High-profile global warming skeptic changes position

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Jan 27 2007, 07:09 AM) [snapback]381632[/snapback]</div>

Click on the link I provided.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jan 27 2007, 02:40 PM) [snapback]381760[/snapback]</div>

I checked it out and honestly it's a load of crap. There are no evironmental friendly mines that I know of and a lot of people lived perfectly fine until western civilization has changed their viewpoints and influenced their behavior. There is no problem with them deciding to change their culture to match ours other than the simple fact that the world will not allow EVERYONE to live like us. It is a simple biological fact. The reason we live the way we do is beause we rape and pillage other countries resources and yet we are still subject to our own pollution, it's just not as visible to here as it is in other places. A large percentage of the time we bring an industry to another country we pay them very little, take what we need and leave. During their time there we try to reabsorb their pay in things like utilities and rooming (this is exactly what Wal-Mart does).

But yeah, lets go in and mine their land so we can have them drinking poinsoned water (arsenic), degrade their soils, denude their landscapes, and impoverish their biotic communities and get them well versed in western culture so they lose what skills they do have to work the land. Yeah, lets make em like us..

I'm sorry, I just disagree with the views portrayed in that video. I do agree that some "environmentalists" are way to radical but to lump them all into one bad category and pretend all mining is good is ludacris.

 

Though the thread has strayed pretty far, I'll jump on. I think there is a bigger issue raised by both Wildkow and F8L. That is, how can we ensure the protection of both the environment and people's livelihoods in some of these 3rd world nations.

We have the luxury of a high standard of living and thus can afford many things - like a clean environment - that frankly, are a luxury to people who are barely able to feed their families. The flip side is, how can we better manage the environmental impact of globalization? For instance, free trade with China has given lower prices to us and livelihoods to a lot of Chinese. But in effect, we have also outsourced a lot of our own pollution.

I think there are two very valid, competing interests here (3rd world development and environmental degradation) - which makes this a very tough issue to solve. But I think each side has to recognize there is real validity to each viewpoint.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Jan 29 2007, 08:57 PM) [snapback]382657[/snapback]</div>

I would argue that we in the developed world are not guaranteed a safe and healthy environment. Unless you mean only the rich but even the rich are subject to poor air quality and the effects of climate chang. We can bring up a number of instances where this is true, just think Love Canal and Hunters Point or New Orleans or simply drive through any poor neihborhood in a major city.

For Wilkow I would see his video and raise him this video. It is not a commentary by some journalist but from a man with the credentials and experiences that lend great weight to his words.

At the 19min mark it gets real interesting!
David Korten - The Great Turning

If you doubt his view of our nation being an empire or imperialistic then I sugest your read the 1992 DPG or the 2001 PNAC: Especially where it talks about Pax Americana and "Secure and expand zones of democratic peace; deter rise of new great-power competitor; defend key regions; exploit transformation of war"

The charity of multi-national corporations in developing countries is an illusion and a carefully crafted ploy to lead the uninformed to think that they are doing good for the indigenous people people there. Their #1 goal is profit, not the good of those people and in many ways they are crippling those people, not supporting their creativity or their ability for long term health and relative prosperity.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing about economic growth as being the #1 priority of this nation or the world. The industrial revolution is over, the time of growth unchecked is finished. Get over it already and lets move on and evolve to find our place in this world and put an end to living on credit.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/science/...&ei=5087%0A

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jan 27 2007, 12:54 AM) [snapback]381551[/snapback]</div>

Wow, I could not have said it any better. :wub: What ticks me off about the whole GW thing is the niavity that Humans are behind it all and that we can fix it. Um, no, Nature is behind it, and only nature can fix it. We can do our part to lessen it a bit, but, sorry we cant control the weather. A really good look behind the scenes will show that a large percentage of the "activists" are your typical hypocrits, do as I say, not as I do, and are only in it for the money and fame. Everyone who cries GW thinks this is the first time it has ever happened, well, it hasnt, it is a natural cycle that the earth goes through. Warm ups, freezes, temperate climate. A lot of what is claimed can be debunked as well. Notice I didnt say the earth isnt warming up, I agree that it is, I disagree in the thinking that we are the sole cause behind it, and that we can fix it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Apr 14 2007, 06:03 PM) [snapback]423423[/snapback]</div>

No one ever claimed humans are the sole cause of it nor did they ever claim we can fix it. That pretty much nixes your argument.

The speed at which this is happening is what is causing concern. Yes climate change happens and yes it is fundamentally due to natural causes yet there is nothing within the laws of nature that state we cannot contribute to this cycle. In fact if the data is correct then the laws of nature tells us we can indeed have an effect on the cycle. We have seen this already with studies based on aerosols and solar insolation. Human can have a big impact on natural systems. To think otherwise is to show ignorance of these systems.

The only real argument IMO is the degree to which we are contributing to climate change.

As for activists being hypocrits I would have to say I tend to think that way sometimes but then I try to sympathize with the simple fact that not all of them are filthy rich or in a position to escape this terribly destructive infrastructure (cage) we have built for ourselves. I would love to rebuild my house into a zero waste and energy producing structure, ride a bicycle to school etc. but unfortunately it is not possible for many reasons of which I have very little control over. Does this make me a hypocrit?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 14 2007, 09:49 PM) [snapback]423464[/snapback]</div>

I'm sorry but when people claim that humans are the #1 reason behind GW, well, that justifies my stance. The fact is we are in the top ten, no argument there, but we are about 8 or 9th in the list, I have been unable to locate the list on the web, I have it as a printout. There are at least 7 natural causes ahead of humans. I never stated that we dont have any impact, I know we do, I see it everyday with all those egotistical assholes driving around in their fancy SUV's smoking their cigarettes and tossing the lit butts out the windows, driving around by themselves. Now I laugh at all those fools who sit in traffic burning up gas while I sit there with no engine running while waiting for traffic to move. Before I bought the Prius, I drove an F350 Dually Crew Cab, I had no choice, as I need the truck for my horse farm, but at least it is a cleaner burning vehicle than most cars are, and it also gets better MPG than most SUV's. My main reason for buying the prius is to use less gas, in turn saving us money, as I drive 70+ miles a day to/from work. When my wife goes back to work, we will be carpooling, saving even more fuel. I'm tired of making oil companies rich. The fact it is cleaner for the environment is a side benefit for me.

BTW, the ones I call hypocrites are those like algore who fly around on their private jets, drive around in their big SUV's, burn up tons of electricity, and yet ell everyone they must do their part to lesson GW. That my friend is a hypocrit!

 

What are the 7 above us on the list? I'm curious.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Apr 15 2007, 08:58 AM) [snapback]423618[/snapback]</div>

Ok so basically you are flaming the uninformed dolts who spout what they hear without doing any research themselves. There are not credible scientists that I know of that claim humans are the #1 cause of GW so that just leaves the freaks who hear a little bit and think they know it all. Just like the opposing side who thinks we play no part at all. They are all freaks. lol

Since you do know a lot about diesel fuel I am curious why you say it burns cleaner than most cars. From what I know it was worse and the gas milage difference is often negated by fuel cost. Could you enlighten me please. This one always gets me confused because I often read about sulfur and soot outputs. Unless you were driving one of the new "flamethrower" F350s or any diesel with the new exhaust systems. lol

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Apr 15 2007, 10:29 AM) [snapback]423649[/snapback]</div>

In no particular order these are the other contributing factors to GW or GC:

Volcanic activity (ash, acid mists, hydrogen sulfide, etc)

Ocean Spray

Decaying vegetation

Trees and bushes (VOCs like terpenes and isoprenes)

Pollen, dust or any other particulate matter

Bacterial metabolism of cellulose (swamps) and in the guts of termites and runimants make up 2/3s of methane in the atmosphere.

Natural Fires

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 15 2007, 12:04 PM) [snapback]423663[/snapback]</div>

Diesel also requires 25% more oil to make than gasoline. So a lot of the MPG gains are really smoke and mirrors. Diesel engines are more efficient but the fuel also contains 15% more energy.

From what I've read volcanic activity is about 1% of our contribution.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Apr 15 2007, 08:28 PM) [snapback]423823[/snapback]</div>

I've read similar data on both accounts. I was simply stating the natural sources of GHGs.

"volcanic activity contributes about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources"

I do have a small chart in one of my Science Books that gives numbers on particular gasses/pollutants and their sources (Natural vs Anthropogenic). Numbers represent millions of metric tons per yer in the atmosphere.

Estimated Annual Fluxes of pollutants and Trace Gases to the Atmosphere

Species .... Natural.... Anthropogenic

CO2.... 370,000mmt/yr.... 29,600mmt/yr
CH4.... 155mmt/yr.... 350mmt/yr
CO.... 1,580mmt/yr.... 930mmt/yr
NMHC (nonmethane hyrdocarbons).... 860mmt/yr.... 92mmt/yr
NOx (Nitrogen Oxides).... 90mmt/yr.... 140mmt/yr
SOx (Sulfur Oxides).... 35mmt/yr.... 79mmt/yr
SPM (suspended particulate materials).... 583mmt/yr.... 362mmt/yr

Source: Joyce E. Penner, "Atmospheric Chemistry and Air Quality" in W.B. Meyer and B.L. Turner (eds.) Changes in Land Use and Land Cover: A Global Perspective, 1994. Cambridge University Press and UNEP, 1999.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 15 2007, 01:04 PM) [snapback]423663[/snapback]</div>

You got it! As I said before, I realize it is happening, but also know we are not the main cause of it, just contributers that can play a part in helping slow it down.

AHA, thats the list I was looking for, thanks!

I'll follow up on another post regarding diesel.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jan 27 2007, 12:54 AM) [snapback]381551[/snapback]</div>

My point entirely, is that our economy depends on being conservative with energy usage, and this will not be a burden. Economists have a word for this, it's called productivity. Can be worker productivity, can be energy productivity, but reducing our energy requirements is good for our economy. It's been going on for a long time, but there are some hiccups in the system, primarily fuel economy. As a side effect, improving energy productivity reduces GWG emissions.

As a plus, if we develop new technologies for energy conservation and using renewables, we can sell these products (or the technology) to other companies and make more profits. Only by stubbornly clinging to old wasteful methods of production, energy generation and transportation are we assured of economic hardships. (Did you see today's report that OPEC is lowering their forecast demand for oil? I don't think it's because they really think demand is going down, I think it's because they can't pump more than they already are. Either case, we'll be paying more for energy.)

As for "rabid environmentalists" harming the world's poor, it's the environmental movement that has made America great. Stable sources of clean water, clean air, productive fields and fishing grounds has fed the working masses and provided a reliable and healthy workforce that is essential to any good economy. That is the problem with countries selling their forests to the first bidder - if the subsequent erosion (to pick one effect) destroys the fish population in the rivers and people can no longer eat where they are, how can they be expected to improve the country's well-being?

 

Well put, nerfer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Apr 14 2007, 08:03 PM) [snapback]423423[/snapback]</div>

We'll have to disagree on this one. The level of CO2 in the air has gone from about 280 ppm to 350 ppm (off the top of my head). So nature is responsible for about 80% of CO2, one of the main sources of global temperature control (and the reason we're not in a permanent ice age with glaciers over Florida). But we've provided 20%, which is the tipping force. It's clear global warming is occurring, and we've provided the recent impetus for it.

Hypocrite? Not here. I've driven fuel-efficient cars for as long as I've had a license. I put in an efficient furnace, heat-reflective windows, front-loader washing machine. Costs a little up-front money, but saves in the long run. I collect rainwater for the plants, and I spent a bit of effort to get a good job that was close to my house, not just the first one I could find. I'd like to do more, and will over time, but this is a start. Next up is a tankless water heater, and an all-house fan.

Edit: didn't read this carefully the first time:
As for F8L's list of natural effects on GW, I agree volcanoes can have a big effect, but we can do something about our side of the equation, rather than wait for the next big eruption (which would help for a year or two, not the decades we need). Termites and other natural sources of methane are listed, but not the percentage of whole-scale replacement of old-growth and native vegetation for methane-producing cattle that has occurred over the last 100-200 years. And I really can't believe that the minor amounts of VOCs that trees produce is more significant than tailpipe and factory smokestack emissions? Give me a break - trees absorb CO2 and should be on the GW-reducing side of the equation, not the increasing side! Okay, most of it isn't sequestered for more than a century, but even so my point still stands.

 

When a diesel sits idle, it is not cleaner, that is a given, but then again, a gasser sitting idle is not clean either. When a diesel is under heavy load, such as pulling a steep grade, or starting from a dead stop, you will see smoke on the older diesels, newer ones that are computer conrolled though meter in enough fuel to provide the needed power without putting out too much, so you see less smoke. When at proper operating temps and cruising at a set spped, the emissions are very low becuase you get an extremely clean burn. With the advent of Ultra Low SUlpher Diesel, emissions are even lower, with only 15 PPM of suplher to start out with, and with the newer 07 and up diesels having PM filters, the exhaust is almost non existant, you cant smell it. What most people are not aware of either is the black smoke you see falls to the ground, unlike the emissions out of a gasser which rise into the atmosphere. The PM filters eliminate the black smoke you see by burning off the particulates before they leave the system. Diesels have gone from a simple system of injecting fuel directly into a high compression chamber unmetered to a highly sophisticated system that meters the fuel precisly to help reduce emissions. My tractor when it is running under a normal load produces no smoke at all and you can barely smell the exhaust, and it does not have any emissions controls on it like the trucks do. Only under extreme load like hitting a heavy wet patch of grass do you see any smoke and it is very brief and not that heavy. If it was a gasoline engine, well, you know what a lawn mower smells like, ick.

When I get time I will research the numbers comparing modern (99 and up) diesels to gasoline cars of the same years. '03 and up are even cleaner burning with cats and egr systems.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Apr 16 2007, 12:25 PM) [snapback]424062[/snapback]</div>

uhuh you also mis-read the hypocrite statement. I salute you for doing what you do, saving energy and helping the environment, not flying around in a private jet and burning up $30K in electricity. I myself have tankless water heaters in my house, they work great. I wish I could further green my house, but it costs money to retro fit, and right now I am putting too much into the house just fixing it up. I am going to put in two sky light tubes to help light up some dark areas, my furnaces are both 98% efficient. I have a ranch that is very long, hence the need for two furnaces and water heaters. It is also surrounded by trees, a pain in the nice person to keep the gutters clean, but helps tremendously with keeping the house cool in summer and warm in winter. I have 3 horses, and 5 acres, I cut the lawn maybe 3 times a year(ground is very rough, pain in the entire body). During the entire year I use maybe 12 gallons of diesel in using the tractor for maintenance. I am not an environmental wacko as ssome people are, maybe a naturalist(?), it pisses me off to no end when I see good soil being removed for housing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Apr 16 2007, 01:25 PM) [snapback]424062[/snapback]</div>

A tag on your points, here. Its all about BALANCE. Imagine you have a full swimming pool with a leak, and hose is filling the pool at the same rate that the pool is leaking. Now, how much extra water does it take from the hose to cause the pool to overflow? In terms of rate, any amount of extra water will cause the pool to overflow, and that is the problem with anthopogenic GW. Humans have increased the rate of CO2 into the atmosthere which is upsetting the balance. We can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and it is going up. We can measure the rate that CO2 concentration is rising in the atmosphere, and the rate of rise is historically extremely high.

Therefore, those "7 causes of global warming" are not really CAUSES, they are contributors. It is when the relative proportion of a particular constituent in the atmoshere changes substantially that is at issue. Just like with the swimming pool example, it is not the amount of water in the pool that is at issue, it is the rate change in the filling and draining of the pool that causes a problem. We have drastically changed the rate at which CO2 is being added to the atmoshere, and it is a problem. We have measured it. We have compared it to historical records obtained from ice cores. It is rising far more rapidly that at any time in the measurable past and to think it is anything but a human caused problem requires a significant amount of ignoring or dismissing simple, measurable facts.

For whatever reason, the right wing doesn't want you to get that simple message, and they work hard at confusing the issue. It doesn't matter that the world cools and warms in natural cycles. Everybody knows that and it is largely irrelevant to the discussion. It isn't what we see happening now, because it has never happened at anything close to the rate its happening now. The only reasonable (or even hypothesized) explanation is human activity, which can be directly tied to the measured increases we are observing in atmospheric CO2 level.

This crap about "the niavity that we are behind it" comes directly from Rush Limbaugh, who is so full of it on this topic I should hope it wouldn't warrant mention. It is nothing more than obsfucation.