Regardless, even if it were the case that there were no incentives for climatologists to "believe" this is real, science is science... plenty of theories that have had the backing of a large portion of researchers in a field have been turned over as false later.
again ... with this attitude - you might as well ignore the concept of "science" ... nothing is ever proven ... therefore i suggest to you that smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day are ok for you and a steady diet of cheeseburgers and french fries should let you live till 95 ...
Regardless, even if it were the case that there were no incentives for climatologists to "believe" this is real, science is science... plenty of theories that have had the backing of a large portion of researchers in a field have been turned over as false later.
again ... with this attitude - you might as well ignore the concept of "science" ... nothing is ever proven ... therefore i suggest to you that smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day are ok for you and a steady diet of cheeseburgers and french fries should let you live till 95 ...
You don't believe all big pharma stats, right? Why? Well, most doubters would say because they gain monetarily off the statistics. Basically, they have a huge stake in the outcome. Hmmm... well, global warming "scientists" gain off of their stats, too. Their career is based on the theory living on. That's my sole point and has been all along throughout this thread.
I never once said, it's an outright lie. I said there's reason to doubt it.... anyone who doesn't, doesn't know science (or statistics, for that matter).
Regardless, even if it were the case that there were no incentives for climatologists to "believe" this is real, science is science... plenty of theories that have had the backing of a large portion of researchers in a field have been turned over as false later.
again ... with this attitude - you might as well ignore the concept of "science" ... nothing is ever proven ... therefore i suggest to you that smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day are ok for you and a steady diet of cheeseburgers and french fries should let you live till 95 ...
You don't believe all big pharma stats, right? Why? Well, most doubters would say because they gain monetarily off the statistics. Basically, they have a huge stake in the outcome. Hmmm... well, global warming "scientists" gain off of their stats, too. Their career is based on the theory living on. That's my sole point and has been all along throughout this thread.
I never once said, it's an outright lie. I said there's reason to doubt it.... anyone who doesn't, doesn't know science (or statistics, for that matter)
P.S. Having a cheeseburger won't kill you.
Not trying to make fun of you (or whatever you said in response to my only other post on this thread), but you have said, "... anyone who doesn't [doubt global warming] doesn't know science (or statistics)?
This is laughable. I cannot actually believe that someone with half a mind would assert something such as this. The global warming epidemic we are bearing witness to is not just a natural cycle (heightened just a bit... you know- a 'blip'). Solid science has painted a pretty convincing and bleak picture for us. If there are those that choose to dismiss it... well, what can you say?
You alluded to some notion in that mocking post of yours to me that people who believe in global warming are merely inhibitors of economic growth- motivated by a need to impede industry. I am not too sure why anyone would genuinely be of this mindset, but I can tell you unequivocally that if industry should suffer so that we can prevent the polar ice caps from crumbling into the sea... then so be it. A risk I'll gladly assume.
I would think that preservation of this planet should be paramount to every inhabitant of this Earth. If the mountain of information that has been presented to us revealing the effects of our harmful consumption habits is wrong (and that the slight statistical chance of the scientifically based theories on global warming are wrong in their findings), we would still have won erring on the side of caution.
because the basic science is very straight forward ... heck, even mr. conservative cincybearcat says so ... to say global warming is not happening or not caused by man requires one to basically refute the concept of the greenhouse effect ... i have not seen you attempt to go anywhere near the science and your approach at this discussion leads me to believe that you don't quite understand the science behind it ...
it's really straight forward:
is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
do you believe in the greenhouse effect?
do you understand that temperature is the singular most important variable in determining weather?
if you answered yes to the above ... you basically believe in AGW ... if you answered no to anything - then what is your basis for answering no ...
you can argue that maybe we won't get more flooding because of global warming or that sea levels may not rise as much ... but the basic science behind AGW is as solid as it gets ...
First, I want to highlight something. Theories are theory… unless proven in one increment by statistics. Science is taking a hypothesis and testing it. My point on statistics is that stats can be fudged, and my other point is that there’s incentives for “climatologists” to do just that. All along my hope was to guide you into seeing that you’re “I’m 100% right on my feelings without any doubt and I’d bet my life on it” thoughts here may be less than 100%, even closer to 99% would be more reasonable. But, you’re sold on “theory”. Basically, the original article did just that, they said don’t base policy on this theory right now. I, personally, think we should certainly avoid evident pollution (oil spill, etc), but I don't think policy should be centered around the issue of Global Warming.
Second, as for specifics…
I’d answer your questions with… I’m not 100% sure, besides the first one.
It’s important to mention that even you stated “believe” in your question for part 2 (which is clearly a theory), and for question 3, that would be heavily answered with statistics. All of this gets to my points earlier in the thread.
Anyway, I have other questions…
Why, despite increasing greenhouse gases, did the rise in the earth’s temperature stall for 10 plus years? Are greenhouse gases the driver of climate? If there’s warming, which there hasn’t been for ten or so years, how would we know it’s caused by us? Could it be caused by solar influences? Does cloud movement, sun radiation and heat from the ocean play any part here? How much of a role does CO2 play when it’s relatively small portion of the atmosphere? What’s causation and what’s correlation? Do other planets follow our cooling or warming?
Most importantly,... how do scientists properly account for all of these variables and controls when proving, with 100% certainty, that this phenomenon is occurring constantly and we are the one's causing it.
Not trying to make fun of you (or whatever you said in response to my only other post on this thread), but you have said, "... anyone who doesn't [doubt global warming] doesn't know science (or statistics)?
Yes, my point wasn't that you can't side with global warming. My point was that if you think there's ZERO possibility of being wrong with this issue, you don't know science or statistics. Why? Because there's a chance you're wrong. Maybe it's small, maybe it's very tiny, maybe it's big... we may disagree on that. But, if you say there's no chance you're wrong.... yes, you don't know science or statistics.
This is laughable. I cannot actually believe that someone with half a mind would assert something such as this. The global warming epidemic we are bearing witness to is not just a natural cycle (heightened just a bit... you know- a 'blip'). Solid science has painted a pretty convincing and bleak picture for us. If there are those that choose to dismiss it... well, what can you say?
Ok. I don't think it's laughable to say that those who are 100% convinced on this statistical evidence, and don't hold an open mind to incoming data or research, are (to use your words) half-minded.
You alluded to some notion in that mocking post of yours to me that people who believe in global warming are merely inhibitors of economic growth- motivated by a need to impede industry. I am not too sure why anyone would genuinely be of this mindset, but I can tell you unequivocally that if industry should suffer so that we can prevent the polar ice caps from crumbling into the sea... then so be it. A risk I'll gladly assume.
I alluded to my belief that there are "SOME" who use global warming as a policy to gain constituents for their economic agenda, yes. Al Gore... in my opinion, is one of them. Global warming could be seen as a great tool for someone who is of the big government (or grow government) mindset. Why? Well, private industry creates most emissions, right?. If government can further regulate private markets (under this umbrella) they can do so with public support (who isn't pro-earth?), shrink their output (private) and grow theirs (govt). Further, this policy would raise taxes, increase subsidies... there's a realm of potential aspects in which global warming policy impacts economic policy and government in general. It provides government with more and more control, and does so with a green smiley face saying "save the earth".
If you're cool with big government, fantastic. I'm not. Moreover, this above may be a bit conspiracy driven for some, I get that. But, to me, I honestly don't think it is.
I would think that preservation of this planet should be paramount to every inhabitant of this Earth. If the mountain of information that has been presented to us revealing the effects of our harmful consumption habits is wrong (and that the slight statistical chance of the scientifically based theories on global warming are wrong in their findings), we would still have won erring on the side of caution.
I get what you're saying, but if we're erring on the side of caution so that I can be unemployed (can't feed my family), and government can grow bigger, I don't agree. In other words, there's a trade-off between efficiency and this issue, in my opinion. If our economy wants to grow, it's hard to do so with laws devoted to this issue. Is there a happy medium? Probably in the future, yes... I'd be on your side then. Right now, we're broke. We need jobs, plus the data says it's trending in a positive direction (less warming). This is not the time for this. I agree with the original article (to not base public policy on this right now) for that reason.
I assume you're just talking theories?
Did scientists prove that we created a hole in our ozone layer? Isnt that ENOUGH to scare the shit out of anybody? :shock:
I'm trying to find some middle ground with you, but I'm not so sure of the conspiracy theory of 'government warns of global warming to knock out the little guy so they might prosper most'. I get as frustrated as anyone with aspects of the government, but not all government is bad government. There are those that wish there was no government at all, but we know how that would work. Let me frame what I say this way:
There are some people out there we need to regulate. For the benefit of all, if we left half the population to their own resources, we're in big trouble. Greedy, ruthless, and stupid behaviours left unchecked have the potential to bring down society and, for that matter, this planet as we know it. Government has grown out of necessity. We need to be regulated- broad based... we're simply too stupid to live otherwise without impacting other's rights.
The overwhelming majority of scientists- from all over the world- who are dedicated to studying the effects of emissions and the growing global warming epidemic- come to common conclusions. I do not think they are secretly part of a plan to restrict private industry's ability to do its business.
My father worked in a mill. Restrictions were becoming prevalent in the logging industry which were set to have an impact on the mill he worked at. Worried as a teen, I asked him how he felt about this and what this meant for our family. He replied that the Earth owes nobody a living: our most sacred resource must be preserved if it is deemed endangered. If it meant he had to find employment elsewhere, then that is what would need to happen. No short term gratification for the individual when the collective whole is put at risk.
Likewise, my province was warned of the pine beetle about 20 years ago. We shrugged our shoulders. Scientists told us that we could spray (costing a bunch) or else hope for a cold winter (two weeks of -20 would do it). Despite no guarantees, the public never listened to our science based community that warned of the future epidemic. If you have ever driven through BC (in particular the north), you will now notice areas that resemble the moon. We never got that cold stretch that we all figured would save us. Two points to make here:
1. It's gotten warmer.
2. Sometimes it's not so good to ignore the findings science reveals to us.
Took me 30 seconds to find one... here you go- http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161
Published in "International Journal of Modern Physics".
I don't have any attitude towards science, I never once said I disagreed with the findings of global warming. What I'm saying is that it is incredibly arrogant to claim well established scientists must be accepting money for their opinions. Just as it is incredibly arrogant for Joe Blow to say a scientist must be wrong because he presented facts in support of global warming.
From my point of view, it looks like you have determined these guys were wrong just because of their conclusion. NEVER in science is it acceptable to determine accuracy given a conclusion, you must look at methodology. You think they are wrong? Attack their science, prove them wrong. Don't say, "Bil oil is paying them to say that". It really is embarrassing and attitudes like(and on the opposite side) are exactly why there is no real conversation.
i determined these guys are wrong because these "articles" all operate with the same approach ... that's what i'm trying to get at here ... Dr. Richard Lindzen is known to have been paid by big oil ... heck that guy took money from tobacco to argue against its health affects ... these are the "scientists" you want to defend!?? ... really!??
that's funny ... i've been trying to get people to debate the science for years ... i've accused inlet13 of not understanding AGW and he hasn't refuted that ... why? ... probably because it's true ... he thinks it's a big conspiracy so he posts articles that support that bias ... and these articles all follow the same pattern ... use of discredited scientists ...
I'm not defending any scientists. You said a peer reviewed paper on AGW had never been published. It took me 30 seconds to find one, and several others. I just don't get why you feel the need to make things up. The evidence is on the side of global warming, man is certainly having an effect on the environment. My entire point is you discounting the possibility that you are wrong and fabricating stories of lack of proof does nothing to help the cause.
I'm not defending any scientists. You said a peer reviewed paper on AGW had never been published. It took me 30 seconds to find one, and several others. I just don't get why you feel the need to make things up. The evidence is on the side of global warming, man is certainly having an effect on the environment. My entire point is you discounting the possibility that you are wrong and fabricating stories of lack of proof does nothing to help the cause.
I'm not defending any scientists. You said a peer reviewed paper on AGW had never been published. It took me 30 seconds to find one, and several others. I just don't get why you feel the need to make things up. The evidence is on the side of global warming, man is certainly having an effect on the environment. My entire point is you discounting the possibility that you are wrong and fabricating stories of lack of proof does nothing to help the cause.
I'm not defending any scientists. You said a peer reviewed paper on AGW had never been published. It took me 30 seconds to find one, and several others. I just don't get why you feel the need to make things up. The evidence is on the side of global warming, man is certainly having an effect on the environment. My entire point is you discounting the possibility that you are wrong and fabricating stories of lack of proof does nothing to help the cause.
I'm not defending any scientists. You said a peer reviewed paper on AGW had never been published. It took me 30 seconds to find one, and several others. I just don't get why you feel the need to make things up. The evidence is on the side of global warming, man is certainly having an effect on the environment. My entire point is you discounting the possibility that you are wrong and fabricating stories of lack of proof does nothing to help the cause.
Interesting article, thanks for the link. Between engineering work and tutoring calculus and physics, I rarely have time to look into the more "softer"(don't like that choice of word too much) sciences, but I find them fascinating.
Here's an analogy for you; sure, it might all be bullshit (it totally isn't, but it 'might' be), but the cost of assuming its not is so incredibly high that its best to lean towards caution.
for comparison, if you are off-road in your 4x4 going in some general direction, and you come across a frozen lake blocking your path. you ask around and most people you talk to say that it probably wont hold the weight of your truck, but a few people (most of whom dont drive or know anything about ice thicknesses) say it will hold, no problem.
you can either drive straight across or drive around the lake. if you drive across, youre quite likely to drown or at least lose your truck and have a very unpleasant time getting out of the water.... sure, you might make it across... but you might not if you drive around you almost certainly wont have any big problems, but it will take longer.
anyone driving across is an idiot (or suicidal).
currently, humanity is at the point where it has decided to drive across... because there are so many idiots... and despite the fact that we are starting to hear the ice cracking... are still ploughing forward!?!?? at very least we need to stick to the thicker ice at the edge of the lake, thus somewhat reducing the odds of dying.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,430
Here's an analogy for you; sure, it might all be bullshit (it totally isn't, but it 'might' be), but the cost of assuming its not is so incredibly high that its best to lean towards caution.
for comparison, if you are off-road in your 4x4 going in some general direction, and you come across a frozen lake blocking your path. you ask around and most people you talk to say that it probably wont hold the weight of your truck, but a few people (most of whom dont drive or know anything about ice thicknesses) say it will hold, no problem.
you can either drive straight across or drive around the lake. if you drive across, youre quite likely to drown or at least lose your truck and have a very unpleasant time getting out of the water.... sure, you might make it across... but you might not if you drive around you almost certainly wont have any big problems, but it will take longer.
anyone driving across is an idiot (or suicidal).
currently, humanity is at the point where it has decided to drive across... because there are so many idiots... and despite the fact that we are starting to hear the ice cracking... are still ploughing forward!?!?? at very least we need to stick to the thicker ice at the edge of the lake, thus somewhat reducing the odds of dying.
Excellent analogy! Another one I heard from a friend goes something like this: You're driving straight toward a four foot thick concrete wall and there's not way to turn in time. You have two choices-- put on the brakes and lessen the impact or-- even though 97.4% of your wise friends tell you it won't work and that braking NOW is the thing to do-- you can go on the half-baked theory that if you hit it fast enough you'll go right though and be ok. Looks like we're hitting the accelerator instead of the brake.
Side note: interesting-- and maybe appropriate-- that these analogies are car related.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm not defending any scientists. You said a peer reviewed paper on AGW had never been published. It took me 30 seconds to find one, and several others. I just don't get why you feel the need to make things up. The evidence is on the side of global warming, man is certainly having an effect on the environment. My entire point is you discounting the possibility that you are wrong and fabricating stories of lack of proof does nothing to help the cause.
dude ... the article was reviewed by invite only and published in some third rate journal ... only selected people were allowed to review it ... once it got out - it was blown to shreds ... this is my point ... if you want to google based on your bias - you can find whatever you want ...
soo ... maybe i should rephrase - there are no peer-reviewed research papers that discount AGW in any leading scientific journal ...
soo ...i didn't make things up and you didn't do the work ...
You don't believe all big pharma stats, right? Why? Well, most doubters would say because they gain monetarily off the statistics. Basically, they have a huge stake in the outcome. Hmmm... well, global warming "scientists" gain off of their stats, too. Their career is based on the theory living on. That's my sole point and has been all along throughout this thread.
I never once said, it's an outright lie. I said there's reason to doubt it.... anyone who doesn't, doesn't know science (or statistics, for that matter).
P.S. Having a cheeseburger won't kill you.
soo ... a major drug company that will earn billions of dollars is the same as a climate scientist at some university ... :roll:
for crying out loud ... again - based on these attitudes ... no one should ever be trusted ...
it really does go back to the lack of critical thinking ... you folks want to question global warming - so, be it ... but at least take the time to figure out what it is so you can question it ...
First, I want to highlight something. Theories are theory… unless proven in one increment by statistics. Science is taking a hypothesis and testing it. My point on statistics is that stats can be fudged, and my other point is that there’s incentives for “climatologists” to do just that. All along my hope was to guide you into seeing that you’re “I’m 100% right on my feelings without any doubt and I’d bet my life on it” thoughts here may be less than 100%, even closer to 99% would be more reasonable. But, you’re sold on “theory”. Basically, the original article did just that, they said don’t base policy on this theory right now. I, personally, think we should certainly avoid evident pollution (oil spill, etc), but I don't think policy should be centered around the issue of Global Warming.
Second, as for specifics…
I’d answer your questions with… I’m not 100% sure, besides the first one.
It’s important to mention that even you stated “believe” in your question for part 2 (which is clearly a theory), and for question 3, that would be heavily answered with statistics. All of this gets to my points earlier in the thread.
Anyway, I have other questions…
Why, despite increasing greenhouse gases, did the rise in the earth’s temperature stall for 10 plus years? Are greenhouse gases the driver of climate? If there’s warming, which there hasn’t been for ten or so years, how would we know it’s caused by us? Could it be caused by solar influences? Does cloud movement, sun radiation and heat from the ocean play any part here? How much of a role does CO2 play when it’s relatively small portion of the atmosphere? What’s causation and what’s correlation? Do other planets follow our cooling or warming?
Most importantly,... how do scientists properly account for all of these variables and controls when proving, with 100% certainty, that this phenomenon is occurring constantly and we are the one's causing it.
I’m sure there are more questions too.
and again - based on this attitude ... we should do nothing about anything science teaches us ... what you are doing is arguing semantics in the face of an actual debate on the topic ... based on this - we should let people smoke wherever they want, we should be allowed to put toxic waste in your backyard ... you want to feed your kids food laced with lead? ... those scientific findings were all made with the same level of certainty if not less and also made by scientists who require grants ... so, can't be trusted right?
all your questions have been answered ... look it up yourself ... if you can't bother to educate yourself on global warming and instead want to start threads that are based on lies and mistruths - that's very disingenuous ...
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
KIEV, UKRAINE—Thirty people, most of them homeless, have died of hypothermia in recent days in Ukraine, part of a surge of deaths across eastern Europe as the region grapples with an unusually severe cold spell.
In all, at least 54 people have died from the cold in Europe over the last week.
Of the victims in Ukraine, 21 were found frozen on the streets, five died in hospitals and four died in their own homes, said Emergency Situations Ministry spokeswoman Yulia Yershova.
Temperatures plunged to minus 23 C in the capital of Kyiv and elsewhere in Ukraine, as schools and nurseries closed down and authorities set up hundreds of heated tents with hot tea and sandwiches for the homeless.
Kyiv city administration head Oleksandr Popov ordered city schools and colleges closed beginning Wednesday through the end of the week, as temperatures are expected to drop to minus 28 C.
“They will be on a break at least until Monday,” Popov said on his website.
In Poland, five people died of hypothermia in the last 24 hours, bringing the death toll from the cold to 15 in the last four days, the national police said.
Temperatures sunk Tuesday to minus 27 C in the southeastern Polish city of Ustrzyki Gorne — and forecasts predicted minus 29 C in the region overnight.
In Russia, one person died late Monday of the cold in Moscow, where temperatures fell to minus 21 C, the city’s health department said. The Russian Emergencies Ministry is not reporting deaths across the country yet.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,430
Look hard enough and you will find a few "scientific reports" refuting global warming. Yet without much left effort, you'll find an overwhelming number of well cited, intelligent reports confirming global warming. In fact, with a little effort, you'll be falling over the piles of reports citing clear evidence of global warming.
Better yet, use your five sense. Things are changing in nature.
I don't mean to sound condescending, but to ignore the overwhelming evidence of global warming seems like either denial or a strong interest in keeping one's big oil stocks afloat. What else could explain this viewpoint?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
This year tied 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.92 degrees F above the 20th century average of 57.0 degrees F. This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. The warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005, which were 1.15 degrees F above average.
This whole article was very good ^^^
NOAA announces two additional severe weather events reached $1 billion damage threshold, raising 2011’s billion-dollar disaster count from 12 to 14 events
A word on why climate change will lead to record cold weather in some parts of the globe:
Posted from a book review/summary/analysis of James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency. Sorry, I'm at work, and this was easier than typing it up myself. And, just as adequate.
Here is the argument that novelist James Howard Kunstler presents in this most engaging narrative:
(1) We have a "one-time endowment of concentrated, stored solar energy"--i.e., oil.
(2) At this point in history, give or take a few years, most of that stored solar energy will be gone. ("Peak oil" is upon us.)
(3) The unprecedented growth of our society is predicated upon cheap energy and needs a continued supply of it to maintain itself.
(4) That growth consists largely of a gigantic highway and road superstructure with massive suburban developments in places that cannot sustain their populations without cheap oil ("nobody walks in L.A.")
(5) This land use structure is particularly and exclusively designed for the machines of cheap oil, cars, 18-wheelers, SUVs, etc., which will become too expensive to run as the oil patch rapidly depletes.
(6) There is no substitute for oil--not coal, not nuclear power, not solar cells, not wind power, not hydroelectric power, not hydrogen fuel cells, not cold fusion, not corn oil--nothing will be adequate. The idea that human ingenuity will come up some sort of alternative fuel at the price we are paying today is just a pipe dream.
(7) Our government has its head in the sand.
Kunstler augments his argument with these major points:
One, regardless of what energy source we might dream will replace oil, we will have to build the structures--nuclear plants, hydrogen fuel "stations," solar panels the size of New Mexico in the aggregate, massive forests of wind mills, etc.--from an oil platform, at least to begin with. Note that we now use energy from oil to mine coal and to build wind propellers. We use energy from oil to build nuclear reactors. Even solar panels require an investment of energy up front to build the panels. These are massive investments that nobody is really planning on. By the time we get our heads out of our wahzus it will be too late: there won't be enough cheap oil left to build the infrastructures necessary for a transition to alternative energy.
Point two is that our gargantuan agribusiness is almost totally dependant on fossil fuels to (1) manufacture fertilizer; (2) to run the machines that plow the fields and harvest the crops; and (3) to fuel the pumps that pump irrigation water up from aquifers or from elsewhere.
Point three is that we are also running out of water. Desalination requires massive amounts of energy. The fossil aquifers are rapidly being depleted. Every year water must be pumped from greater depths until the aquifers run dry. Even aquifers that naturally replenish are being drained faster than they can replenish.
Point four is global warming. Suffice it to say that some places may go under water and other places may experience unpredictable climate change. The Gulf Stream may cease to run, throwing much of Europe into something close to an ice age while tropical conditions with topical diseases will move north.
Point five is that globalization, which is currently making us in the developed world rich--indeed richer than any peoples before in human history--is really a ponzi scheme in which we rob the future in order to pay for current prosperity. Additionally, we are exploiting the labor and resources of others to support our high standard of living. When oil runs out, our ability to benefit from globalization will be greatly diminished and consequently our standard of living will plummet.
The net result of all this, according to Kunstler, will be starvation, war, pestilence, and at best a reversion to a standard of living that prevailed before the oil window opened. Human populations will shrink until they reach an equilibrium with the natural resources of the planet.
This is the salient point behind Kunstler's argument, namely that we have already, many times over, exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the planet, and are currently being artificially and temporarily subsisted by a one-time beneficence that cannot be replaced. When oil becomes too expensive for the masses, the result will be what he calls "The Long Emergency" which will be extremely painful at best and at worse catastrophic. Already he sees the wars for oil being fought, and further down the line, he predicts wars for water.
I agree with Kunstler that we have too many people on the planet. And I agree that our government and governments elsewhere have their heads in the sand. However what I see happening is a long glide from oil to coal (and attendant pollution) to a great reliance on nuclear energy (with all it dangers) to gradually reduced populations, to a gradually reduced standard of living (especially in the US)--which might not be so bad. We would have less obesity and chronic illness caused by too much consumption and too little physical activity.
But I disagree that the "long emergency" will be as terrible as Kunstler envisions. As long as the slide down the slope is gradual, human beings will adjust to it, as we have adjusted to the many changes that have taken place since we left the hunting and gathering way of life thousands of years ago.
In particular, I think even Detroit can make small cars that get 100 miles to the gallon. At the same time I observe that commuters today in and out of our cities travel at an average speed of around 30 MPH. I think we can commute in bicycles at almost that speed. What really needs doing is a massive re-education and relearning program leading to a complete change in the cultural ethos so that we value living modestly within our means and in harmony with the planet's resources. This means gradually reducing our numbers and our demands on the earth so that we return to being part of the earth's ecology, not its cancer.
A word on why climate change will lead to record cold weather in some parts of the globe:
Posted from a book review/summary/analysis of James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency. Sorry, I'm at work, and this was easier than typing it up myself. And, just as adequate.
Here is the argument that novelist James Howard Kunstler presents in this most engaging narrative:
(1) We have a "one-time endowment of concentrated, stored solar energy"--i.e., oil.
(2) At this point in history, give or take a few years, most of that stored solar energy will be gone. ("Peak oil" is upon us.)
(3) The unprecedented growth of our society is predicated upon cheap energy and needs a continued supply of it to maintain itself.
(4) That growth consists largely of a gigantic highway and road superstructure with massive suburban developments in places that cannot sustain their populations without cheap oil ("nobody walks in L.A.")
(5) This land use structure is particularly and exclusively designed for the machines of cheap oil, cars, 18-wheelers, SUVs, etc., which will become too expensive to run as the oil patch rapidly depletes.
(6) There is no substitute for oil--not coal, not nuclear power, not solar cells, not wind power, not hydroelectric power, not hydrogen fuel cells, not cold fusion, not corn oil--nothing will be adequate. The idea that human ingenuity will come up some sort of alternative fuel at the price we are paying today is just a pipe dream.
(7) Our government has its head in the sand.
Kunstler augments his argument with these major points:
One, regardless of what energy source we might dream will replace oil, we will have to build the structures--nuclear plants, hydrogen fuel "stations," solar panels the size of New Mexico in the aggregate, massive forests of wind mills, etc.--from an oil platform, at least to begin with. Note that we now use energy from oil to mine coal and to build wind propellers. We use energy from oil to build nuclear reactors. Even solar panels require an investment of energy up front to build the panels. These are massive investments that nobody is really planning on. By the time we get our heads out of our wahzus it will be too late: there won't be enough cheap oil left to build the infrastructures necessary for a transition to alternative energy.
Point two is that our gargantuan agribusiness is almost totally dependant on fossil fuels to (1) manufacture fertilizer; (2) to run the machines that plow the fields and harvest the crops; and (3) to fuel the pumps that pump irrigation water up from aquifers or from elsewhere.
Point three is that we are also running out of water. Desalination requires massive amounts of energy. The fossil aquifers are rapidly being depleted. Every year water must be pumped from greater depths until the aquifers run dry. Even aquifers that naturally replenish are being drained faster than they can replenish.
Point four is global warming. Suffice it to say that some places may go under water and other places may experience unpredictable climate change. The Gulf Stream may cease to run, throwing much of Europe into something close to an ice age while tropical conditions with topical diseases will move north.
Point five is that globalization, which is currently making us in the developed world rich--indeed richer than any peoples before in human history--is really a ponzi scheme in which we rob the future in order to pay for current prosperity. Additionally, we are exploiting the labor and resources of others to support our high standard of living. When oil runs out, our ability to benefit from globalization will be greatly diminished and consequently our standard of living will plummet.
The net result of all this, according to Kunstler, will be starvation, war, pestilence, and at best a reversion to a standard of living that prevailed before the oil window opened. Human populations will shrink until they reach an equilibrium with the natural resources of the planet.
This is the salient point behind Kunstler's argument, namely that we have already, many times over, exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the planet, and are currently being artificially and temporarily subsisted by a one-time beneficence that cannot be replaced. When oil becomes too expensive for the masses, the result will be what he calls "The Long Emergency" which will be extremely painful at best and at worse catastrophic. Already he sees the wars for oil being fought, and further down the line, he predicts wars for water.
I agree with Kunstler that we have too many people on the planet. And I agree that our government and governments elsewhere have their heads in the sand. However what I see happening is a long glide from oil to coal (and attendant pollution) to a great reliance on nuclear energy (with all it dangers) to gradually reduced populations, to a gradually reduced standard of living (especially in the US)--which might not be so bad. We would have less obesity and chronic illness caused by too much consumption and too little physical activity.
But I disagree that the "long emergency" will be as terrible as Kunstler envisions. As long as the slide down the slope is gradual, human beings will adjust to it, as we have adjusted to the many changes that have taken place since we left the hunting and gathering way of life thousands of years ago.
In particular, I think even Detroit can make small cars that get 100 miles to the gallon. At the same time I observe that commuters today in and out of our cities travel at an average speed of around 30 MPH. I think we can commute in bicycles at almost that speed. What really needs doing is a massive re-education and relearning program leading to a complete change in the cultural ethos so that we value living modestly within our means and in harmony with the planet's resources. This means gradually reducing our numbers and our demands on the earth so that we return to being part of the earth's ecology, not its cancer.
Point five is that globalization, which is currently making us in the developed world rich--indeed richer than any peoples before in human history--is really a ponzi scheme in which we rob the future in order to pay for current prosperity. Additionally, we are exploiting the labor and resources of others to support our high standard of living. When oil runs out, our ability to benefit from globalization will be greatly diminished and consequently our standard of living will plummet.
In particular, I think even Detroit can make small cars that get 100 miles to the gallon. At the same time I observe that commuters today in and out of our cities travel at an average speed of around 30 MPH. I think we can commute in bicycles at almost that speed. What really needs doing is a massive re-education and relearning program leading to a complete change in the cultural ethos so that we value living modestly within our means and in harmony with the planet's resources. This means gradually reducing our numbers and our demands on the earth so that we return to being part of the earth's ecology, not its cancer.
yup ...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,430
A word on why climate change will lead to record cold weather in some parts of the globe:
Posted from a book review/summary/analysis of James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency.
JHK receives a lot of flack for having attitude, being cranky (which is a bit ironic because he has a great, biting sense of humor), etc., but he really know his stuff and is well respected by others who study climate, peak oil and related issues. He's well worth reading.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Comments
again ... with this attitude - you might as well ignore the concept of "science" ... nothing is ever proven ... therefore i suggest to you that smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day are ok for you and a steady diet of cheeseburgers and french fries should let you live till 95 ...
You don't believe all big pharma stats, right? Why? Well, most doubters would say because they gain monetarily off the statistics. Basically, they have a huge stake in the outcome. Hmmm... well, global warming "scientists" gain off of their stats, too. Their career is based on the theory living on. That's my sole point and has been all along throughout this thread.
I never once said, it's an outright lie. I said there's reason to doubt it.... anyone who doesn't, doesn't know science (or statistics, for that matter).
P.S. Having a cheeseburger won't kill you.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Not trying to make fun of you (or whatever you said in response to my only other post on this thread), but you have said, "... anyone who doesn't [doubt global warming] doesn't know science (or statistics)?
This is laughable. I cannot actually believe that someone with half a mind would assert something such as this. The global warming epidemic we are bearing witness to is not just a natural cycle (heightened just a bit... you know- a 'blip'). Solid science has painted a pretty convincing and bleak picture for us. If there are those that choose to dismiss it... well, what can you say?
You alluded to some notion in that mocking post of yours to me that people who believe in global warming are merely inhibitors of economic growth- motivated by a need to impede industry. I am not too sure why anyone would genuinely be of this mindset, but I can tell you unequivocally that if industry should suffer so that we can prevent the polar ice caps from crumbling into the sea... then so be it. A risk I'll gladly assume.
I would think that preservation of this planet should be paramount to every inhabitant of this Earth. If the mountain of information that has been presented to us revealing the effects of our harmful consumption habits is wrong (and that the slight statistical chance of the scientifically based theories on global warming are wrong in their findings), we would still have won erring on the side of caution.
First, I want to highlight something. Theories are theory… unless proven in one increment by statistics. Science is taking a hypothesis and testing it. My point on statistics is that stats can be fudged, and my other point is that there’s incentives for “climatologists” to do just that. All along my hope was to guide you into seeing that you’re “I’m 100% right on my feelings without any doubt and I’d bet my life on it” thoughts here may be less than 100%, even closer to 99% would be more reasonable. But, you’re sold on “theory”. Basically, the original article did just that, they said don’t base policy on this theory right now. I, personally, think we should certainly avoid evident pollution (oil spill, etc), but I don't think policy should be centered around the issue of Global Warming.
Second, as for specifics…
I’d answer your questions with… I’m not 100% sure, besides the first one.
It’s important to mention that even you stated “believe” in your question for part 2 (which is clearly a theory), and for question 3, that would be heavily answered with statistics. All of this gets to my points earlier in the thread.
Anyway, I have other questions…
Why, despite increasing greenhouse gases, did the rise in the earth’s temperature stall for 10 plus years? Are greenhouse gases the driver of climate? If there’s warming, which there hasn’t been for ten or so years, how would we know it’s caused by us? Could it be caused by solar influences? Does cloud movement, sun radiation and heat from the ocean play any part here? How much of a role does CO2 play when it’s relatively small portion of the atmosphere? What’s causation and what’s correlation? Do other planets follow our cooling or warming?
Most importantly,... how do scientists properly account for all of these variables and controls when proving, with 100% certainty, that this phenomenon is occurring constantly and we are the one's causing it.
I’m sure there are more questions too.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I wholeheartedly agree. Going into panic is not the solution.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Yes, my point wasn't that you can't side with global warming. My point was that if you think there's ZERO possibility of being wrong with this issue, you don't know science or statistics. Why? Because there's a chance you're wrong. Maybe it's small, maybe it's very tiny, maybe it's big... we may disagree on that. But, if you say there's no chance you're wrong.... yes, you don't know science or statistics.
Ok. I don't think it's laughable to say that those who are 100% convinced on this statistical evidence, and don't hold an open mind to incoming data or research, are (to use your words) half-minded.
I alluded to my belief that there are "SOME" who use global warming as a policy to gain constituents for their economic agenda, yes. Al Gore... in my opinion, is one of them. Global warming could be seen as a great tool for someone who is of the big government (or grow government) mindset. Why? Well, private industry creates most emissions, right?. If government can further regulate private markets (under this umbrella) they can do so with public support (who isn't pro-earth?), shrink their output (private) and grow theirs (govt). Further, this policy would raise taxes, increase subsidies... there's a realm of potential aspects in which global warming policy impacts economic policy and government in general. It provides government with more and more control, and does so with a green smiley face saying "save the earth".
If you're cool with big government, fantastic. I'm not. Moreover, this above may be a bit conspiracy driven for some, I get that. But, to me, I honestly don't think it is.
I get what you're saying, but if we're erring on the side of caution so that I can be unemployed (can't feed my family), and government can grow bigger, I don't agree. In other words, there's a trade-off between efficiency and this issue, in my opinion. If our economy wants to grow, it's hard to do so with laws devoted to this issue. Is there a happy medium? Probably in the future, yes... I'd be on your side then. Right now, we're broke. We need jobs, plus the data says it's trending in a positive direction (less warming). This is not the time for this. I agree with the original article (to not base public policy on this right now) for that reason.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I assume you're just talking theories?
Did scientists prove that we created a hole in our ozone layer? Isnt that ENOUGH to scare the shit out of anybody? :shock:
This cracked me up!
YOU'RE ALL-RIGHT! (Remember that from Repo Man?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm trying to find some middle ground with you, but I'm not so sure of the conspiracy theory of 'government warns of global warming to knock out the little guy so they might prosper most'. I get as frustrated as anyone with aspects of the government, but not all government is bad government. There are those that wish there was no government at all, but we know how that would work. Let me frame what I say this way:
There are some people out there we need to regulate. For the benefit of all, if we left half the population to their own resources, we're in big trouble. Greedy, ruthless, and stupid behaviours left unchecked have the potential to bring down society and, for that matter, this planet as we know it. Government has grown out of necessity. We need to be regulated- broad based... we're simply too stupid to live otherwise without impacting other's rights.
The overwhelming majority of scientists- from all over the world- who are dedicated to studying the effects of emissions and the growing global warming epidemic- come to common conclusions. I do not think they are secretly part of a plan to restrict private industry's ability to do its business.
My father worked in a mill. Restrictions were becoming prevalent in the logging industry which were set to have an impact on the mill he worked at. Worried as a teen, I asked him how he felt about this and what this meant for our family. He replied that the Earth owes nobody a living: our most sacred resource must be preserved if it is deemed endangered. If it meant he had to find employment elsewhere, then that is what would need to happen. No short term gratification for the individual when the collective whole is put at risk.
Likewise, my province was warned of the pine beetle about 20 years ago. We shrugged our shoulders. Scientists told us that we could spray (costing a bunch) or else hope for a cold winter (two weeks of -20 would do it). Despite no guarantees, the public never listened to our science based community that warned of the future epidemic. If you have ever driven through BC (in particular the north), you will now notice areas that resemble the moon. We never got that cold stretch that we all figured would save us. Two points to make here:
1. It's gotten warmer.
2. Sometimes it's not so good to ignore the findings science reveals to us.
I'm not defending any scientists. You said a peer reviewed paper on AGW had never been published. It took me 30 seconds to find one, and several others. I just don't get why you feel the need to make things up. The evidence is on the side of global warming, man is certainly having an effect on the environment. My entire point is you discounting the possibility that you are wrong and fabricating stories of lack of proof does nothing to help the cause.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Interesting article, thanks for the link. Between engineering work and tutoring calculus and physics, I rarely have time to look into the more "softer"(don't like that choice of word too much) sciences, but I find them fascinating.
for comparison, if you are off-road in your 4x4 going in some general direction, and you come across a frozen lake blocking your path. you ask around and most people you talk to say that it probably wont hold the weight of your truck, but a few people (most of whom dont drive or know anything about ice thicknesses) say it will hold, no problem.
you can either drive straight across or drive around the lake. if you drive across, youre quite likely to drown or at least lose your truck and have a very unpleasant time getting out of the water.... sure, you might make it across... but you might not if you drive around you almost certainly wont have any big problems, but it will take longer.
anyone driving across is an idiot (or suicidal).
currently, humanity is at the point where it has decided to drive across... because there are so many idiots... and despite the fact that we are starting to hear the ice cracking... are still ploughing forward!?!?? at very least we need to stick to the thicker ice at the edge of the lake, thus somewhat reducing the odds of dying.
Excellent analogy! Another one I heard from a friend goes something like this: You're driving straight toward a four foot thick concrete wall and there's not way to turn in time. You have two choices-- put on the brakes and lessen the impact or-- even though 97.4% of your wise friends tell you it won't work and that braking NOW is the thing to do-- you can go on the half-baked theory that if you hit it fast enough you'll go right though and be ok. Looks like we're hitting the accelerator instead of the brake.
Side note: interesting-- and maybe appropriate-- that these analogies are car related.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
dude ... the article was reviewed by invite only and published in some third rate journal ... only selected people were allowed to review it ... once it got out - it was blown to shreds ... this is my point ... if you want to google based on your bias - you can find whatever you want ...
soo ... maybe i should rephrase - there are no peer-reviewed research papers that discount AGW in any leading scientific journal ...
soo ...i didn't make things up and you didn't do the work ...
soo ... a major drug company that will earn billions of dollars is the same as a climate scientist at some university ... :roll:
for crying out loud ... again - based on these attitudes ... no one should ever be trusted ...
it really does go back to the lack of critical thinking ... you folks want to question global warming - so, be it ... but at least take the time to figure out what it is so you can question it ...
and again - based on this attitude ... we should do nothing about anything science teaches us ... what you are doing is arguing semantics in the face of an actual debate on the topic ... based on this - we should let people smoke wherever they want, we should be allowed to put toxic waste in your backyard ... you want to feed your kids food laced with lead? ... those scientific findings were all made with the same level of certainty if not less and also made by scientists who require grants ... so, can't be trusted right?
all your questions have been answered ... look it up yourself ... if you can't bother to educate yourself on global warming and instead want to start threads that are based on lies and mistruths - that's very disingenuous ...
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1kxbLlV2u
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/
:(
KIEV, UKRAINE—Thirty people, most of them homeless, have died of hypothermia in recent days in Ukraine, part of a surge of deaths across eastern Europe as the region grapples with an unusually severe cold spell.
In all, at least 54 people have died from the cold in Europe over the last week.
Of the victims in Ukraine, 21 were found frozen on the streets, five died in hospitals and four died in their own homes, said Emergency Situations Ministry spokeswoman Yulia Yershova.
Temperatures plunged to minus 23 C in the capital of Kyiv and elsewhere in Ukraine, as schools and nurseries closed down and authorities set up hundreds of heated tents with hot tea and sandwiches for the homeless.
Kyiv city administration head Oleksandr Popov ordered city schools and colleges closed beginning Wednesday through the end of the week, as temperatures are expected to drop to minus 28 C.
“They will be on a break at least until Monday,” Popov said on his website.
In Poland, five people died of hypothermia in the last 24 hours, bringing the death toll from the cold to 15 in the last four days, the national police said.
Temperatures sunk Tuesday to minus 27 C in the southeastern Polish city of Ustrzyki Gorne — and forecasts predicted minus 29 C in the region overnight.
In Russia, one person died late Monday of the cold in Moscow, where temperatures fell to minus 21 C, the city’s health department said. The Russian Emergencies Ministry is not reporting deaths across the country yet.
Better yet, use your five sense. Things are changing in nature.
I don't mean to sound condescending, but to ignore the overwhelming evidence of global warming seems like either denial or a strong interest in keeping one's big oil stocks afloat. What else could explain this viewpoint?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... stats.html
This whole article was very good ^^^
NOAA announces two additional severe weather events reached $1 billion damage threshold, raising 2011’s billion-dollar disaster count from 12 to 14 events
Posted from a book review/summary/analysis of James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency. Sorry, I'm at work, and this was easier than typing it up myself. And, just as adequate.
Here is the argument that novelist James Howard Kunstler presents in this most engaging narrative:
(1) We have a "one-time endowment of concentrated, stored solar energy"--i.e., oil.
(2) At this point in history, give or take a few years, most of that stored solar energy will be gone. ("Peak oil" is upon us.)
(3) The unprecedented growth of our society is predicated upon cheap energy and needs a continued supply of it to maintain itself.
(4) That growth consists largely of a gigantic highway and road superstructure with massive suburban developments in places that cannot sustain their populations without cheap oil ("nobody walks in L.A.")
(5) This land use structure is particularly and exclusively designed for the machines of cheap oil, cars, 18-wheelers, SUVs, etc., which will become too expensive to run as the oil patch rapidly depletes.
(6) There is no substitute for oil--not coal, not nuclear power, not solar cells, not wind power, not hydroelectric power, not hydrogen fuel cells, not cold fusion, not corn oil--nothing will be adequate. The idea that human ingenuity will come up some sort of alternative fuel at the price we are paying today is just a pipe dream.
(7) Our government has its head in the sand.
Kunstler augments his argument with these major points:
One, regardless of what energy source we might dream will replace oil, we will have to build the structures--nuclear plants, hydrogen fuel "stations," solar panels the size of New Mexico in the aggregate, massive forests of wind mills, etc.--from an oil platform, at least to begin with. Note that we now use energy from oil to mine coal and to build wind propellers. We use energy from oil to build nuclear reactors. Even solar panels require an investment of energy up front to build the panels. These are massive investments that nobody is really planning on. By the time we get our heads out of our wahzus it will be too late: there won't be enough cheap oil left to build the infrastructures necessary for a transition to alternative energy.
Point two is that our gargantuan agribusiness is almost totally dependant on fossil fuels to (1) manufacture fertilizer; (2) to run the machines that plow the fields and harvest the crops; and (3) to fuel the pumps that pump irrigation water up from aquifers or from elsewhere.
Point three is that we are also running out of water. Desalination requires massive amounts of energy. The fossil aquifers are rapidly being depleted. Every year water must be pumped from greater depths until the aquifers run dry. Even aquifers that naturally replenish are being drained faster than they can replenish.
Point four is global warming. Suffice it to say that some places may go under water and other places may experience unpredictable climate change. The Gulf Stream may cease to run, throwing much of Europe into something close to an ice age while tropical conditions with topical diseases will move north.
Point five is that globalization, which is currently making us in the developed world rich--indeed richer than any peoples before in human history--is really a ponzi scheme in which we rob the future in order to pay for current prosperity. Additionally, we are exploiting the labor and resources of others to support our high standard of living. When oil runs out, our ability to benefit from globalization will be greatly diminished and consequently our standard of living will plummet.
The net result of all this, according to Kunstler, will be starvation, war, pestilence, and at best a reversion to a standard of living that prevailed before the oil window opened. Human populations will shrink until they reach an equilibrium with the natural resources of the planet.
This is the salient point behind Kunstler's argument, namely that we have already, many times over, exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the planet, and are currently being artificially and temporarily subsisted by a one-time beneficence that cannot be replaced. When oil becomes too expensive for the masses, the result will be what he calls "The Long Emergency" which will be extremely painful at best and at worse catastrophic. Already he sees the wars for oil being fought, and further down the line, he predicts wars for water.
I agree with Kunstler that we have too many people on the planet. And I agree that our government and governments elsewhere have their heads in the sand. However what I see happening is a long glide from oil to coal (and attendant pollution) to a great reliance on nuclear energy (with all it dangers) to gradually reduced populations, to a gradually reduced standard of living (especially in the US)--which might not be so bad. We would have less obesity and chronic illness caused by too much consumption and too little physical activity.
But I disagree that the "long emergency" will be as terrible as Kunstler envisions. As long as the slide down the slope is gradual, human beings will adjust to it, as we have adjusted to the many changes that have taken place since we left the hunting and gathering way of life thousands of years ago.
In particular, I think even Detroit can make small cars that get 100 miles to the gallon. At the same time I observe that commuters today in and out of our cities travel at an average speed of around 30 MPH. I think we can commute in bicycles at almost that speed. What really needs doing is a massive re-education and relearning program leading to a complete change in the cultural ethos so that we value living modestly within our means and in harmony with the planet's resources. This means gradually reducing our numbers and our demands on the earth so that we return to being part of the earth's ecology, not its cancer.
Good read, thanks.
yup ...
JHK receives a lot of flack for having attitude, being cranky (which is a bit ironic because he has a great, biting sense of humor), etc., but he really know his stuff and is well respected by others who study climate, peak oil and related issues. He's well worth reading.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"