time on earth. Even after all this limiting in the resiliency some ecosystems they are still here or have been replaced. It's a NATURAL process.

There is a problem with any theory that resists change when it comes to the earth. Because it is a fact the earth does change. How is man so bright as to think that this ecosystem or this climate is the right one, the perfect one? Who's deciding perfect? How smart is a man who thinks he can stop the earth from doing what it has always done. If the ecosystem is changing the earth can fix it before man. It's done far greater things from it's birth to where it is today.


Coal Fires
By Supersonic3474 on 6/21/2007 10:13:21 AM , Rating: 2
Hey I have a idea. How about we ship some of them coal fires to mars. Heck with the garbage that China produces and the coal fires together we would be well on our way to creating a new home.




RE: Coal Fires
By idboracle on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Coal Fires
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 10:56:35 AM , Rating: 2
Did you read any of the links in the article? Or anything else but a "newscientist" version of science? Europe has a warm winter, and you think that not only proves global warming, but proves man is causing it, and proves it will catastrophic? Wow. Just wow.

From the links Asher provided:

quote:
for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)...
Or

quote:
Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thousand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming...
Or

quote:
Scientists say that cosmic rays...play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales...


RE: Coal Fires
By Rovemelt on 6/21/2007 11:23:01 AM , Rating: 2
Porkpie is fun. Porkpie directs me to articles that actually crush is own arguments. From the same the cosmic ray article Masher links:

quote:
Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims.


The cosmic ray theory is interesting, but many scientists believe the contribution to global climate change to be small. This is still unsettled and I'd be happy to hear that cosmic rays are causing the change. Also in that same article the scientists who is investigating the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover states that it is PART of the contribution to temperature change, not responsible for all of it.


RE: Coal Fires
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 11:33:26 AM , Rating: 2
You're displaying your ignorance of journalism. A reporter is always supposed to find and quote a dissenting view in any article. Always.

They're supposed to do it on stories that claim global-warming catastrophe too, but somehow they usually seem to forget it. Journalistic ethics takes a back seat to their political views.

Who knows more about clouds and their effect on temperatures, Dr. Svensmark? Or the dissenter, Dr. Harrison? The science just isn't settled yet. Climate scientists on both sides of the fence are more than willing to admit this. But those quotes never get printed either.


RE: Coal Fires
By Ringold on 6/21/2007 4:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of journalistic ignorance!

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_...

Not that coming across that last week was a shocker, but at leas they're honest about being biased.


RE: Coal Fires
By brandonmichael on 6/21/2007 4:37:49 PM , Rating: 1
At least they are holding themselves accountable... Try getting such a confession from FOX news.


RE: Coal Fires
By Ringold on 6/21/2007 5:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
-- and CNN, NBC, New York Times, etc, etc.


RE: Coal Fires
By brandonmichael on 6/21/2007 8:41:34 PM , Rating: 1
Arguably less spin than FOX.

...maybe not the Times...


RE: Coal Fires
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 9:20:26 PM , Rating: 1
You left out CNN's Nancy Grace?


RE: Coal Fires
By BMFPitt on 6/21/2007 5:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A reporter is always supposed to find and quote a dissenting view in any article. Always.
Absolutely false. But most do out of stupidity and fear. I've seen mainstream TV shows that actually booked Holocaust deniers when interviewing people about the Holocaust.

What's wrong with the media today is they feel they must add "balance," even if one side it insane.


RE: Coal Fires
By Rovemelt on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Coal Fires
By Moishe on 6/21/2007 11:51:50 AM , Rating: 3
OR... maybe he's sick of the FUD from the opposing side and is willing to accept a little hate to try to bring balance to the debate.

Don't demonize Asher for disagreeing with you. Your assumption that the only reason Asher could be stating this is for selfish or financial reasons is just ridiculous. I could easily say the same baseless thing about you but that doesn't make it true.

If you're going to discuss the issue brought up then discuss it with ideas and facts not with bad mouthing the guy who wrote the article. It's like saying he's fat and therefore he MUST be clueless... Baseless personal attacks only make you look stupid.


RE: Coal Fires
By Rovemelt on 6/21/2007 1:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
OR... maybe he's sick of the FUD from the opposing side and is willing to accept a little hate to try to bring balance to the debate.


I never wrote anything hateful about Masher and I don't hate this author. I do have a major problem with his stance on the subject and I will question motivation when Masher consistently distorts information. There are many people and companies that stand to make a lot of money through inaction regarding climate change. Until big solar starts muscling the oil companies, I'll be suspicious that inaction on climate change is primarily motivated by finances, not genuine scientific curiosity. The author of this blog consistently grasps on every little bit of uncertainty in the data, while ignoring the vast bulk of the scientific findings. It's selective reporting. If the author posted every article on climate change that comes out, you'd see that the bulk support the link between climate change and human activity.

There will never be 100% confidence in future climate predictions. Never. It's a clever technique then to simply discredit the vast data that suggests humans are changing the climate based on some questions that emerge along the way.

Inaction on this subject has the potential to affect billions of lives. It's important. It's important to get all the facts, including the facts that may suggest climate change might not turn out be that bad for humans. However, this author is taking a stance that there is enough uncertainty in the data to suggest inaction.

quote:
If you're going to discuss the issue brought up then discuss it with ideas and facts not with bad mouthing the guy who wrote the article. It's like saying he's fat and therefore he MUST be clueless... Baseless personal attacks only make you look stupid.


That's the key. The facts are out there and they overwhelmingly support the link between human activity, CO2 emissions and the planet warming. I've posted time and time again and presented data from many a research subjects. The author just refuses to look at the big picture.


RE: Coal Fires
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 1:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
There are even more companies that stand to make big (and are already doing so) from the great Global Warming Scare. Some comapanies are already raking it in-- Archer Daniels Midland has made billions from the ethanol fiasco alone. ADM, by the way, is the one who created and funded an "environmental group" that succesfully brought about the MTBE ban that made ethanol demand soar.

And lets not mention the booming business in trading carbon credits or the tens of bilions of dollars in government funded and subsidized alternative energy sources. These companies are donating BIG to every group and political candidate they can find, secure in the knowledge that no major media source will ever out them-- they're all too busy trying to convince us that a $100K Exxon grant to a think tank is distorting the political process.


RE: Coal Fires
By dever on 6/21/2007 4:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
Also, let's not forget the billions of government spending which is taken from each and every citizen under threat of violence and imprisonment. Instead, he's demonizing companies that provide products that consumer's willingly research and purchase to their own benefit.


RE: Coal Fires
By brandonmichael on 6/21/2007 4:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
You and I elect those individuals responsible for those billions of government spending and the enforcement policy used to collect. I'm sure a few of those dollars went to something you wanted.


RE: Coal Fires
By Ringold on 6/21/2007 5:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
We elect those individuals because what choices do we have? Additionally, many Republican candidates run on a conservative platform but once in office forget their pledge to small government entirely, leaving large groups of people entirely without a decent option because the other side glorifies government and doesn't even bother to hide it.

I'm not sure how you can defend the pork-barrel spending and horse-trading that goes along with it. But your welcome to try.


RE: Coal Fires
By brandonmichael on 6/21/2007 8:51:01 PM , Rating: 1
Is that it, or is it just a fact that running a country of this size requires a certain amount of Federal spending (that no amount of earnest campaigning can side step?) We are, after all a country, not a set of individual states, if state governments should require operating budgets to function, how can the country as a whole survive without?

As for all of the bullshit that goes along with federal government and its quid pro quo back scratching, with our dollars, I agree, a crook is a crook...


RE: Coal Fires
By brandonmichael on 6/21/2007 8:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
Do you automatically get rated down for cursing?

Aargh. Anyway, I also wanted to add that while our choices in political leaders don't really reflect what we want as individuals, the fact is our candidates are not just representing you or me, they have to be responsible for a host of issues the size and scope of which would drive even the most outspoken member of any party onto the center line... If you take one stance absolutely, than you must adhere to it absolutely, regardless of circumstance, which invariably will get you into a moral or otherwise impossible predicament.

Perhaps they are responsible and accountable to too many people?


RE: Coal Fires
By dever on 6/29/2007 2:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly! They are accountable to many, many, many people. This is why there is only one solution... more individual liberty.

The more people you are responsible to, the more that government interfering and subsidizing special interests hurt the population at large.


RE: Coal Fires
By Ringold on 6/22/2007 5:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
It seems we agree on the pork-barrel spending, but if you look at places such as Hong Kong with solid growth, GDP-per-cap and quality of life and look at their spending compared to ours.. Even if you discount the fact we're much larger geographically and have to maintain defense it's ridiculous. Throughout most of our countries history we did absolutely fine without all the social spending. To make matters worse many programs which once upon a time served a good purpose become zombies, sucking up funding to no good end because politicians can't bring themselves to kill hardly anything.

I'd imagine that if the founding fathers were left alone in a room with our current budget for a week they would slice it down by at least 1/3, revoke the income tax in favor of the FairTax, and severely curtail social spending. Of course, there'd be a huge cut in taxes to go along with it.


RE: Coal Fires
By brandonmichael on 6/25/2007 8:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that there are too many "zombies" lurking around the federal budget... I can't say I am really aware of what role China's government plays in its great economic growth. Its hard to overlook what I consider poor social policy, but impossible to dismiss such a thriving marketplace.

I understand the virtue of consumption tax vs. income tax, I like the Fairtax (and who doesn't wish a damp corner in hell for the IRS) but I don't yet see anyway to improve our system of taxation that doesn't take more away from those who earn more... Though I also agree that the governments place is not to play Robin Hood and the best way to help the most is a reduction of federal spending (pork barrel spending can be the first to go.)

I agree, I think the fathers would engage in a very healthy amount of chopping if they had our current federal budget, sometimes I think that a tax cut would be far more beneficial than allot of the social programs out there... But I can't deny the need for social spending, the importance that we keep those agenda's on the table.
I imagine the founding fathers would privatize social security as well...


RE: Coal Fires
By TheGreek on 6/26/2007 4:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ADM, by the way, is the one who created and funded an "environmental group" that succesfully brought about the MTBE ban that made ethanol demand soar.

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE

The high solubility and persistence of MTBE [it does not break down] cause it to travel faster and farther than many other gasoline components when released into an aquifer.

[You ask how can it get into an aquafier? Well it drips at gas stations, a normal and daily event, and then it rains. That's the reality of the situation.]

MTBE has widespread occurrences in the aquifers of North America, where the majority of groundwater chemistry data has been acquired. As one regional example, the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board has indicated MTBE is one of the groundwater pollutants of most widespread concern in this major metropolitan region of the USA.[6]

It's interesting to watch how a person who hates extremists doesn't desire to learn all the facts, to get away from extremists who sensationalize only the facts they want to spread, but instead turns around and uses the same tactics as the extremist that are the problem.

Kinda ironic, no? And after condemning ADM should we reward the companies that create MTBE?

How about we ask some people who can no longer use their wells because of MTBE if ADM is the bad guy in this situation? Is that OK with you Porkpie?


RE: Coal Fires
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 1:35:07 PM , Rating: 2
Calm down, Al.

Funny, when I try to look at the big picture, and try to find the studies that support the link between human activities -> rising CO2 -> big climate change -> death/destruction of humans, I can't seem to find it. Futhermore, I also don't see any evidence or logical argument for why urgent action is required.

There is no science that proves these things together - none. There are just a bunch of people who are screaming loudly that we have done ourselves in. And I also see a large, powerful political organization called "environmentalists" who pursue this path with a total reckless disregard for any facts.

Please post facts if you have them. Links to real studies - not IPCC-type political crap.

And in the meantime, maybe you could please answer these questions for me.

1. Why was there a large decrease in global temperatures during the period from the 1940's to mid 1970's, when at the same time there was a huge amount of human CO2 output increase due to the post-war boom?

2. How is it that CO2 "causes" temperature rise, when studies show that temperature rise comes before CO2 increase?

3. Why is it that greenhouse gas theory tells us that we would should be seeing the rate of warming of atmospheric temperatures increase, however, we are not seeing that kind of warming? Instead, we see most of the warming at the earth's surface?


RE: Coal Fires
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 11:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
C'mon Al, I'm waiting for answers to my three questions...

If you can't come up with the answers to three simple questions from an idiot like me, then you should probably throw in the towel on the global warming thing.


RE: Coal Fires
By TheGreek on 6/25/2007 5:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
C'mon Al, I'm waiting for answers to my three questions...

I've lost count of how many of mine you didn't answer.


RE: Coal Fires
By Moishe on 6/22/2007 11:35:36 AM , Rating: 2
I've seen your links, and then I've also seen links refuting your links... so lets not act as if the question has been absolutely answered. I'm a logical person. I expect a reasonable response in things I deal with.

You can read my posts and count how many times I've ranted against knee-jerk and emotional responses. I want humans to be responsible and take care of the planet. I'm an adult and I expect people to grow up and treat themselves, other people, and the planet with respect.
BUT part of a reasonable response to a "situation" is making sure not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I do NOT want humans to move back to the stone-age on the basis of flawed research that is only in the spotlight because someone has an agenda.


RE: Coal Fires
By TheGreek on 6/25/2007 5:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I want humans to be responsible and take care of the planet. I'm an adult and I expect people to grow up and treat themselves, other people, and the planet with respect.

And do you see that in the quote below?

quote:
Given all this, should we be worrying about China's new role as the world's top emitter -- or applauding it?


See!
By Oregonian2 on 6/21/2007 2:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there's "no point" in blaming China. Greenpeace director John Saueven went further, saying ultimate blame for this lay not with China, but with those Western nations who buy its cheap products


I wrote in another thread about how information is bad or ignored UNLESS it's anti-America. Talk about a twisted thought process, great example of this! Imagine if this kind of perverse logic were to be used in favor of something American, it'd be outright laughed at.

Pathetic.

P.S. - It's also a "I told you so" situation explaining why the U.S. didn't go along with the Kyoto agreements. It was pointless to expend significant financial costs when there could be no success due to fatal flaws (like leaving out developing countries like China and others).




RE: See!
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 2:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
Let's take that logic one step further. China should be blamed since they are benefitting tremendouly from the exports that they produce.

Sheesh, I wonder if Saueven paused to listen for laughter in the crowd, in case people may have thought he was joking. What a stupid comment.

Anyway, it's all moot since CO2 is harmless anyway.


RE: See!
By brandonmichael on 6/21/2007 3:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
Anyway, it's all moot since CO2 is harmless anyway.

CO2 poisoning is called Hypercapnia.

"In severe hypercapnia (generally PaCO2 greater than 10 kPa or 75 mmHg), symptomatology progresses to disorientation, panic, hyperventilation, convulsions, unconsciousness, and eventually death."

Granted, atmospheric CO2 levels will likely not reach levels necessary to cause Hypercapnia in anyone without pre-existing respiratory ailments, CO2 is not harmless, so don't go throwing that around without clarifying.


RE: See!
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 3:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
Drinking too much water can also kill you. Are you ready to call H2O a pollutant?

I think you knew what I meant.


RE: See!
By brandonmichael on 6/21/2007 4:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
No. Falling off a ladder can kill you too, I'm not arguing that because something can be fatal it is a pollutant.

You said CO2 was harmless, I disagreed. Its a distinction you shouldn't throw around. Put yourself in a garage with the car running for awhile and you will die... you can drink water until you burst, it still wont likely be fatal (unless you are drowning.)


RE: See!
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 4:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, how fun when the tables turn... I guess you're not aware of water intoxication:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

CO2 is not something I would worry about with the car running in the garage, either. CO, yes; CO2, no.


RE: See!
By brandonmichael on 6/21/2007 4:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
Touche'...


RE: See!
By bubbacub616 on 6/21/2007 5:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
its the CO not the CO2 that kills people who gas themselves with a car ;-)


RE: See!
By brandonmichael on 6/21/2007 8:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
got that one already.


That special world of objectivity.
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 1:49:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=...

An extremist is using another extremist's POV to desperately make a point. Should anyone be surprised? Science doesn't get much more solid that this (around here.)

If the opposing argument stooped to such tactics what would be the outcome of that?




RE: That special world of objectivity.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/21/2007 1:58:22 PM , Rating: 1
Professor Bob Carter is is a paleoclimatologist with over 100 peer-reviewed publications to his credit; he is an "extremist" only to those environmentalists who disagree with his research findings.


RE: That special world of objectivity.
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 2:18:29 PM , Rating: 1
And what's the percentage of people in his field who agree with him versus disagree with him and have similar credentials?


RE: That special world of objectivity.
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 2:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
You're missing the point - basically you're engaging in "kill the messenger" mentality - what is he saying that is wrong? Is the data flawed? The conclusions not logical? What's wrong with what he's saying - that he doesn't agree with IPCC?


RE: That special world of objectivity.
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 3:12:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You're missing the point - basically you're engaging in "kill the messenger" mentality - what is he saying that is wrong? Is the data flawed? The conclusions not logical? What's wrong with what he's saying - that he doesn't agree with IPCC?

How can he use tactics that he doesn't consider usable by his opposition? That's the point you're missing. Why is that so hard to understand?


RE: That special world of objectivity.
By therealnickdanger on 6/22/2007 12:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
Why do tacticts matter? Why even waste breath on that topic? The science is sound, focus on that.


By TheGreek on 6/22/2007 3:29:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why do tacticts matter?

Ask MAsher.

And what do you think this is anyways? A presidential campaign?


RE: That special world of objectivity.
By Ringold on 6/21/2007 4:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
Your link to the bee article some days back was interesting, but still not the connection to global warming that was originally implied in the scare. Thanks though for the linkage.


RE: That special world of objectivity.
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 7:11:17 PM , Rating: 1
My point there was simply this. Without knowing every aspect of the balance of nature, one species versus another, how can anyone be certain if some pesticide doesn't knock something out of balance that the scientist simply wasn't looking for? So the fact that the bees are being killed by a natural predetor really doesn't give a complete picture of what's going on. It should cause interest in further investigation, but around here its full cause for dismissal. Hardly a path one should take.


RE: That special world of objectivity.
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 7:28:09 PM , Rating: 2
> Without knowing every aspect of the balance of nature...how can anyone be certain...

You've just summed up the problem with the entire environmentalists approach. Man can never "know ever aspect" of anything. There's always a possibility of something going wrong...even if its one chance in 100 trillion.

To an environmentalist, that means we should do nothing at all, but simply crouch in fear in our caves, afraid to cook our food for fear of igniting a forest fire.


RE: That special world of objectivity.
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 7:47:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Man can never "know ever aspect" of anything

But Masher knows all, sees all, is always right with just one mere exception in opposing party's argument. No matter what he says he's validated, all others automatically fools.
quote:
To an environmentalist, that means we should do nothing at all, but simply crouch in fear in our caves, afraid to cook our food for fear of igniting a forest fire.

I thank you here for making my point again about how extremist people here really are, no different that the people you choose to label with your bigotry. Right? All enviromentalists are nuts according to you, scared to move forward. They walk barefooted everywhere and never bathe. They eat only what's already fallen off the trees and that's only if ants didn't get their first. That's your stand. They're the extremists, right?

And not you. You're balanced.


RE: That special world of objectivity.
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 7:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
> All enviromentalists are nuts according to you

No, just the leaders of the major environmental groups. You know, the ones calling the shots, planning what gets demonstrated against and where, which politicians to endorse, which companies to organize boycotts against, etc.


HALT THE PRESSES
By fannymae on 6/21/2007 12:37:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Officials were quick to point fingers elsewhere. The UK's top climate change official, John Ashton -- who has spent years blaming Western nations for emissions -- says there's "no point" in blaming China. Greenpeace director John Saueven went further, saying ultimate blame for this lay not with China, but with those Western nations
China is the worlds biggest polluter. And its OUR fault?

WHAT THE HELL??




RE: HALT THE PRESSES
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 12:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and Greenpeace is usually full of shit, so statements like that are totally expected.


RE: HALT THE PRESSES
By therealnickdanger on 6/22/2007 1:03:01 PM , Rating: 1
It's our fault because we have the most money. That's really all this climate-scare shit is about anyway: cashing in.


RE: HALT THE PRESSES
By nigel106 on 6/24/2007 12:17:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
China is the worlds biggest polluter. And its OUR fault?


Indirectly, this is true. US and other Western multinationals have factories in China and other countries with lax/no emissions controls standards to reduce cost. So it's other countries with operations in China that are largely responsible for that country's status as the world's #1 polluter.


RE: HALT THE PRESSES
By TomZ on 6/25/2007 1:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
1. Tons of Chinese companies also have factories in China, so it's not like only Western companies operate there, as you imply.

2. Responsibility goes back to China, since they haven't taken initiative to protect their environment. You can't blame corporations since it is not their responsibility to regulate emissions. Their responsibility is to obey the regulations set forth by the government.


RE: HALT THE PRESSES
By nigel106 on 6/25/2007 10:44:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tons of Chinese companies also have factories in China, so it's not like only Western companies operate there, as you imply.


I didn't say it's only Western countries, just that they're largely responsible. China is still a developing nation. It's developed nations with established MNC's (multi-national corporations) that are setup in China and elsewhere.

quote:
You can't blame corporations since it is not their responsibility to regulate emissions. Their responsibility is to obey the regulations set forth by the government.


I agree, corporations aren't responsible for regulations, beyond "self-regulation". But this is a problem all around the world, not just in China. In the US, for example, the government hasn't signed on to the Kyoto protocol precisely because the government is unsure how to reduce carbon emissions and introduce tougher standards, in a way that makes it profitable for industry to do so. Until governments and industry can collaborate towards emissions standards that serve both their self-interests, Western countries will continue to pump more greenhouse gases into the air, using China, India, etc. as bases of operations.


RE: HALT THE PRESSES
By hubajube on 6/26/2007 2:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Until governments and industry can collaborate towards emissions standards that serve both their self-interests, Western countries will continue to pump more greenhouse gases into the air, using China, India, etc. as bases of operations.
I hate to be the one to repeat what was already said but it's STILL not the responsibility of those US corporations to regulate environmental policy in another country. That lies with their own governments. If those governments, which have free will to make their own decisions, refuse to do such then there's not much those US corporations can do except maybe pull out or self regulate. Concerning self-regulation, which factories in China are contributing to their CO2 emissions? How do we know that US corporations are the major contributors? If it is the US corporations that are contributing the most, what does that have to do with our government here or the general American public?


What about CO2 per capita?
By oTAL on 6/21/2007 1:13:29 PM , Rating: 3
Did you take into account the fact that China possesses one fifth of the world's population?

I would like to have seen values for CO2 emissions per capita on your article, but I guess you forgot to account for that...

Did you know that more children die every week in the US during childbirth than in Easter Island in a hole decade?
That must mean that Easter Island has better health conditions.... Yeah! That makes sense..... not...




RE: What about CO2 per capita?
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 1:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
By one argument, China could be faulted for "unfairly" having so many people. Why should they be allowed to have four times the population of the US when they're not any larger land-wise? See how ridiculous these "fairness" arguments get?

The per-capita argument is just a red herring. China is the biggest polluter, period. Saying they have a right to pollute so much because of their population is dodging the point.

In any case its moot. In a decade or two even their per-capita emissions will be the highest on the planet


RE: What about CO2 per capita?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/21/2007 2:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In any case its moot. In a decade or two even their per-capita emissions will be the highest on the planet


Don't be so sure of that, Gibraltar is tough competition!


RE: What about CO2 per capita?
By TheGreek on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: What about CO2 per capita?
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 3:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
Whats your point? That its ok to pollute as long as don't have any laws against it?


RE: What about CO2 per capita?
By TheGreek on 6/22/2007 3:26:41 PM , Rating: 1
It's pitch black where you are, isn't it?


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/21/2007 2:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
As long as you brought up the topic of Easter Island -- totally interesting story about deforestation, overpopulation, etc. I read somewhere (I hate saying that but the URL really escapes me) that Easter Island had more per-capita violence than any place on earth over the last 200 years.

In any case, here's tonnes per capita:
* U.S.: 19.2
* Canada: 17.3
* Russia: 11.2
* United Kingdom: 9.7
* Japan: 9.4
* China: 4.7

Keep in mind that doesn't include deforestation, coal fires, or anything like that. Here's the per capita worst offenders from 2004 (they haven't been included in the 2007 study yet):

Gibraltar: 149.74
UAE: 55.92
Netherlands Antilles: 52.4
Qatar: 46.25
Bahrain: 33.52
Trinidad and Tobago: 30.03
Singapore: 29.73
Luxembourg: 26.62


Funny
By Rostakovich on 6/21/2007 11:26:44 AM , Rating: 2
Its funny how everyone is talking about the article's author and ignoring the FACT in it. We've been told for years the US is the big problem behind global warming. Now thats not true any more.

At the rate China is growing, in 20 years, the "US factor" will by tiny by comparison.




RE: Funny
By Moishe on 6/21/2007 11:57:57 AM , Rating: 3
Which is why Kyoto was unfair and any agreement that exempts any nation will be unfair. Not to mention that some of the EU countries who DID sign it are not even coming close to their Kyoto goals.

Lets face it, the world is trying to fix a scientific problem with politics... and politics is most a bunch of powerful people trying to stay in power. They make the issue practically unsolvable (and therefore actually DO nothing) just to make sure that their opponent doesn't gain power by solving it first. In the end the little guy gets the shaft.


RE: Funny
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 12:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
I ran the figures for fun. At the current rate of growth, by the year 2026 (19 years from now) China will be producing over four times as much as the US. Amazing.


RE: Funny
By Emma on 6/24/2007 1:14:24 AM , Rating: 2
Yet, untill then, the average chinese citizen will still be responsible for less CO2 than the average american.

Countries mean nothing in this debate. This is a personal issue, and it begins with you and me.


RE: Funny
By porkpie on 6/24/2007 6:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
> Countries mean nothing in this debate

Funny, for years people have been saying the US is the big problem, because we produce(d) the most. Now that we no longer do that, suddenly it doesn't matter? Funny.

By the way, the US is not the largest CO2 producer on a per-capita basis either, not by a long shot. We're not even on the top 10 list.


The Report
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/21/2007 1:41:50 PM , Rating: 6
Here's the report if anyone wants to read it:

http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/morein...

quote:
The estimates of CO2 emissions do not include emissions from flaring and venting of associated gas during oil and gas production and CO2 emissions from deforestation/logging/decay of remaining biomass and are calculated using default CO2 emission factors recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CO2 emissions from underground coal fires in China and elsewhere are not included either. The magnitude of these sources is very uncertain; according to recent research CO2 emissions from coal fires are estimated at 150-450 megatonne CO2 annually in China.




RE: The Report
By Fnoob on 6/24/2007 1:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but these studies have completely ignored the effects of ManBearPig; the real cause.


LOL
By smitty3268 on 6/21/2007 10:57:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Given all this, should we be worrying about China's new role as the world's top emitter -- or applauding it?

masher, you crack me up sometimes.




RE: LOL
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 2:20:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
you crack me up sometimes.

Yeah, about as entertaining as a boxing match.


RE: LOL
By Ringold on 6/21/2007 4:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
The Juda-Cotto fight was pretty entertaining, I thought. I thought maybe Juda could pull it off as a matter of honor after such a long mandatory vacation from the sport, but.. guess not.

Definitely more entertaining that Pretty Boy Floyd's last fight.

Global warming, interesting as it may be, has steep competition in being 'entertaining' regardless of who it's reported by.


RE: LOL
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 6:36:08 PM , Rating: 1
For the Neanderthal in you.


By Screwballl on 7/12/2007 1:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
How long ago were we in an ice age?

The Earth's climate is like a sine wave that peaks and dips with small ups and downs that are about 50 years high to low peak, medium timeframe being about 20,000 years all the way up to major ups and downs that are 100,000 years between high to low peaks..

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050330_eart...

50 years ago all the scientists were saying we are on the verge of another ice age. 50 years in the future, the scientists may be saying that again.

We have a minor ice age such as the one 15,000 years ago which is the bottom of the sine wave, in the next 5,000 years we will see the temperature rise to the high peak...

but a piece of interest:

quote:
Earth's axis is currently pointing at the North Star, Polaris, but it is always rotating around in a conical pattern. In about 10,000 years, it will point toward the star Vega, which will mean that winter in the Northern Hemisphere will begin in June instead of January. After 20,000 years, the axis will again point at Polaris.




"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki