An Inconvenient Truth

[cinco]

Here's an even better idea. Find a mid eighties CRX HF, restore it, and drive that. You are recycling an automobile and they got mileage around 50-55 mpg. A Geo Metro/Suzuki Sprint would be the same. You would also be saving a LOT of money on the purchase price.

[torgo]

If Al Gore was smart, and all that crap about his "zero carbon footprint" despite his massive house and electric bills is true, then he should live in a smaller house so he could have a negative-carbon footprint. Then he could say "Not only did I invent the inter-web, but I am actually improving the planet! Eat that, GOP!"

[Gusterfell]

I don't get this, thousands of years ago after the Ice age ended, large swathes of land were flooded by a large amount of melting icecaps. This had nothing to do with human activity. Why is everyone so sure we are responsible for this round of melting? We maybe responsible, but I haven't seen the hard evidence just yet. I know I'm in the minority here.

[Snowguy716]

Climate changes don't always take thousands of years to happen nor do they happen gradually. There is evidence that certain events have caused severe and abrupt climatic changes.

At the end of the last ice age, as the massive glacier that covered most of Canada and the northern U.S began to melt (which can be attributed to changes in the earth's wobble and shape (more elliptical than spherical), a massive inland sea formed on top of the glacier full of freezing cold, fresh melt water. The ice around the edges formed a dam that kept the water from flowing into the sea, and the planet was warming rather rapidly as more ground was exposed and was able to absorb more solar energy at the edges of the glaciers.

Then the dam broke, rather suddenly, and all that water began to flow into the North Atlantic, which disrupted the ocean currents, which kept warm water from getting to Europe, which plunged the earth back into an ice age within a matter of years. It took another thousand years before the planet began to finally warm again (for the ocean currents to get going).

Scientists worry that the same thing could happen in Greenland and have the same effect on the planet. A few degrees of warming is much preferable to several degrees of cooling, but the problem is: A few degrees of warming can easily lead to several degrees of cooling, which in many places means the difference between lush and fertile farm land and a mile of ice covering it.

Other severe changes that can occur include mass releases of methane into the atmosphere from the tundra where a lot of GHGs are trapped in the permafrost. Since the planet is warming so fast, massive portions of tundra are thawing out at one time, which could release mass amounts of GHGs and further exacerbate the warming trend.

Studies have found that conclude that the peat bogs that cover much of northern Minnesota and parts of Canada release large amounts of methane and CO2 when they get too warm and the peat moss dries out and dies. Peat bogs do an excellent job of turning CO2 into carbon and releasing oxygen, but if we kill them by developing over them or warm them up too much, they lose that ability and all those gases are re-released.

So rather than worrying about how big Al Gore's house is, let's worry about some very real threats that could drastically reduce your quality of life if you simply idle and stand by.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

I think my position has shifted as the facts have become clearer and as I've discovered that there is a legitimate middle ground between ecozealotry and the environment-only-serves-man mentality. Many points of the global warming campaign are valid; chief among these being environmental controls are needed and that a shift towards cleaner and more sustainable energy is sensible. Other facets of proposed environmental policy like Kyoto, class rhetoric, promotion of neomarxism[1], and promotion of carbon credits as a solution, are wastes of time, counterproductive and in the case of Kyoto, tools of global governance. The United States is the largest polluter on earth, and can make its own changes in house. Maybe, we should sign on with reservation, meaning that we will adhere to the regulations and goals proposed, but won't partake in the carbon trading nonsense or hand over control of government to the United Nations.

I have very strong reservations on anthropological global warming as science, but many of the proposed solutions should be implemented. The ends of a cleaner earth, not for the earth's sake but for the sake of its inhabitants, may justify the means to an extent.

The environmental movement has an obsession with solar and wind energy and a very strong aversion to nuclear energy. The facts are that nuclear energy is the only clean energy source that can provide for all of our energy needs efficiently with stability, safety, and at low cost. Nuclear energy can power industry, solar cannot. Conservation of energy is irrelevant when ample clean energy is available. The market should be 'nudged', and provided with incentives and maybe subsidizes to build nuclear plants, and research into making electric cars. Existing coal plants should be required to have advanced scrubbing and cleaning filters, old plants should be shut down; no further coal plants should be built.

Take out gas and coal power plants, and oil powered cars and a bulk of pollution is gone. Even if global warming is bunk, the world will be a much more pleasant place to live and the global energy climate would be much more stable.

Furthermore, the United States should start construction of a high speed rail network. This would cut down on air travel, and provide a strong alternative. The United States used to be the most rail connected country in the world, and can be so again. Intercity rail is important, and Federal funding should get a boost and be restricted to the top 20 metro areas. Funding intercity rail in Salt Lake City, for instance, makes absolutely NO sense.

A command economy is not the solution, but properly placed regulation and incentives are.

---

[1] Any environmental rally has many signs touting irrelevant Marxist propaganda like 'down with corporate greed' and other anti-consumerism phrases, and many of the leaders are ideological Marxists. I wouldn't expect anything more from emotionalists, but what does consumerism have to do with your cause? Unless the real cause is the strong desire for class warfare and dramatic social change.

Instead they should fight only for cleaner air, and less pollution. Who in their right mind wouldn't be for both of those?

[cinco]

for those of you who seem to harp on the notion that gore doesn't practice what he preaches (sheesh - i mean pick a real battle)....here's an article that lays out al gore's plan for green upgrades to his house in tennessee. it alludes to the fact that he has had a hard time getting permits for certain renovations.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/gore.home...t.ap/index.html

[torgo]

[runawayjim]

i saw that yesterday on boing boing and thought "can people really be that stupid?"

while reading boing boing again today... i found this... http://www.boingboing.net/2007/04/24/dayli...avings_tim.html

apparently, the author writes these types of letters to the editor all the time, mainly to be funny.

[Snowguy716]

Unfortunately for the author, the extension of daylight savings time was voted on by the previous, Republican controlled congress.

[nowensone]

^^^ Connie is to me clearly mocking certain, um, "people", you can only conclude that by her good use of grammar and writing style, and the sarcasm is not overt but is detectable. None-the-less, it isn't obvious, and some people probably are taking her words at face value. What do we know about Connie other than her wry attempt to "educate" readers?

[torgo]

Well that was a let-down. Thanks for doing my homework runaway jim.

[runawayjim]

^^^ Connie is to me clearly mocking certain, um, "people", you can only conclude that by her good use of grammar and writing style, and the sarcasm is not overt but is detectable. None-the-less, it isn't obvious, and some people probably are taking her words at face value. What do we know about Connie other than her wry attempt to "educate" readers?

[nowensone]

^ I did, didn't seem to indicate much, was thinking along the lines of a green party member, a national name, political candidate etc. (the lawyer profile didn't reveal anything). On the one hand, I like her (his?) style, because it leads your mind along in just the right direction to circumvent otherwise stubborn brainwashing and narrowmindedness, but without really insulting you for the effort. Problem is, below a certain threshold people just aren't going to get it.

[runawayjim]

^ I did, didn't seem to indicate much, was thinking along the lines of a green party member, a national name, political candidate etc. (the lawyer profile didn't reveal anything). On the one hand, I like the style, because it leads your mind along in just the right direction to circumvent otherwise stubborn brainwashing and narrowmindedness, but without really insulting you for the effort. Problem is, below a certain threshold people just aren't going to get it.

[nowensone]

Which is the point? That the letters are a good tongue-in-cheek tool, or that it will backfire occasionally? I'm a sarcastic/sardonic person myself but learned to shelf that quick when I first had children. True on papers printing letters, I am tempted to test this theory myself, I work with a guy who has had no less than 5 of them printed locally over a few year period.

[runawayjim]

Which is the point? That the letters are a good tongue-in-cheek tool, or that it will backfire occasionally? I'm a sarcastic/sardonic person myself but learned to shelf that quick when I first had children. True on papers printing letters, I am tempted to test this theory myself, I work with a guy who has had no less than 5 of them printed locally over a few year period.

[cinco]

^ i caught the sarcasim right away... i love veiled humor that flies over the heads of many - while smacking them in the ass, as it goes past.

it does suck to realize you've been the victim of such humor, though. kinda the way i felt after the 2000 and 2004 presidential election.

*btw, frontline on pbs ran a great episode on climate change/global warming last night. it was interesting to see the republican analyst who actually wrote the memo on climate change - that became part of his parties mantra. in '95 he wrote that the earth has always changed in temperature and that science is inconclusive... he now admits no real basis to his writings (other than being a tool) and that man-made global warming is indeed - real.

he, did however bask in his self proclaimed ability to write, eloquently.

[Snowguy716]

The sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek style is easily detected, but that doesn't stop the writer from being factually incorrect. Unless you want to accuse the previous Republican congress of being liberal.

[runawayjim]

The sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek style is easily detected, but that doesn't stop the writer from being factually incorrect. Unless you want to accuse the previous Republican congress of being liberal.

[Recchia]

I read an article in one of the March Time Magazines today blasting Gore about wasting energy personally and then buying carbon credits to negate it. It made the point that being able to buy carbon credits may encourage some polluters to pollute even more, and related the buying of carbon credits to the buying of indulgences for forgiveness in medeival Catholic Europe. Although I disagree with the one-sided bashing of famous environmentalists like Gore and DiCaprio, the article did share my sentiment that some of these famous environmentalists are taking the easy way out. Anyone can be wasteful and then use money to "negate" their ways. When looked at this way, it is almost exactly like indulgences. Personally, I'd rather just live a more environmentally friendly and sustainable lifestyle from the get-go.

Of course, it is great to see the issue of global warming finally getting so much attention from the people that Americans seem to value the most, Hollywood celebrities. Maybe it will change some non-believer's minds finally.

[nowensone]

^ Similar in concept also to older and heavily polluting factories/plants that instead of retrofitting or rebuilding will pay the pollution fines because the fines are still cheaper than the retrofitting and other alternatives. Thereby defeating the point, and why I think the EPA's regulations need more teeth. Consequently, since Bush has been in power, these regulations have been relaxed like they haven't been in decades - he appointed a lobbyist who fought for these polluting factories and plants to head the EPA. I am continually surprised that gets little to no press, and is IMO worse than most of his other bungling and general disregard for this country. I'd say "Are you f*&king kidding me?", but this is very old news now.

[cinco]

I read an article in one of the March Time Magazines today blasting Gore about wasting energy personally and then buying carbon credits to negate it. It made the point that being able to buy carbon credits may encourage some polluters to pollute even more, and related the buying of carbon credits to the buying of indulgences for forgiveness in medeival Catholic Europe. Although I disagree with the one-sided bashing of famous environmentalists like Gore and DiCaprio, the article did share my sentiment that some of these famous environmentalists are taking the easy way out. Anyone can be wasteful and then use money to "negate" their ways. When looked at this way, it is almost exactly like indulgences. Personally, I'd rather just live a more environmentally friendly and sustainable lifestyle from the get-go.

Of course, it is great to see the issue of global warming finally getting so much attention from the people that Americans seem to value the most, Hollywood celebrities. Maybe it will change some non-believer's minds finally.

[Snowguy716]

please delete this post.

[Snowguy716]

The first "Subtropical" storm of the season has developed off the coast of Georgia. It has been named Andrea. This is significant as it comes almost an entire month before the hurricane season officially begins. The same thing occurred in 2003 when Tropical Storm Ana formed in April.

A subtropical storm is a cyclonic storm that develops over tropical waters from non-tropical origins. This occurs when upper level lows drop into tropical areas and the water is warm enough to support strong cyclonic development of the storm.

With the possible of a La Nina developing over the summer, we could see a very busy hurricane season, possibly on par with 2005. If 2007 is above average, every year since 1993 will have been above average except 1997 and 2006 (which was right on average), both of which seasons were suppressed by El-Ninos.

[runawayjim]

The first "Subtropical" storm of the season has developed off the coast of Georgia. It has been named Andrea. This is significant as it comes almost an entire month before the hurricane season officially begins. The same thing occurred in 2003 when Tropical Storm Ana formed in April.

A subtropical storm is a cyclonic storm that develops over tropical waters from non-tropical origins. This occurs when upper level lows drop into tropical areas and the water is warm enough to support strong cyclonic development of the storm.

With the possible of a La Nina developing over the summer, we could see a very busy hurricane season, possibly on par with 2005. If 2007 is above average, every year since 1993 will have been above average except 1997 and 2006 (which was right on average), both of which seasons were suppressed by El-Ninos.