What is so bad about global warming?

I agree with some of, most of these points. It seems the main focus is of regulating and controlling businesses in a way that will grow federal budgetary and supervisory/regulatory machines. We have an obligation to care, but to what extent that care should be demonstrated....short of what many are proposing.

It all reminds me of those dirty little words I heard growing up. You guys remember. Don't look up. Wear a special raincoat. Don't eat snow......ACID RAIN!

cr3

Same old Arguments. We cannot create a perfect computer model....equates to it is not happening.

You said "I am very bothered by the propensity to tweak a system that is poorly understood ". The problem is that industry is doing more than "tweaking" it, they are hitting it with a sledge hammer. What environmentalists want is to slow down the bashing of the current environmental system. To not doing anything until we understand it, is to condemn the system by negligence.

Good or bad? Granted, in some areas, and overall, it may improve things, however, the human cost of it happening too fast is the shocking factor. Simply the raising of sea levels 1 meter will destroy lives of the majority of the population on the planet. The majority of the population lives in proximity of water. Sure some deserts may become habitable, while others will be created. We are talking about a complete upheaval of say 4 billion lives. To slow the process is only prudent.

You said "The debate should not focus on whether the climate is changing, but, rather, what investment of resources is most likely to improve the sustainability of our stewardship of Spaceship Earth"

Ditto.

It is unlikely we will trigger an Ice age by stopping global warming. It is becoming more evident that we won't even be able to stop or slow down the warming trend which in the Arctic is already out of control.

There is evidence that the ice ages were caused by planetary cloud cover; such as is the result of a meteorites and or massive volcanic activity that results in dust/ash in the stratosphere and blocks out the sun for long periods.

You miss the point. You say we should do nothing, but we are already doing to much to create the situation. To properly do nothing and let the environment settle, we should stop filling the environment with a chemical soup and pollution. You are arguing to let the polluters to go on destroying the planet. To do nothing is pure negligence.

cwarner7_11,

You make what is, to this layman, good points, that few who believe in good research could argue without respect. The reality as I see it, and as has been stated in other ways, is balance.

In the human body just a few tenths a variation in blood pH can kill. Less than 10 degrees body temp, lethal too. The thousands of mechanisms in place to maintain system homeostasis can be hard to conceive. This is true in any successful closed system. Eco, Bio, or Astro.

People often just don't seem to want to get it, and that is the point I wish to make.The pendulum MUST swing or we are a static system. Stagnation breeds disease and disease death.

If we look at the earth as one system and we as dependent upon that system, then we are parasitic. This is not a bad thing so long as it remains mutually beneficial. If we, the parasites, threaten the host then there are survival mechanism that the host system employs to sustain itself without regard to the parasite. So, we must recognize that we are the fleas on the dog and she's startin to scratch. We must also realize that that scratching can be mutually beneficial as well. Albeit difficult for the emotions in the short while, better for the species in the long while.

This statement is made from the ego driven point of human perspective. It is also difficult for many to think that we might not have all that much power. That we are just minutia in the Earths eyes.

I feel, you have made a very good point. That you have researched well and expressed the point you wished to quite clearly. So now let's go convince the Others!

cr3

However, the term, steady state (yes, I see that it was set off in quotation marks), is almost certainly not a valid premise for the conjecture you are trying to advance.

It would seem, rather, to be a form of "techno-ideation" likely to confound the thinking of those on either side of the argument...as to how the bigger picture can (might) be seen through a microscope...or looking through the wrong (or even the right) end of the telescope.

Said another way, "steady state" could be thought of as only a state of mind, having no--or, at best, very limited--scientifically (or metaphysically) irrefutable place....

It would seem, rather, to be a form of "techno-ideation" likely to confound the thinking of those on either side of the argument...as to how the bigger picture can (might) be seen through a microscope...or looking through the wrong (or even the right) end of the telescope.

Said another way, "steady state" could be thought of as only a state of mind, having no--or, at best, very limited--scientifically (or metaphysically) irrefutable place....

uhh...... what?

Certainly some confounding wording to be sure . . .

pw seems to get it.

There is no such thing as a 'steady state' as far as this planet is concerned. All indicators show either a rise or a reduction. What the environmentalists are worried about is the slope of the gradients. Atmospheric CO₂ levels, population and energy consumption per person are among the more prominent ones.

The only certainties in life are:

• change
• death
• taxation

And in the limit, global warming will bring about an end to taxation.

For a bit.

Specifically, we are facing a global water crisis and urbanization trends are posing other significant health challenges.

?? Don't you think Global Warming would seriously exacerbate these two...or maybe it's the cause?

I'm not expressing a personal view just pointing to a potentially gaping chasm in your post.

According to the UN report, global warming is likely to decrease aridity in the enterior of the continents. This should make more water available. I suspect urbanization is contributing to global warming, but have seen no studies pertaining to this. Urbanization distorts heat transfer, modifies natural water runoff, and exposes populations to faster spread of disease. However, I do not believe we can do anything to reduce this trend, short of what was attempted unsuccessfully in Cambodia a few years ago. I am not an advocate of such extreme solutions...

According to the UN report, global warming is likely to decrease aridity in the enterior of the continents.

Falls off chair... in dissbelief

So the increasing rate of desertification in sub Saharan Africa is due to the increase in water due to global warming?

Yeh and I keep my saucer milk in the oven to keep it cold.

I did not make that up. It is in the report (Chapter 6, "Paleoclimate"). It also appears in the next part of the report that I am studying, which is Chapter 9, "Atributions". I wish I had the time to read the entire study...

I did not make that up.

I didn't imagine you did... some people (usually managers) forget 'Del's First Law of Stuff.'

1. What is written on paper doesn't necessarilly effect reality.

(This is usually applied to timescales...where changing the x axis units from months to weeks doesn't speed up a project!)

'Del's First Law of Stuff.'

1. What is written on paper doesn't necessarilly effect reality.

Ha, ha. That's great.

I took Ecology the first semester it was offered at my university in 1969. I still have my textbook and class notes. It is humorous now to look at the those dire predictions that have since been proven to be just so much malarky. But then, it was "the consensus" of the day.

Bill Morrow

Just a little ditty made up for the Kitty. Sung to the tune of "Howdy Doody Time" (I think its "Ta Ra Ra Boom Der Ray")

It's Global Warming Time

It's Global Warming Time

It's Global Warming time.

Lets give a rousing cheer,

'cause Global Warming's here..

The A/C's on all year

and it's still hot in here.

We've nothing ELSE to fear

Let's have another beer!

It has been so damn cold here this winter. It almost makes one wish that Global Warming was real and not just a Giant Fraud.

I don't know if any of you have ever heard of John Coleman. He used to be a TV Weatherman here in Chicago. I heard him on the radio yesterday talking about Global Warming and CO2. He basically said that Al Gore should be arrested and charged with fraud for selling Carbon Credits, when he clearly knows that Global Warming is a hoax.

Here is a site that link's to John Coleman's original comments about the Global Warming Hoax.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

Dick Hourigan
Visit
www.RichardHouriganInc.com

What is written on paper doesn't necessarilly effect reality.

Exactly! Thus the need to question (or at least not accept blindly) the technical details of the report. The original post in this thread makes some good points ("good" as in worthy of respectful debate by intelligent people). Even the best models used to predict global climate change contain hundreds of variables and assumptions about which we have varying degrees of certainty, so we should not accept it blindly just because political activists would like us to. I don't mean to imply that we should do nothing about global warming. But neither should we abandon healthy skepticism. I expect to get some nasty replies for daring to express doubt about the accuracy of the scientific model behind the report, but this should not deter skeptics from expressing their views.

I think you will find yourself among those with a healthy dose of skepticism. Not to say that we don't care, or we're reckless, but we feel like we need to know more.

The major causes of the water crisis are associated with clearcutting of forests, the worldwide population explosion and inability to distrubute the water. There is plenty of fresh water to fill the needs of the earths population. Problem is that it is often either underground (groundwater) or polluted. The wealthy nations can/do provide water (even in places like Dubai). The poorer nations are often controlled by politician that are amassing their own wealth and not looking out for the poor. Use of wells and/or water purification technology can provide needed water. The question is do we spend our money to joust at phantom problems like global warming or spend the money where we know it will do the most good.

Friend--

Regarding the availability of fresh water for the needs of the earth's population, I disagree with your comment:

There is plenty of fresh water to fill the needs of the earths population. Problem is that it is often either underground (groundwater) or polluted. The wealthy nations can/do provide water (even in places like Dubai). The poorer nations are often controlled by politician that are amassing their own wealth and not looking out for the poor. Use of wells and/or water purification technology can provide needed water.

I am a member of the American Waterworks Association (AWWA), and have kept up with much of what is happening although I no longer work in that field.

1. The recharge rate for water pumped out of the ground is much slower than the pumping rates in large areas of the USA, such as the coastal regions of Southern California (where salt water intrusion has been more than 20 miles inland), or the multi-state Ogalalla Aquifer underlying much of the western great plains. If you ask around, you probably will hear that deeper pumps are often required, or that artesian wells have stopped running, or intermittently underground streams are now dry, or coastal wells have become brackish.... Recharge of aquifers has been started in some areas, but there are risks with this approach, such as injecting pollution.

2. All too often, our urban population centers are not well located for water supplies. The movement of water from distant rivers or watersheds has brought about economic and social disruption or worse around the source areas and downstream from them, and is expensive. Look at Los Angeles as a case study, in relationship to the Mono Valley water wars of the late 1800's, or the loss of flow in the Colorado River to the Gulf of California and destruction of farming for the Mexican farmers there. That city and the various rivers supplying its water supply is far from a unique example. Look at what is currently shaping up to be a really nasty problem for Australia.

3. The AWWA has been hosting various training events looking at the future of water sources, because many water managers are having trouble balancing their projected needs for the next 10-20 years against known stream flows or sources.

4. The summertime flow on the Missouri river has dropped so low that water treatment plant intakes for Kansas City and other users' intakes in this area have needed lower intake openings and barge traffic has been halted. This is not cheap.

5. Water utilities in a number of states in the upper mid-west are looking for answers on where to find future supplies because the current ones are nearing full utilization and demand has been continuing to grow.

6. Around the world, glaciers and winter snow packs are both decreasing, with disappearance of all but a few glaciers predicted to occur before 2030. The effect of this will be to increase the early spring runoff. Often, precipitation will be rain instead of snow, and this rain will melt existing snow pack to cause heavier runoff and flooding. In the summer, there will be little or no snow to melt, so the streams and rivers will have a much lower flow. Therefore, the seasonal water flow in the rivers will be tending towards too much and then too little.

7. We can blame politicians for many things, but we elect them, so the finger that is pointing to them has at least three other fingers on its hand pointing to one's self. Building reservoirs to hold a half-year's water requirements is expensive. So is a 200 mile or 400 mile or even 800 mile aqueduct or pipe line. Our cities have existing water and wastewater distribution systems which are 30 to 100 years old (and in some areas much older). The cost to excavate and replace these aging infrastructures is high. Very few utility rate payers are willing to fork over this kind of money. At the present time, even though our taxes are lower than they have often been, most politicians get excoriated for suggesting a higher tax and those who propose tax cuts often are elected.

8. The desalination plants in Dubai and Western Australia and elsewhere are wonderful for their people, but they take energy to run. This energy has its own price tag, either in fossil fuel and greenhouse gases or in the political and social will to erect large windfarms and PV electric farms to supply these needs. What about the placement of our treatment plants and other facilities; how many of them may be threatened with future flooding or destruction from changes in our environment, and how much money can we pay for their protection or relocation?

9. What is "needed water"? Drinking and cooking, or do you include hygiene and laundry, or do you include the lawn and garden, or do you include the optimum pleasure of a multi-jet shower experience...? When some areas have had water shortages (think of San Francisco here, surrounded by water on three sides and drinking the runoff from 200 mile distant Yosemite National Park--its source of water), the city mandated reductions in water usage to as little as 1/4 of the average usage in a specific previous year, with surcharges on the water bill as high as hundreds of dollars if these reduced amounts were exceeded. People found all sorts of ways to reconsider what was "needed water".

10. Elsewhere, unfortunately, the USA has often supplied the political leader in the poorer nation with his military equipment and training, as well as political recognition and support. This has been done because of fear of a different political (or religious or social) system, or because of misplaced belief that a dictator is easier to deal with than a democracy, or the mistaken notion that the "enemy of our enemy is our friend". The movements and services which are best able to help the poorest people towards their own self-sufficiency are often prevented by regulation within the very laws we have passed that permit official aid or services. Giving freedom to people is "risky" because it increases their power and control, while it dilutes your own; inasmuch as the USA and many global corporations are the ones currently in power, they would be the ones to lose. Losing power and control is scary because we have to face the reality of how little power or control we actually have, and how much we need others. Our thinking is too imperial and too proud to be safe to such challenges.

"...plenty of fresh water...." Think again.

--John M.

I, too, work with water supplies, and years ago was quite familiar with the Oglalla and the Edwards (which I think is just the southern extension of the Oglalla). Even back in the 80's the problems were obvious. Urbanization causes more problems with water supply than just excessive consumption- it disrupts the natural runoff, and generally disrupts the watershed areas. I now work in a part of the world where supply should not be a problem, but distribution is. Even here, one client of mine, with a private water system consisting of six wells, had very good control over balancing the amount of water extracted with the recharge rate- until someone put a hydroelectric plant up the road. Immediately, the recharge rate decreased significantly- to the point where he must now consider alternative sources. An island community with which I am quite familiar has totally destroyed the aquifer by drilling too many private wells as the island was overdeveloped, and now all they get is salt water. Reverse osmosis generally costs four to eight times to produce potable water as traditional sources, but sometimes there is no alternative. Much of the extra cost is due to power consumption- i.e., more power generation required. Recently (well, within the past year, I believe) there was something in the news about the Imperial Valley in California losing out to Los Angeles in a court dispute over Colorado River water- agriculture loses to urban centers.

I come back to a program I suggested a little earlier- plant trees. Not only should that help with global warming, the trees will help retain water. And even if it is not a successful solution, it will at least make the world a bit more pleasant as we slowly watch it decay...

Last weekend my son and I went underneath the Edwards - InnerSpace Caverns, Georgetown, Texas.

They showed us how the rock (which I immediately forgot the name of, as my 4year old son asked more important questions like; what's that smell. And, can we play hide and seek in here?) that makes up the majority of the aquifer. A rock which you can pour a twelve ounce glass of water on and it will absorb it right up; like a very hard sponge. It also holds light, albeit very briefly.

cr3

Well if you recall back in the 70's the leading scientists of the day told us that we were headed for the next ice age. Fammine plagues, pestinance, disruprion of the world economy, etc were all immenant. Much like they are saying today with global warming. The main reason for this was that we had seen unusually cool weather in the 60's and 70's, hence the new ice age was upon us.

Now we are seeing warmer weather and its global warming.

I'm not convinced its either. If you look at sunspot activity, that is almost directly proportional to the overall global mean temperature. Low sunspot activity in the 60's and 70's led to cooler weather, more in the 80's and 90's led to warmer weather.

I don't think anyone understands global climate well enough to make any decisions on what should or should not be done. Sure we should use less coal and oil, but is this really having an effect on the overall climate? I remain unconvinced.

A very simple solution that poses little threat to inducing an ice age or exacerbating global warming is plant trees. Even if that does no good from a climate standpoint, at least it improves the environment...

Agreed. That would also improve the soil and reduce runoff of groundwater, etc. Some logging companies do this, because it also provides for the company out in the future. One way to speed this process would be to require the logging companies to plant forests of Leucaena trees (especially in the tropical and semi-tropical areas). These trees grow very rapidly and a sustainable forest could improve the soil holding capability for groundwater while simultaneously providing firewood, as well as shade for other trees that require shade conditions for growth..

Planting trees is one of my pet themes, but not pulling them up is even better.

For some reason I'm reminded of my wife's argument about 'organic' food. It is in fact just food, just like our ancestors evolved to eat. It's that which comes out of factories which isn't.

We live in a closed environment. With tests on animals in a closed environment something sooner or later decimated the population. What they ask is for us to worry about something that they in the scientific community can't agree upon. With short term data on a planet billions of years old. Over that billion years many species have learned to adapt to the changes or go extinct. Well time will present mankind with some kind of catastrophe that he will have to over come. Whether it self imposed or not we will see. When you can get all the scientist to agree that doomsday is around the corner if we don't do some then let me know.

Yup, once the sun goes cold were done for anyway!

Statistically we're overdue another ice age too.... and when the next big asteroid hits...and isn't some great chunk of an island going to drop off and send a HUGE tsunami right around the world?

I hope it doesn't interfere with my golf...

I suggest you try playing golf in El Paso, Texas- they have a golf course very unlikely to be affected by a tsunami or sea level changes, although the thinner air does have an impact on the aerodynamics of the golf ball.

I too, hope that it does not interfere with your golf Del, del Gato. However, I do hope that it interferes with mine. I hope that it interferes about 20 strokes off!

Golf joke...

Woman can't get her new husband off the golf course..he won't tke any notice of her.....So to get his attention she say.

'Honey did you know I'm a hooker?'

So he says..

'Oh... if you just turn your grip a little and try to swing a bit more upright.....'

Hi to all,

I agree to most statements,

first: we do not know what and how to change,

second: we will not have success as some of the bigger states will do nothing,

third: some facts are missing in the general discussion:

I know only the following:

Ice ages did not exist from 20 to 1.2 million years ago: why, my opinion is ,

geologic reconnection of the Americas started the ice ages again, and

drying out of the mediterranean sea at times when the strait of Gibraltar was closed (by plate tectonic movements)provided a gigantic heat trap, but at that time the sea level was down around 100m!

Wake uo political people: in any complicated system an input can provoke a change that is opposite to the expected outcome.

The minor changes, cusing only the iceages to fluctuate and the well documented climatic changes since the end of the last iceage tell us a story that natural changes are much bigger that what we expect in tne next 100 years from human interaction.

What we need is preparing for the maybe rising sealevel - not trying to avoid it, wasting much effort and gaining nothing.

What we need is to provide pure water to almost everybody - technically not a problem but politically not pushed.

What we need is to begin to think about possibilities to limit the growth of human population - else we will wipe out most other natural system and then be wiped out by the no longer existing parts of nature.

I would not like a global crisis - similar to the potato-pest of 1845 in Ireland - but on a much bigger scale wipe out 30 or so % of the human population of earth simply as we are not prepared to really imminent dangers.

Political people concentrate on topics where they think to get merited by people and voters, not on topics that are really necessary for human well being and survival and long term prospering.

RHABE

I agree strongly with your post. Whenever activists/alarmists rant and rave about "global warming" or any other "fear-based topic" I always ask myself what is driving the persons agenda. Given the points made in your post, I think either these people have too much time on their hands or dont really have a clue about the scale of the science involvedin what they are "projecting".

I agree that we just don't know for sure if global warming is occuring or harmful. But if it is occuring or harmful, what part of the cure is harmful or something we shouldn't do otherwise? We have to reduce our use of fossil fuels eventually, why not now?

LG_Dave,

I don't think anyone disagrees. But for my hierarchy of substantial global calamities this is not number 1. Nor number 2. In fact gobal warming is not a concern of mine AT ALL!

Global responsibility? Ah, now we have semantics that I will not wrestle. Food, pollution, exploitation of resources, profiteering at a human cost. These things I care about.

Global warming in the arena it is now in, becomes yet another issue where we find industrial (capitalist) reponsibility being mandated as a big business vs political machine type of battle. This in my opinion is a fox at the henhouse resolve that hopes to gain merit as a social cause when in fact it has little.

Simply stated; So what if the earth is getting warmer. Everyone agrees there have been ice ages in the past. Why in the hell is it so alarming that there is warming again?

It is all just so common sense to me. If I smoke it is bad for me. If I bathe in Varsol it is bad for me. If I gargle with mercury it is bad for me. Eventually I will die or at least become quite ill. Ill to the point that it affects even my offspring. If we accept the earth and the ecosystem that is Earth as a living thing, then why would the same not be true here?

Money. Power. Control. More and more. If we are going to fight what the media calls Global Warming, an argumentative and unagreeable statement, then why in the hell can we not argue for global reponsibility and remove the semantics!?

Harumph!

cr3

C_Rummel3,

Unfortunately, the facts alone have not been enough to convince the world that we need to change our habits. If the spectre of global warming is what it takes, we are lucky that something worked.

Agreed. Something is better than nothing.

For starters, it's ruining my ski season in these parts.

Seriously, I agree with many of the reasoned thoughts and arguements. I too agree that sometimes there are people who think they understand something that is much more complex than they ever imagined or admitted. The earth is such a complex system, that simply extrapolating limited results over our limited knowledge of the earth's history is fraught with pitfalls.

Conserving our resources is a noble cause. Doing it with a 2x4 to our collective heads is not. In many cases, these agendas are more about social engineering than it is about the environment. The Kyoto Accord is simply a thinly-veiled excuse for international welfare or forced redistribution of wealth. Thank goodness our policy makers saw it for what it was and didn't simply follow along like so many other sheep.

For other activists, their goal is clearly to reverse the progress of civilization and return us to the horse and buggy. I know not their motivation. Maybe longing for the illusion that it was a simpler and better time? Simpler, yes, better, no.

I personally don't see anything wrong with global warming now that winter is settling in over the northern hemisphere. Unpleasant cold weather and high heating fuel bills should cause people to welcome global warming. Nevertheless, anybody who says that human activity is causing global warming is also implying that human activity can cause global cooling. It is much easier to bring about global cooling than to warm the Earth, but the global warming alarmists ignore that approach. The global warming hysteria sounds like a scam because those people claim that human-produced carbon dioxide is the cause. Their solution is to take money from some people (us) and to give that money to other people (them) in the form of energy credits. Furthermore, their idea to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to reduce the percentage of carbon emissions in relation to total energy production. In their way of thinking, energy produced by solar or wind devices will somehow cancel any increase in carbon produced by burning fossil fuels. By shifting their focus to carbon emissions as a percentage of total energy production instead of carbon quantity, they avoid any cap on the earnings potential of emission credit trading.

If this is correct, then one way to stop the global warming debate would be to strictly limit the profits made by any company developing alternative energy technologies. After a set time, say 10 years, all profits would be taxed at 100% and the monies put in a fund for other social projects. Unfortunately, this approaches another governmental system model of which many are suspicious .

The good thing about global warming is that acid rain has gone away - from popular perception, that is. When was the last time there was an acid rain issue on 'News at Ten'?

It's funny how the media controls your thoughts.

Just to dispel a few myths:

• The acid rain problem still exists and will continue to exist as long as there is pollution. Just because it is old news does not mean it went away.
• The Hole in the Ozone still gets bigger every year, and disappears in winter. Just because the last media report said it was healing itself (reported in the fall) does not mean it heals itself.

It's funny how the media controls your thoughts.

Acid rain does exist. What have been the effects? Certainly not the doom we were fed by the MEDIA back in the '70s. I lived through that in the northeast U.S. where we were supposed to get the worst of it. Lakes and wildlife were not killed off like so many dire predictions.

If you want to see the forecasts for the ozone layer I suggest you click on this:

http://esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/2002/qandas20.pdf

Well the forcasts are wrong as usual

Acid rain

http://www.sprol.com/?s=acid+rain

Check out the historical maps of the ozone holes. The holes are seasonal but the total area of the hole has been getting bigger every year

see http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2006.htm

The first site does not seem to be one that is objective in any of its content. 'Nuf said.

As for the second site, the data is inconclusive at best. But that's OK, they've already banned the biggest dangers to atmospheric ozone.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

OK

On another note, have you noticed the sliding UV scale from the weather networks?

A few years ago a '7' was extreme and the top of the UV scale. Now I see scales that go up to 10 or 14. We occasionally get readings of 9. A '7' now is only high or moderate depending on the station.

<It's funny how the media controls your thoughts.>

Quite. The signal-to-noise ratio is very poor.

First off, you cannot legislate mass social conscience. You CAN affect energy use and source of supply through economic controls, but those same pundits who dictate those controls, profit from them. Could there be some conflict in motives and goals here?

So I guess I look at my own behavior and I don't like what I see. There are two people in the household, there are still three vehicles on the property even after the wife took the 07 MX-5 for a short trip into the piney woods. I have changed all my old bulbs to the new kind but from where I am sitting I see five on when I only need one.

I bought the pickup truck with the big engine to pull the boat. Why should I not have a pickup to pull my boat? What difference is ONE pickup truck going to make in East Texas, nay, the world? I mean, we use centralized coal fired power production with an end use efficiency of less that 15 percent! Hey, the prime mover in my truck is probably more efficient than that! If I pulled my truck with some feel good electrically powered vehicle, my carbon imprint would be greater than pulling it with my old fashioned red neck reciprocating internal combustion engine.

Who am I to ask some poor subsistence farmer not to slash and burn the forest? What NERVE for me to suggest that we force changes on others when we live the life of comfort and ease based on our piggish use of energy.

How many of the green folks have solar assisted hot water heaters? Thats a CHOICE they can't blame on the energy suppliers. How many green folks drive regenerative capable vehicles, or use mass transit? Those are choices.

There is much to much advocacy for changing THE OTHER guys lifestyle.

The knock we are going to get up side the head ain't gonna come from the blind side. The Great Architect has shown us our folly and the correct path. Our excuse cannot be the claim of collective ignorance. The price we will be paying is simply a result of conscious and irresponsible CHOICES. The ones WE make EVERY moment of OUR existence.

Gavilan

"First off, you cannot legislate mass social conscience. You CAN affect energy use and source of supply through economic controls, but those same pundits who dictate those controls, profit from them. Could there be some conflict in motives and goals here?"

What are the present economic policies promoting? Who's benefiting?

We can all look @ our own usage habits.

I'll blather on about the reason some poor subsistence farmer slashes and burns the forest. He can't do anything to make money, except plant monoculture crops & petrouluem based fertilizer,gmo's.....

The tax code promotes the present state of affairs, cargill & adm controlling world wide agriculture, financed with the farm subsidies, which are perpetuated w/the lobbyists they pay for.

Ecellent analysis- WE have to make the choices. I have not owned an automobile since about 1994- when I cannot walk to my destination, I utilize public transport (this choice was made not because I am consciencious about energy consumption, but because I happen to like walking, and I hate driving in traffic). I live in the tropics, but without air conditioning- because the building has been properly sited and constructed to take advantage of natural convection (no, I did not build it- I selected it from what was available. This choice was made not out of concern over the impact on the environmetn, but because I do not like the stale air of an air conditioned space). I use about 10% of the electricity of my neighbor in the same situation (based on a comparison of electric bills), in spite of the fact that I have three computers running nearly constantly, a lathe and air compressor in my living room that get used intermittently, and a TV for the wife. About the only real concession I make specificly related to energy consumption rather than lifestyle choices, is that we use flourescent lighting exclusively. I do not advocate that others live as I do, because I know that others have different priorities and different criteria for defining comfort.

The point I am trying to make is that we do have the ability to make choices that do matter, in spite of what the politicians or industrial barrons would like to force upon us. The subsistance farmer is not blessed with this level of choice, and is not likely to be using a lot of ertilizer and insectacides in his operation. We have no right to dictate how others should live. We have only control over how we chose to live.

Excellent post ... although I wouldn't swap a Tv for my Wife ? ( )

Lissen Dumbos- global warming is 0.8 deg C- WOW- Al Gore has been rewarded for his millions of $ in earnings by a shared Nobel prize- Yes enhanced greenhouse gas effect is utter B-sh-t- the whole tragedy is that WE THE HUMAN RACE don,t unite to recognise the TRUTH from the Bull-sh-t!( Fu-k you, I,m alright!) And NO, I am not paid by BIG OIL!!!.

wow.