Comments on: Can you trust the science? Global environmental challenges Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:14:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Sc0tt Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:11:55 +0000 @iborrow
No need to go to Mars. Just look at Venus. Why is Venus warmer than Mercury?

By: Jarlent Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:46:19 +0000 iborrow. There probably isn’t coal on Mars, unless Mars used to have thriving eco-systems.

By: jborrow Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:40:31 +0000 there is one way to prove climate warming is CAUSED by 20th century industrial technique based on carbon buring: ‘go ape’ with carbon burning on mars and see if that significantly heats up mars’ atmosphere! this could be done robotically after finding a large enough coal deposit on mars (which can also be done robotically). in the mean time, we just do nothing differently here. after a sufficient amount of time, just compare results. (of course, it might be too late for humans at that point, but i’m sure the cockroaches will appreciate the data whenever they’re able to decipher them!)

By: NobleKin Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:30:01 +0000 Trust? Don’t trust? Believe? Don’t believe?

Political football is a lively game for science, isn’t it?

CO2 is one molecule, what about methane and any number of other potentially damaging molecules and compounds lurking in our midst wreaking havoc on our climate?

“That science stuff is just a bunch of elitist academics who believe they know more than the rest of us don’tchaknow.” (thanks Sarah!)

What is known is that the world is warming, glaciers are waning at far quicker than expected rates in almost every corner of the globe. Sea levels are rising with the probability of drowning coastal cities if trends continue. Entire eco systems like the Great Barrier Reef are in decline.

What is also known is that man’s impact on the world has never been greater. 500 years ago man was not the predominant species on the planet, today man holds dominion over the land, seas and skies, and can wipe out entire species at will. Pollution in the form of toxic compounds not found in nature can be seen floating in a massive slurry the size of Texas in the Pacific Ocean.

Should we turn a blind eye to the propogation of unmonitored factories and mass production of machines that spew compounds into the air and water capable of genetic mutations across species and catastrophic impacts to whole eco systems? Should we say to hell with caring about the consequences, known or unknown, about anything we do so long as we can create economic growth and prosperity today?

Whether by design or evolutionary happenstance we find ourselves as the stewards of this planet and our capacity to understand our potential (and real) impact has never been greater. It is our collective obligation to do all we can to pay attention and regulate when and where necessary.

If the anti-man-made-global-warming advocates win the public opion war, what then? To what end for the next call to action, especially if they are wrong? Given the likely scale, we won’t have much of a window of opportunity to reverse course or slow our activities if mankind is to blame; but then, politically speaking, who cares about the consequences for tomorrow? That would then be someone elses problem…or perhaps the intended design…

Frighteningly, many of my counterparts to the far right end of the political spectrum hold firmly to a notion that God’s plan is to end the world in fire some time in the not too distant future anyway, so what we do today, for good or evil, matters not. Religious fatalism, ecologic indifference, and unapologetic greed make for a fine combination for our collective earth bound futures.

Let’s call this current shift the Black Earth Movement, and if you are in favor, vote Republican, make all science illegal, and convert to a young-earth, no-evolution promoting religion as quickly as possible.

By: folson805 Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:15:29 +0000 @ScOtt
Your response is so typical of the difficulties presented by those who argue in favor of immediate political/economic solutions to the supposed AGW. A collection of “if’s” presented as the known future reality. It sounds very scarey to think of a BILLION people out of water as a result of AGW. Is this Nostradamus-like beating of the drums science? None of us can say, with any degree of certainty, what the future state of the planet will be; certainly not wrt global climate.

I’m in favor of a mindful energy policy, just not this forced, global solution, engineered by folks with questionable agendas.

By: Sc0tt Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:43:57 +0000 @midwestguy
You conclusions are highly dubious at best. Indeed why wouldn’t we just move inland LOL. Unless you’re on a small island nation, where are you going to go? Or when the glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau, which are retreating at an accelerated rate, stop feeding melt water to major rivers in Asia and a BILLION people don’t have water, where do you think they’re going to go? They ARE going to move, across political boundaries stressing and destabilizing entire regions and leading to eventual military conflict. I wonder why the Pentagon lists climate change as a global security threat? No biggy though right.

By: Sc0tt Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:37:36 +0000 @Curious2
Deforestation is a significant contribution to human emissions of CO2, but also soil degradation. More carbon is stored in the Earth’s soil than in all the trees on Earth. Soil carbon losses caused by agriculture account for a tenth of total CO2 emissions attributable to human activity since 1850.

This IS part of the discussion, but more on the deforestation side; unfortunately soil carbon sequestration has been a bit of a blind spot.

Look at the UN-REDD Programme. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation.

By: midwestguy Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:35:19 +0000 I find it very odd that both the pro and con statements above have glowing opinions of the IPCC. When I was working on my last graduate degree, we were always careful to include journals citing results from distant lands. Why on earth would anyone assume that countries don’t share data unless there’s an international interest group forcing them? Science does not include threats, payoffs, or political action commitees… that’s the opposite of science. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, science ends where force begins. If the data was so clear, why the bombast? I generally assume that when the opposing counsel is pounding the table, he has neither the facts nor the witnesses supporting his suit.

Additionally, why would anyone die? Wouldn’t we just move inland, change our lifestyles according to supply and demand and continue to make the small choices everyday according to our own personal best interests? I don’t understand why the image of people standing still as the water rises around their feet is so compelling.

Growing trees consume CO2. Rotting trees put it all back into the air. If we were serious about CO2, we’d clear-cut the earth and replant it all with slow-growing species.

By: Curious2 Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:29:55 +0000 Does anyone know how much global deforestation contributes to changing CO2 levels? If trees and other vegetation process and eliminate our CO2, and we are not replacing the earth’s capacity to process CO2, it would seem logical that this should be considered in discussion if the amount is significant.

By: LDB Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:22:57 +0000 In my many years on this earth I have come to firmly believe that ‘everything’ is about the almighty dollar and climate change is no different than the coffee crises, oil crises, Y2K, and the sub-prime mortgage debacle. It drives the economy to the loss of our own base income through increased taxation, increased pricing on everything, and decreased standard of living. I mean, we have enjoyed and prospered therefore, we must now pay the piper?

I, for one, am sick to death of hearing every negative occurrence on earth now blamed on climate change. When one looks back on history years from now, one will just cringe. We shall see how prosperous (medically, physically, mentally) we once were, and how we just had to put a kybosh on it all. Maybe this is what really happened to the great cultures of history!

The young and the special interest groups, those who are core at pushing this agenda (although they have no idea they are pawns in it), and the young who have no real experience in the history of mankind and what we are capable of in believing, pursuing, and destroying in the name of money, will only be satisfied when we are living in caves once again. They seem to romanticize about the past and how simple life was. This was not the case. Gathering wood before you can cook, hunting, fishing, growing foods et al is extremely hard work. And all that before you can even put a bite of food in your mouth. We are living longer and we can reap the fruits of the aged because they harbor more real knowledge – not the made up knowledge that is passed through the media and then scribed into magazines and books to become the ‘new history’. The majority of people in the Western world are baby boomers – over 45. We know and understand how mankind works. But, no one is listening.

We all know that wealth and power is shifting to the East and the climate change scheme is only quickening this agenda. Those in the East (Asia and Africa) are chomping at the bit to get the carbon credit going. They can continue to progress while we regress. They can surpass us at our expense. It seems that: the bigger the lie the more believable it is. Maybe this time you can get on the bandwagon and invest in the carbon trading commodity scheme – at least in the beginning, because it too will bring down the economy eventually.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. How many times has it been now?

Laurie in Canada

PS…for the record Canada emits 2% of the global output of carbon and the oil sands represents .5% of that. Wow! Let’s all freeze in the dark, get ill, and die early, leaving the young to repeat history over and over because the knowledgeable elderly are gone.