Climate Change: Take Action or Not?

That was an interesting video. However, he did over simplify his case and miss one important point.

The top left box is for "A" = "we do something dramatic" and "False" = "climate change is not caused by man". Then he lists the consequences as cost and global depression. First, I think a global depression is a bit more dire than his one line description. But aside from that, if we are NOT the cause of global warming (the "False" row), and the current rate of climate change continues (because we may not be able to change it), then we not only get the global depression we create (column "A"), but we also get all the catatrophies listed in the bottom right column. If the ice caps melt and the oceans rise and we have terrible droughts and famines ... and we are NEITHER the cause NOR the solution (remember he said worst case)... then it is not a pretty picture.

In my humble estimation, the worst case scenarios for the top left and the bottom right squares are actually the same end result. Global collapse.

Before you blast me, I do want to say that I think reducing emissions is a good goal for ALL countries (including China and India). I like clean air and water as much as the next guy. However, I am not moved by Al Gore's video which a British judge (and a number of scientists including global warming specialists) found to be a bit less than truthful. We need a measured approach to make our world cleaner. Rather than throwing all of our money at adding tons of regulations on existing energy processes, lets throw some of that money at developing some new technologies. Just be careful to not legislate timelines for breakthroughs. As an engineer I realize how hard it is to tell management what exact day I will develop the solution to a problem.

You mention Al's movie not being truthful-"I am not moved by Al Gore's video which a British judge (and a number of scientists including global warming specialists) found to be a bit less than truthful." this is a classic statement that I constantly hear! Why is it that Anyone who mentions this statement never points to any point at all? As a result no one can measure or argue what the real truth is. They count on people not reading the complete statement. Out-of-context is in their tool box. It is done this way intentionally I believe, that's my humble opinion. I've seen the movie and it deals with facts, graphics, charts, dates timelines, etc…so if someone questions one or three of the facts he presents then just name them/it. It does have some minor errors that have nothing to do with the basic facts or the point of the film. Thank god for the internet. I mean Al.

Try questioning 9 of his major points.

Here is an article on the issue and I don't think ABC could be considered anti-Gore in the least.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3719791&page=1

The second page of the story lists the points that the judge ruled about the movie. Notice some are his opinions and some are based on other sources.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3719791&page=2

I credit Gore for trying to make a persuasive argument with his film. I just don't believe he was giving a balanced perspective of the issue.

In credit to the YouTube guy, he makes a persuasive argument, but he does leave out a few details and skews the data to his perspective.

As to specifics on Gore's movie, my favorite is that Katrina was a result of climate change. I am not trying to minimize Katrina, but the US has been hit by big hurricanes in the past and will be hit by big hurricanes again in the future. Wiki has some interesting info on thier Hurricane Camile page where they reference data for the top 10 hurricanes in strength in the Atlantic and at landfall (in the US): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Camile Only 1 was from this century.

My point is that just because an argument is based on some science doesn't mean that it is "the truth". (This especially applies to anything I say).

Sorry I am not as fast as you. This took me about 30 seconds to find (Here is the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu):

As low-lying islands lacking a surrounding shallow shelf, the island communities of Tuvalu are especially susceptible to changes in sea level and storm patterns that hit the island undissipated. It is estimated that a sea level rise of 20-40 centimetres (8-16 inches) in the next 100 years could make Tuvalu uninhabitable.^[2][3] The South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SPAGC) suggests that while Tuvalu is vulnerable to climate change, there are additional environmental problems such as population growth and poor coastal management that are affecting sustainable development on the island. The SPAGC ranks the country as extremely vulnerable using the Environmental Vulnerability Index.^[4] While some commentators have called for the relocation of the population of Tuvalu to Australia, New Zealand, or Kioa (Fiji), the former Prime Minister Maatia Toafa said his government did not regard rising sea levels as such a threat that the entire population would need to be evacuated.^[5][6] In spite of persistent internet rumours that New Zealand has agreed to accept an annual quota of 75 evacuees, the annual residence quota of 75 Tuvaluans under the Pacific Access Category (and 50 places for people from Kiribati) replaced the previous Work Schemes from the two countries and are not related to environmental concerns.

....

Like I said previously, I am not an expert on this stuff, but I am trying to hold everything up for analysis. Similar to the orignal YouTube video that was presented, I think we need to really look hard at the choices and the consequences.

Back to the original question of the thread, I think the worst case analysis for climate change (whether man made or natural) is a total global disaster and the video glossed over this fact in order to make a persuasive argument.

"I've seen the movie and it deals with facts, graphics, charts, dates timelines, etc…"

And what good are those "facts", "graphics", "charts", and "dates/timelines", if the base science behind them is flawed? The models they have been using are very inaccurate, and one must resort to ignoring Earths climate history in order to believe them.

Did you know for example, that the average Earth temperature rose some 15 degrees in less than 100 years, just about 60,0000 years ago? What were the humans doing back then?

Also, what is the "average" temperature of the Earth supposed to be? Is the temp-rise exceeding some optimum level, or just getting back to one after the last Ice Age?

No one can answer these basic and rudimentary questions, yet they have no problems in scaring people into buying $14 Mercury-powder light bulbs, which can kill your kids today, not 10 years from now. Do the science FIRST.

The UTube video was definitely an oversimplification and does not include all possible actions - (or consequences). Given this form of "logic", replace GCC with breast cancer and the solution a mastectomy with chemo and XRAY therapy and apply the decision matrix to a woman who discovers a lump - with no further tests allowed ie biopsy etc. (consensus you understand does not permit skepticism). The point I am trying to make is there are steps to take that reduce - or even eliminate the need to jump to extreme forms of action.

I suggest that instead of denying science its proper course ( informed skepticism) we allow the research to continue in an honest attempt to actually prove/disprove the existence of and impact ( if any) of anthropomorphic global warming, and 2 if global warming is a fact, whether we can discern its source or not, develop means to mitigate the adverse impacts and also deveop methods to take advantage of the benefits accrued from any global warming that may be occuring. The mitigation efforts can begin immediately while remediation methods applied once they are proven effective.

Of late, the mention of Global Warming and its implied source ( Oil companies/George Bush/USA/Americans/suv's in particular) and dire consequences (Manhattan under 20 feet of water and no polar bears etc) has some people wondering if it could really be true - and they are looking deeper than the movies and looking at facts instead of reacting to hyperbole. As a result I believe the voice of caution is beginning to be heard more and more - even the media has begun to question if the main proponents of anthropomorphic global warming are not using the forum for other means - or are at least disengenous in their demands for the public to act. I am really frustrated to learn that a lot of the information we are getting from the media and the environmental "scientists " contains way too much hyperbole and not enough fact. The outright fraud perpetrated by skewed graphs, doctored photos of stranded, soon to drown polar bears (actually frolicking on an ice flow) is beginning to wear on the claims made by the global alarmists. As time goes on their pronunciations of impending disaster are proving to have been a bit premature (if not totally inaccurate) and the thinness of their supporting data is beginning to erode. Some public figures espousing the anthropomorphic warming theory as fact and demanding extreme measures be implemented to counter same have admitted to using hyperbole as a means to "raise awareness". This was even more troubling - until it becomes evident that the raised awareness is beginning to cause the the more discerning among us to do some research on their own and as a result to doubt the credibility of the claims made by the global alarmists.

The made-for-TV videos and movies and their dire pronouncements are not "science" - anyone who cares to look beyond the glib and smooth delivery will notice that a lot of the props are just that - tricks, and illusions, half truths and conjecture based on extremes.

For some IN CONTEXT review and debunking of the "Inconvenient Truth" try

http://cei.org/pages/ait_response.cfm

and if you find that at all compelling then you might actually look at the science on your own - without an interpretive video to gloss over the hard parts,

http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

and for you consensus buffs, try

http://oism.org/pproject/

If you care to respond to this I urge you to stick to the facts at hand - attacking an author because he may be gay (Bjorn Lomborg for example) - or that a particular researcher works for an institute that receives funding from an oil company may be true but has little or nothing to do with (Lomborgs) mastery of the statistical sciences or the accuracy of a researchers data.

When you hear an opinion counter to your own it is appropriate to consider the source, when you hear a fact that disputes your understanding you should consider (examine) the data.

In my humble estimation, the worst case scenarios for the top left and the bottom right squares are actually the same end result. Global collapse.

I suspect that "cleaning up" emissions of CO2 (and methane) could be a phenomenally large business, leading (as it has in the auto industry) to economic growth, not depression. In fact, I can't imagine how the required re-engineering of everything we do and produce cannot cause economic growth. Although the US auto industry has greeted emission and safety legislation with whining, kicking and screaming, cars have thousands of dollars more content than before the legislation. Those car companies that adapt well and embrace change (notably Toyota and Honda) have trounced the foot-dragging US automakers in the marketplace.

So I cannot imagine economic collapse as a result of taking action. Large costs mean lots of business. I can imagine catastrophes as a result of failing to take action.

I don't dispute that American car companies have rested too long on their laurels. Four years ago I sold my small pickup and bought a Honda because it gets around 30 mpg on the highway.

Also, I don't oppose re-engineering things. But having worked in industry, I don't like government dictating a timeline for the next great breakthrough. I can agree to increases in the CAFE standards to a point because they are generally incremental and push towards improving existing technology rather than pushing for NEW technology. I don't like lawmakers legislating WHICH breakthroughs have to occur and exactly WHEN they have to occur. Targets are acceptable as long as they are not tied to huge penalties and fines. If you want true breakthroughs, you have to be patient.

Lastly, I didn't suggest the global economic failure. That was the guy in the YouTube video. I am just saying that if the change is truly there (Column "A") and we can't control it (Row "FALSE") then all the catastrophies listed in the bottom right will happen no matter how much money we throw at it.

I am only pointing out an omission in the argument. I am not suggesting that change is unnecessary.

Excellent reply Ken, I couldn't agree with you more. After some retooling and other costs, pollution prevention and other eco-remedies tend to be cost effective and profitable. I can hardly wait to see how carbon trading goes once things are straightened out in the next international agreement beyond Kyoto.

I thought the video had a good perspective but I think he confused the issue of Global Warming yes/no and caused by Humans yes/no. From a geological historic perspective the world is at a near low in average temperature and a near low for the ocean levels. So from a geological perspective we have only one way to go, up, in temperature and in ocean levels. So the real question is how fast. That is where human activity comes in. The temperature and ocean levels are rising and human activity is making it happen faster. An overwhelming majority of scientists agree on this in a similar way that most scientists agree that smoking causes cancer. Do we want to bet that the majority of the scientific community is wrong? The result is it will give us only our or our kid's lifetimes to adjust, instead of geological time. Some argue we can't be causing global warming because we don't produce enough greenhouse gases relative to the natural cycles. But its not that humans produce an huge relative absolute volume of green house gases, it is because we produce enough to upset the natural balance. So from the You Tube video we're on the bottom row. That makes the question do we want to slow down the global warming to give us time to adjust or not? Is it already too late?

You stated: "From a geological historic perspective the world is at a near low in average temperature and a near low for the ocean levels."

Everything I have seen has disputed that fact. In fact from roundabout 1600-1800 the temperature was much cooler as we experienced the "Little Ice Age". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

"But its not that humans produce an huge relative absolute volume of green house gases, it is because we produce enough to upset the natural balance. So from the You Tube video we're on the bottom row." -- Where is the evidence that WE are shifting the balance enough to cause the catastrophic results everyone fears?

So that puts us back in column "A" (climate change is happening). So the worst case still remains that we can't affect it significantly and we will face floods, famine, etc. I am just following the logic put out by the YouTube video. The original post asked for comments on the video and that is all I am trying to do.

I did say "near low" not the low. I am also talking geological time, meaning 10,000's to millions of years. Basically we are coming out of an ice age. The little ice age was a little blip in rising temperature since the last "big" ice age. This really became obvious to me when I saw it all laid out at a great natural history museum in Albuquerque New Mexico. If anyone is ever in Albuquerque I highly recommend you go to this museum just on the outskirts of Old Town, the displays are terrific.

As for the human impact I've come to that conclusion for myself from many sources which I can't reproduce here but I suggest you start by looking at the wikipedia entry on the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

I hope we're in column A (people are taking action) and I hope we aren't too late and we can do something to reverse the or at least slow down the global warming trends.

I understand your point on the historic temperature scale now. Sorry for the confusion.

My point on the YouTube video is actually supported by the Wiki page:

Selected quotes from the WGI Summary for Policymakers

• "Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere."

If we are already at the point that it will take us a millennium to clean up what is there, and we can expect all the catastrophies (floods, famine, etc.) to begin in the next hundred years, should we also limit ourselves NOW by forcing costly regulations on everyone that won't change the outcome? In a simpler form, if I have driven my car over a cliff ALREADY, why should I quit smoking on the way down?

Now understand that I am not as fatalistic as that question may seem and I don't smoke. I just see some of the current predictions as a bit over the top and intended only to scare people into doing the right thing. I agree we should conserve energy and resources, develop new energy sources, and do our part to keep the environment clean. I just disagree with the rapidity with which some people suggest it be implemented. Usually the solutions you throw together overnight cause many unintended consequences down the road. For example, if we all changed to electric cars tomorrow (ignoring the inability of the electric grid to keep up and the fact that people need cars where electricity is not available) what will we do with the billions of dead batteries in about 7-10 years? I just advocate thinking things through and at least TRYING to foresee some of the consequences of our decisions rather than blindly charging ahead.

Nate you are right on!

Add the Ethanol debacle to your list of "solutions" with unintended consequences - mores the pity: it (ethanol) fails to accomplish what it was intended for in the first place (conserve fuel).

The dichotomy in environmental activism is plainly evident here - we cannot build or even modify a facility without extensive environmental impact assessment and often projects are cancelled because fo the possibility of "harm" or the exhaustive studies required drive the project out of budget. Then along comes this supposed solution to fossil fuel use and with no forethought or planning or any analysis whatever apparently, we have governments falling over themselves subsidising ethanol plants to please the "green" factions among their (financial) supporters - result - more energy is consumed in the processing and people in third world countries are going hungry. Net gain, negligible.

Thankyou Environmental Scientists - now tell us what to do with our CO2 please. (Did I fail to mention that we only produce 4-6% of the total global production - the rest is "natural" and varies depending on the number of volcanoes and subsea vents that erupt constantly etc- and therefore does not contribute to "global warming").

I'm baling from this thread - too few facts are being stretched to the limits of credibility - applying OCCAMS razor leads me to believe it is a straw-man: trying to disguise a certain factions hatred for anything oil with fearmongering supported by distorted data and emotional appeal for "less pollution" has me cross-eyed. I wish they would come up with a new argument or scientific fact (as opposed to an "elected fact" i.e.: consensus).

Hi Irving,

I would prefer the term of climate change instead of global warming. With so much noise in the information that hit us is hard to say which direction is taking our climate. What is for sure is a significant increased incidence of extreme weather. As long as our forecasts are false and contradicting from one TV channel to another, it means that our knowledge of Nature is insufficient and inconsistent.

The basic subject here is: Climate Change: Take Action or Not?

The principle of Second Law of Thermodynamics has brought the concept of ENTROPY. A major school of thought in science appreciates and accepts that "entropy" and "time" are positive (increasing, not reducing). This theory leads us to (what is called) the heat death of the universe!

A weight falls from a higher level to lower level; people grow old; iron rusts; rocks weather and crumble; the river starts at the hill top and flows down to sea ... It does not happen the other way. Could we imagine a man/ woman traversing backward in space and time, from the ripe old age of 90 back into the mother's womb?

Thus, that there is a "finite" existence for everything in the universe is known and accepted. But human beings have the "brain power' to modify - either way. Which way it has to finally be directed is based on the civilizational outlook of the peoples of the world. This reminds the writer to ponder over what David Attenborough had concluded in his book: The Living Planet:

"As far as we can tell, our planet is the only place in all the black immensities of the universe where life exists. We are alone in space. And the continued existence of life rests in our hands"

CONGRATULATIOS HOTTECH:

I HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATING SAME THOUGHTS -IN MY OWN WAY, AS FOLLOWS- AND I HAD REPLIES COMPLAINING THAT I MUST STOP DOING THIS AS PROPAGANDA.

Hope every body to be as responsable a you a me. saludos.

----- Original Message ----- From: J.M.Jimenez To: senator@feinstein.senate.gov ; flabastidao@senado.gob.mx Cc: consultaciudadana@presidencia.gob.mx ; Dr. Juan Mata Sandoval Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:41 AM Subject: Fw: Senator be aware of more CLIMATE CHANGE TRUE FACTS and act accordingly.
Good Morning Senators: Please take a reading to following conversations with some collegues on the Engineers-Blog -http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/11436?frmtrk=cr4sd#newcomments- Think it over, it may be of some help to all of as. regards.

HOLA John Miuller: Thanks for replying my comment on global warming, with a master piece of information supporting your sound green house effect, but detracting the real impact -too- of waisted heat effect acumulated from the same petroburning or petromania.

From other commenter -Masu- It calls my attention where he calculates, that an AREA roughly 390 km by 390 km of electro-solar panels should be installed "at a catastrofic cost" to catch enough solar energy to convert it into electricity -due to present low 25% efficiency of such technology-

However -do to present climates unbalance- I guess that catastrofes -happening every day around world- all ready are closing what he preffers not to expend in electro-solar panels technology for homes and industry, to stop using and paying the power from present thermoelectrical plants -that work with petrofuels at a similar efficiency-

I hi-lighted the word AREA, because it recalls me -besides- another fact influencing global warming -not taken in account usually, except in my research report- and It is the widespread roads and streets paving -over a millon of Km2 with BITUMEN- a black charcoal wich acts like a real heater -by catching 5Kw/m2/day of IR solar energy-adding overwarming in towns air too -as much as +5ºC at noon- and should be prohibited world wide too -as well as the exposed bitumen coats to protect roofs from wetting-. Such surfacings must be clear -white on paving and aluminized on roofs-

If you think it is pinuts, too, please step nude on it to confirm that your egg breakfast can be cooked too; or open you car-window -right above such black carpeting- while wait for the green light, then you tell me.

Belive it or not, that is another forgoten FACT on global warming debates.

But at the very end, we engineers all believe that it is due to burning huge amounts of petrofuels -nat-gas and carbon- instead of using petroleum just to make value added petroquemicals and polymers but not to burn it.

He, he, he,,,,, it looks like a fiction movie, but we must do that sunner than later. Eonomy will be better of citizens except for pertrobussnes. America`s empire will fall if it keeps petrolized. It will last no longer.

Do`nt blame the sun for such hipotetic green house effect -which have been there forever- it is unharmfull. and sun energy realy is our salvation for XXI century. We do not have the button control to put the sun off -or tune it accordingly- however we do have the button to put our gas water heater off as well as our gasoline car, our gas range, our cloth drier, our gas barbecue, and so on, and replace them with a solar or electric counterparts.

I hope we all together do some thing in our favor, to spread this all over, and to convince our friends our politicians and Presidents to make an stop, rethink what is wrong, and correct it rapidly and stop burnig fuels.

We engineers must leave debates behind, instead of doing just warnings, now it is time to act contributing with feasible projects to stop global overwarming.

My contribution: I designed a proben 220Lts solar water heater (pend.pat), that mass produced could be on sale around US$300 -to replace gas boilers, but at similar prices to reach popular homes too- Project is stacked do to lack of funds.

Saludos. Cheers.

jm jimenez, Senior Chem. Eng, MS from UMass.

zapopan, jal, mexico.

from: jm_jimenez@prodigy.net.mx To: vice_president@whitehouse.gov Cc: comments@whitehouse.gov Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 12:09 AM Subject: Mr CHENEY be aware of CLIMATE CHANGE TRUE FACTS GLOBAL WARMING DUE TO GREEN HOUSE EFFECT IT IS A TRICKY SENTENCE THAT PETRO-MEN WANT US TO BELIVE IN, TO CONFUSE EVERY BODY

- IT IS A CRAISY IDEAS like to send satelite MIRRORS to BLIND AND REDUCE incoming solar energy, or to pipe CO2 to space, or to send CO2 down the oceans to make soda sea water, and all these to avoid climate change -due to a mitic green house effect-.... Sun has never been harmfull to Earth....... Sun Radiation is in a perfect Thermal Equilibrium with Earth ever since....by mileniums........... we Humans are the danger to the planet.

REAL CAUSES of global warming:

Real causes are down here, where HUGE amounts of waisted heat from more than 7.5 billions tons of hot gases -per year- are generated while burning fuels -from our motor vehicles, water heaters, boilers, thermoelectric generators, driers, ranges, ovens, etc-. We dont have to be scientist to understand a math equation, which evidence that the problem results from the extra added heat -we humans put in to atmosphere-:

IR sun energy + extra waisted heat from burning fuels = atmosphere overheating

= more evaporation = denser clouds = flooding storms = polar deice = actual kaoz

- Do you know what happens now that petroleum XX century is gone ......very simple.....the depleted AND EXPENSIVE petroleum will go down to 1 dollar per barrel and petroleum industry will crack....... once in XXI century we replace all fuels-WITH CLEAN NATURAL SOLAR ENERGY?- that is free, so peaple can save money to buy many thing else -as a an electric car -and so on----- politically impossible?....IT SEEM LIKE FICTION MOVIE….....but remember that sun is not a problem -it is the solution-

TWO SOLUTIONS:

1. Urge to replace all combustion devices, equipments and engines -WITH SOLAR AND ELECTRIC POWERED ONES-.

2. As well as urgent is to reforest the world with billions of trees – they are magic factories that will clean air from CO2, by:

Sucking CO2 + Absorbing solar UV and solar heat = to return us pure and fresh OXIGEN -instead-

Trees never heat the air -so- the craisy green house effect does not happen -that's a lie-

As PETRO-dependants, We are cooking our selve's in this global pot, due to a PETRO-effect.

HOW YOU CAN HELP? :

- I urge any body who has responsability of enviromental care and have funds -you must support any projects where products (vehicles or equipments) pursue this change over -to a new solar and electric eco-culture-.

-I urge Presidents all -to issue compulsory regulations to stop using any apparatus, device or engines where combustion of fuels take place -of any hidrocarbons (liquid or gas) alcohols, biofuels, carbons or hidrogen too- because all react exothermicaly generating the hot gases that over-heat the air -depleting oxigen O2 and ozone O3 as well while they burn to CO2 -which ixcess is getting a letal concentration level, too-.

- Now, I hope you understand better -the real global warming problem- & communicate it to all your friends -what is going on- to become more that GREEN peaple -but co-responsible ECOLOGY ORIENTE PEAPLE- don't relay on heaven help, only. PLEASE STOP BURNIG FUELS.

JM jimenez, Senior Chem. Eng, MS from UMass,

Zapopan, jal. Mexico

"I hi-lighted the word AREA, because it recalls me -besides- another fact influencing global warming -not taken in account usually, except in my research report- and It is the widespread roads and streets paving -over a millon of Km2 with BITUMEN- a black charcoal wich acts like a real heater -by catching 5Kw/m2/day of IR solar energy-adding overwarming in towns air too -as much as +5ºC at noon- and should be prohibited world wide too -as well as the exposed bitumen coats to protect roofs from wetting-. Such surfacings must be clear -white on paving and aluminized on roofs"-

this is interesting because i heard president Clinton about six months ago talking about moving dirt to the roof tops.

all that IR is reflected back out into space normally, but the CO₂ acts as a blanket that does not allow IR to pass, thus trappig in on earth. That is why it is called a greenhouse gas. Normally, CO₂₂₂ is sued by plants, especially tropical rain forest trees, to convert into carbohydrates; sugars, starches, and cellulose. But we are cutting down the rain forests to make lumber so the carbon sink is disappearing fast. Also, the oceans is full of plant plankton that can do the same, but as the water warms, it kills the plankton and less and less CO₂ can dissolve in the waterto feed the plankton. As the water heats, it also expands, flooding the low lying shore.

Thanks. Good post; good link.

If you spend the money to take action whether it was true or false wouldn't the global depression, economically speaking be the same for both situations? Also action on false would still end up in a worse situation (spent the money) as no action on a true. Of course the most beneficial outcome is no action and false box. Which makes choice of no action column the best choice.

Chazl

Actually, I didn't follow the spend money = depression. Ordinarily the reverse is true. When we spend on wars, the economy goes great guns (pun intended). When the auto industry spent on emission controls and safety devices, we increased the content and profits per car. Spending money has to stimulate the economy, doesn't it. The money we spend pays workers and drives up profits. When we all stop spending, then we get a depression.

Yes that is true. Normally when we spend money on wars it is the government spending money but when companies have to spend money to re-fit their plants, the cost will be pushed on to the consumers. The people were not the ones buying the guns and such it was the government... so to speak.

Chazl

I assume you pay taxes.

I think we can debate this issue all day long an dstill not gonna get to the bottom of it.

You have to work very hard to convince any politican on issues, as serious as this, to make them sharply change their mind, to do a U-turn even, if necessary. They're too busy to profile themselves, counting their votes and to know how to please voters, especially the ones with short-term memories. Lets be honest, politicians are seldom, if ever, practical and like to hear the truth themselves.

However, climate change won't wait for them/us or anybody. It is a 'too little too late' kind of thing.

I remember, in late 1999, when a Canadian scientist, David Suzuki, said that global warming and its fall outs unavoidable due to lack of sufficient planning and steps taken at the time. He claimed, all the talks on the Ozone-Layer depletion, started around the late 80s early 90s, and other issues, all should have been in place the world over by then and I strongly believe that.

He used to appear regularly on TV at the time like David Attenborough with similar type of shows however, I do not recall seeing him eversince the airing of his dooms day program. Saidly, a lot of people thought he was crazy. It looked though, he finally had to tell the truth that nobody liked to hear, least of all the politicians.

The concept of recycling is some developed countries, like the UK (See London for example), is almost non-existent compared to some more backward countries even due to "there are other countries which doing even worse than us".

Totally agree. The only thing is to spend the limited resources we have on useful things. The paradox is that even when we spend on not useful things, the economy is doing great. The question is for how long?

HUmm, since I do not have sound and cannot hear this conversation, I have no way of making any comments. I cannot read lips. Also, I do not plan of adding sound to my computer system. Yes, I am hearing, but will use the other tools, telephone, television, radio, and stereo for my sound effects. There is a very good reason for this, too. I use my computer as a tool, not a toy. As a tool, I can save and recall text files far more effectively than I can save and use sound. If anyone wishes to document data for science or other arguments, I, for one demand that a text form be presented.

With the above being said, I have read some of the replies to the thread and think I have the jest of the argument. I will say this, global warning is real, the ice caps are melting, glaciers are receding, the sea level is rising, and the climate distribution is changing, and man is a major contributer to this warming of the climate, both atmospheric and oceanic. What over all effect it will have on human life in the long run is still an ongoing study. But there are some of us who are doing what we can, not to simply reverse global warning, but to bring a better life to all human beings on this earth. Today, only a handful of the billions of humans have the benefits of low cost energy, full life sustaining diets, fresh clean water, and the abundant life. Any action that would bring these benefits to all of mankind, whether it is based on reversing global warming, ending pollution of our land, sea, and atmosphere, or simply to end starvation, will be a benefit to all of human existence. The the available fossil fuels are in decline, the cost of these fuels are rrising, the disposal of atomic and industrial wastes is becoming more and more difficult. In the long run, we are poisoning ourselves and may, in due time become as extinct as the dinosaur.

So, with that said, my I point out that some of us are taking action, not simply to reverse global warming, but to help solve some of the other problems of life on earth. Man is one of the most wasteful, by far, of all other life on earth. We throw away 95% of our energy, food, and water, taking only the top cream for ourselves. However, there is alight at the end of the tunnel, at least one person is helping to show the way. He has even commented on this thread of this fourm. Pvhramani has a CR4 blog project created which, when completed, will be enable the disenfranchised of the earth to help themselves to some of the benefits of life on earth. Please take a look at what is being done by a few engineers who have stopped talking and are putting their money where their mouth is. The blog is http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/4149/APIX-Pilot-Plant-Design-Project-Recycling-Wastes-Mission-and-Goals

and pvhramani is recruiting. If you want to join this effort, please send him a message and he will review your input. Several of us have already done so and I am sure more will.

Yours,

chtank

wow , I've come back to this tread to find an amazing amount of effort to support one side of the issue. And great resources.
Here's the bottom line for me. Whenever possible your don't use the earth like one big toilet.
{A spokesman for the Department of Children, Schools and Families said the agency was "delighted" that students could continue to see Gore's film. It has noted that the judge did not disagree with the film's main point -- that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are causing serious climate consequences."}
Did anyone see the movie: Who killed the electric car?
"It's more than a car story, you know. I mean, much more than a car story."DR: How did you hear about the EV? I'm sure I'm not the only one who had no idea it even existed before the movie came out.
CP: Well, it's funny you say that. Car companies just didn't talk about it. The only reason they built them was that California made them. And to their shock, they built, thanks to engineers like Wally, probably the most advanced car Detroit ever built, and the most maintenance-free car. And when all the car companies were forced to do it, they realized that it threatened their business model. It also threatened the oil industry. So they wanted to dismantle it."

My main point here is that a whole lot of effort is being made to nitpick every word that comes to light from an environmentalist. Again commonsense dictates:

Whenever possible your don't use the earth like one big toilet.

It's hard to keep this subject away from politics, even on an engineers forum. The reason is simple: our elected politicians are not responsible enough to start with very simple measures. I'll give you a few simple examples:

In my town, transit buses are idling for hours and the mayor doesn't care. Many other vehicles, property of the local government, are doing the same.

In my town, street lights are often on, during the day, and the mayor doesn't care. The utility company (a crown company) has to sell the energy, right?

Another thing is the general attitude of the public. I will never understand why people in North America are wasting so much energy (paid with their own money!) just to have Christmas and other holidays lights with more than one month in advance and another month after. One week would be enough.

Before talking about technologies, we should make some changes in our attitude and respect for the only livable planet we have.

I totaly agree with you, Hottech. I think X-mas time is one of the craziest times when it comes to wasting both money and energy during the year.

It is also true that you're in the wealthiest part of the world and unfortunately, most people in overseas since the end of the war remember about the US, and Canada, as a land of opportunity and plenty. Like the ones who can afford to leave their lights on during the day, each family member can afford to have a car and so forth...due to being highly industrious and wealthy.

I am not whinging or complaining about it but merely trying to describe how this virtual madness has come about, in the name of progress ofcourse, right around the world and it is still continuing at the cost of environmental degradation.

Some of those documentaries on wild animals show that many of them try to use everything sparingly and teach their young ones the same.

The big Q is: Why can't we do the same? Forget our social status and previledges for a moment and do something more constructive instead of destructive.

I still believe politicians should show the way. After all they like to show the way, don't they?

Hi Guest,

The outside image of Canada and the US is very different from what we live here. Having a car is just a necessity for most people. Without it you simply starve because you cannot go to work (IF you have a job...). For others (insurance companies, car dealers, auto shops, etc.) is a good business.

But I wouldn't go too far to explain what is like to live in a "rich and developed" country. In my view, the main problem is human nature. Only generations who survived a war (and suffered) or a natural calamity know what NECESSITY is. With very few exceptions, the rest are taking everything for granted and have an unusual appetite to waste resources. The world is starting and ending with them. False necessities are created for making and spending money. Wonderful inventions and technologies are used in wrong directions. One of them is computer games. They sell very well but the result is stopped education, addiction and alienation. Traditional and normal communication inside families, between neighbors, etc. are broken.

For short, the main action required to survive as a species and society is in our hands: self educate, educate next generations, spread the message: DO NOT WASTE!

Politicians? They like power and do anything to get and preserve it. Amazingly, if electors are accounting them to show leadership and do something for the environment, health, education - you name it - they say they don't have enough power! Which in some cases could be true...

I wonder what happenned to my second response! I cannot see it.

I fully agree with you Hottech. Politicians are the biggest culprits in this game, just like in many other ones. Therefore, it means we cannot do anything but talk about it and hoping for the miracle to happen.

It is scary, as the guy puts it on youtube but in all honesty no one gives a damn because it's so far gone...it is almost beyond believe.

And as you mentioned it already, the main problem is human nature. We do not want to change (ease down) or 'roll-back' in expectations when it comes to mod.cons. which is what we should have been doing way-back and very fast, many years ago.

Aiming for a greener this-and-that sounds good but, it is too little and too late, full stop.

Basically, Mr Suzuki was and still is right about it. Meaning, it doesn't matter what you do because it is coming our way and it is scary.

Lets be honest, this would have needed a joint effort from all political parties ages ago. There's no room for opposing and fighting one another over it, this is not a child's game any more, it is as real as it can get.

"Aiming for a greener this-and-that sounds good but, it is too little and too late, full stop."

So why should we change? When people argue that it is too late, you only hurt your argument for change. Why should I spend my money to change if it will have no effect?

All talk and no action, that is the way now. The they in "They aught to do something about it!" is really us, you and I. We cannot depend on politicians to do it, they are controlled by self interest and greed, those who makes the biggest contributions their cause. If you want ot make a change, you have to do it and not depend on me. I change me, you change you.

You guys are right in your own ways and everybody in this forum I gather tried to put in a lot of valuable comments.

But I still say the politicians are the biggest culprits, because they depend a lot on the cosumer industry and together they can control just about everybody and anything.

Politicians depend a lot on financial support from various industries to win their elections and vice-versa.

A politican does not stand for principal like a real statesman who 'used to be there to serve his country but his is there to be served by his country'.

So, from here on there is very little room left for not making them the number one culprits for just about anything.

Maybe some of you out there have a politician friend even and I suppose I can appologise for hurting their feelings but it won't change the Global warming issue.

isti80,

You have your queen, and we beat about our Bushes. We did send your George packing and soon, we will send our George packing. But I know that< just as here in the colonies, you in Merry ole England can, as an individual, do something about it. Get off you high horse and join some other Brits to develop the APIX Pilot Plant, the Blog is right here in CR4. And yes, there are other Brits involved in the project. Also, the project is lead by a fromer colonial in India, an engineer of 15 years experience. As I said before, it is up to you and me, babe, against the world.

chtank,

Remember when I said before this issue is not a child's game any more?

Well this is it. I do not care about compost and similar sort issues. Nature could always take care of it.

Planting trees is important also but even primary school kids can do that.

If a key politician takes a visit somewhere give him a shovel and a tree to plant he too can put in ground just to further profile himself publicaly infront of cameras.

But do you really think this is enough? I do not think so.

The more contributing factors towards cilamte control would be pollution free power stations, more electric cars, trucks, etc.

Here's an interesting link for your perusal http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/10/19/cape_cod_panel_denies_permit_for_wind_farm/

some politicians are just plain stupid, but when I said the individual can do it, I meant it. Look at what some of the engineers on CR4 are doing about it: http://cr4.globalspec.com/blog/97/APIX-Pilot-Plant-Design-Project-Recycling-Wastes

Yes, this is an official CR4 blog and another blog section is soon to be formed to include all of the sustainable engineered projects you might conceive, including wind farms and solar energy.

When I said to get off you duff, I meant for you to join us in the APIX project and let's us ignore all the politicians and develop a complete package for sustainable energy. It is a complete package and can be a fulfilling exercise. Here, you can vent your frustration with your fearless leaders in a practical manner.

Yours, chtank

Americans: you can vote here:

http://capwiz.com/re-action/issues/alert/?alertid=10627606

Another action we can all take is to support Al Gore in nine days when he is going to address the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia. I've signed his petition showing that I support his important call for a visionary treaty to address the climate crisis and I invite you all to support him too.

http://climateprotect.org/standwithal

We personally and the world's elected leaders must take the steps necessary to solve global warming. I believe it's not too late. We have the opportunity now to improve the Earth's future for our children, and their children. If we don't act, we will only have ourselves to blame and I for one don't want to be on my death bed in the future looking back and wishing I had done more. So do the things you can personally but also help push our politicians into doing the right things to. Thanks for listening and participating in the great discussion in this thread.