Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Global Warming (or not)

The Earth's natural systems deal with huge amounts of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by natural sources every day. It can certainly handle the relatively tiny amount that humanity contributes--and although it may seem huge to us, to the systems that nature brings to bear it is tiny. A single eruption by Pinatubo blew more CO2 into the atmosphere than humanity has contributed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Ditto for Mt. St Helens, back in the '80s. Do you know what happened to the global average temperature following those eruptions? The sunsets got more spectacular and the average global temperature dropped for two or three years afterwards. Nature handled it. Do you really believe that CO2 produced by Man is somehow fundamentally different from the CO2 spewed out by volcanoes, in such a manner than Mother Nature somehow can't deal with it? I promise you, the chemical composition is identical.

Humanity's CO2 contribution is minuscule compared to natural sources. If you want to look at a greenhouse gas that actually does increase temperature, look at water vapor -- there's tons of it in the atmosphere, and it does cause the atmosphere to warm. But you can't get rid of water vapor -- we'd die without it -- just as we'd die without CO2. Without CO2 the plants die and we need plants to produce more 02, which we breathe. It's a closed system, and all the parts are necessary for it to work. That's one of the things that worries me about the drive to scavenge CO2 from the atmosphere. If we jump into this, not knowing what we are doing, we could conceivably cause a lot of damage.

The jury is still out. I don't care what a bunch of scientists with big government research grants dangling in front of them say. If you can accuse the scientists who disagree of financial incentive, I can do the same to those who say that AGW is real. They aren't above financial influence either.

The truth is, all the facts aren't in yet. There have been periods in the past where the CO2 level was high and the temperature was much lower than today. Similarly, there have been periods where the temperature was high and the CO2 level was low. We need to figure out what is really going on before we jump in with both feet and discover too late that we've screwed up and have caused more trouble than we started with.

Nan

It sounds to me as if you are saying cold periods on the Earth have sometimes been accompanied by, or even caused by, a rise in the CO2 level in the atmosphere, and that, similarly, a drop in the CO2 level has sometimes led to warmer weather. I must confess that I know nothing about that. So would you mind telling me where you found these facts?

What I know for sure is that the Earth only has trace elements of CO2 in its atmosphere. This is in sharp contrast to Mars and Venus, whose atmospheres are completely dominated by CO2. The atmosphere of Venus is very thick, and the one on Mars is very thin, but both are completely dominated by CO2. The fact that the Earth's atmosphere is so different must be significant.

It is certain that the Earth has not always had the kind of atmosphere it has now, though. For example, it took a long time until there was a significant amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. Arnost Rusek, my colleague, insists that the first significant amount of free oxygen in the atmosphere was made by the first photosynthesizing organisms. Arnost, a teacher of natural sciences, says that these first oxygen-making organisms were different from today's green plants, and he also says that they all became extinct because they couldn't deal with the waste product, the oxygen, that they had made themselves! Arnost claims that these oxygen-makers were fine for a long time as the oxygen level in the atmosphere rose. But then the oxygen reached a critical level, and all these pioneer photosynthesizers just died.

(Please note that these oxygen-makers changed the Earth's atmosphere by releasing a lot of their own major waste product, oxygen, into the air. Could humanity similarly be on its way to poisoning itself with its own major waste products, CO2, soot, methane, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and other chemicals?)

As for the CO2, there can't really have been less of it, proportionally speaking, in the Earth's early atmosphere than there was and is in the atmospheres of Mars and Venus. Arnost says that the terrestrial CO2 reacted with all kinds of minerals and became part of the Earth's crust rather than becoming a significant constituent of its atmosphere. And this happened early in the Earth's history, according to Arnost.

The temperature of the Earth has certainly gone up and down, and there have been many ice ages. There are a number of possible reasons for these forbiddingly long cold snaps: the Sun may be a variable star with regular periods of long severe inactivity, leading to millennia of freezing on the Earth. Alternatively, the Earth itself may have some sort of periodicity that we don't understand, perhaps related to plate tectonics and volcanism. Also, the Sun-Earth system may be variable when it comes to the shape and size of the Earth's orbit around the Sun or the inclination of the Earth's axis in relation to the Sun.

I once read an article in Scientific American, which claimed that the Earth had been completely covered by ice during the coldest of the ice ages. This was the so called 'Snowball Earth'. The snowball melted when a large number of volcanoes erupted, releasing a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and creating an increased greenhouse effect, raising the temperature and melting the ice.

Anyway, Nan. Please note that you contradict yourself when you make these two contrasting claims:

Here you say that humanity's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is insignificant, and therefore, by implication, it is not harmful.

...and yet later you say that if we make an effort to dump less CO2 into the atmosphere, then we could conceivably cause a lot of damage. You realize, of course, that we could only lower our man-made (and according to you, insignificant) production of CO2, whereas we are completely helpless to do anything about the CO2 that is released by natural processes such as volcanoes.

By the way, it wasn't the CO2 from Mount St Helen that caused the spectacular sunsets and the drop in global temperature. It was instead the soot from the eruption that led to those effects.

I find it amazing that you are so averse to the idea of trying to fight man-made pollution here on Earth, Nan. Surely the fact that the Earth is inevitably going to do some polluting of its own doesn't make it okay for us to be so careless with the only world within at least four light-years that humanity could possibly survive on?

Ann

Several years ago, I watched a news report of a meeting between Arab and Israeli leaders who each made statements to each other (and to the news media) which were not direct responses to the statement or statements just made by the other party. One of the news commentators called it a "dialogue of the deaf." And that's what this thread looks like to me.

Ann, I have not read anyone in this thread who has said that reducing pollution is a bad idea. Yet that's what you seem to read when someone writes that reversing global warming and reducing CO2 in the atmosphere isn't necessarily required for humanity's long-term survival. CO2 isn't a pollutant in our atmosphere, it's a necessary component. The atmospheres of Venus and Mars aren't like that of Earth, and probably never were, due to differences in water levels and distance from the sun and lesser gravity and different amounts of heavy minerals and so forth. Comparing them to Earth isn't valid and simply clouds the discussion.

This page is a brief index of sites which claim to refute the central claims of the dangers of global warming. The authors of the various texts claim to be qualified to speak on the subject, so we probably should at least read what they have to say.

And while I haven't done so, any of us could find a similar site which lists various articles from equally qualified people taking the opposite viewpoint.

I wonder what people would have said in the 1850's had such a furor been made of the warming trend which began then and has continued until this day. Or the cooling trend which began in earnest around 1270 AD and froze out the Viking settlements in Greenland and destroyed the vineyards of southern England. Or 1816, the "year without a summer," when New England farms froze under June blizzards and food crops failed throughout Europe due to the 1815 eruption of the Indonesian volcano Tamboro.

Earth's weather is changeable. Earth's climate is also changeable. Temperatures have fluctuated for thousands of years, but this is the first time humans have been specifically blamed for it. I do not deny that humanity has had an impact on our weather, but I remain skeptical that we are dooming ourselves.

How many of you remember the famous "hockey stick" temperature graph in the 2001 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Here's just one site which pronounces it dead. Of course, there are others which support the hockey stick conclusions, but the graph's absence from the same organization's most recent report on global warming (which still supports the human-induced warming position) makes me doubt its validity. Yet there are many in the media who still refer to this graph and present it as fact.

Is the earth getting warmer? It has been, but not for the past few years. Is the climate changing? Could be. For example, the southeastern US has been in the grip of a pronounced drought for several years. The central US (Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas) had a similar drought broken in 2007 with record rainfall, and central Oklahoma has just completed the wettest August on record. The water tables in all three states, which were way below normal at the end of 2006, are at or above optimum levels now.

But these data points by themselves aren't evidence of anything except recent plenteous rainfall. They're anecdotes. Pictures of smoke or exhaust or even pollution aren't evidence, either, unless you're building a case for the violation of some local pollution ordinance. There is no consensus among scientists over the cause, effect, speed, or result of higher temperatures. Who knows, maybe the temperature will rise enough to enlarge the sub-tropical croplands around the world and enable us to feed the hungry. Maybe the warmer temperatures will stimulate the growth of food algae in the ocean and enable the sea-dwelling animals to flourish all up and down the food chain. And maybe we'll all die gasping for oxygen.

My point is that we don't know. And the counter-measures which have been proposed either won't solve the "problem" because they aren't effective enough or they won't help because they would bankrupt every country in the world. And I know that no one will change his or her mind as a result of reading this post - or even as a result of reading this entire thread. I only hope we can keep the discussion civil and reasonable.

I am quite aware that it was the soot from the eruptions that caused the brilliant sunsets, but regardless of that, the volcanoes pumped out a lot of CO2, which caused no global warming at all. And I am not contradicting myself in my concern about what may happen if we jump the gun and start trying to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere. A lot of the damage to which I am referring is the economic damage, and by extension the damage to the Earth that will ensue. In the Third World nations, the environmental damage is far more severe than in any of the free countries that exist. The Soviet Union and China, for instance, have the most poisoned environments that you can imagine. If we clamp the controls on the free countries that it will take to enforce the extreme reductions in CO2 that are planned, my country, and other free countries can expect similar problems because of the damage to the economies that will follow. You can't take good care of the environment without money. You can't afford it. So that, right there, refutes your contention that I am against fighting pollution, Ann. I am actually worried that pollution will increase if the measures that have been proposed are actually put into effect -- along with the destruction of my country's economy.

I repeat, Man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is insignificant. But the attempts to remove it can cause incredible damage, and I don't want to see that happen.

Now, I am well aware that this post isn't going to convince you, so I am not going to visit this thread again. I've stated my position and I don't feel the need to rehash it.

Nan

A clean environment is a good thing. Okay? Let's make that clear. I'm pretty sure everyone on this thread agrees to that.

However, since one can't have everything, that good has to be balanced against other good things.

I think, though, that it's a luxury good. When people have to worry about starving to death, they don't give a flying flip about pollution. If the only way to heat my house in winter also pollutes the atmosphere, well, I'm not going to volunteer to freeze just to get marginally cleaner air. However, I'll gladly switch *if* something better comes along -- nuclear power, perhaps. But those are incredibly expensive to build -- you have to get to the point where there's enough money available to do it. Richer countries are cleaner countries -- Europe & the US are much cleaner than China, for example.

The reason oil is so pervasive as an energy source is that it's one of the cheapest and easiest things available. Other sources of power may be feasible later, but right now, they are simply more expensive, and large parts of the world can't afford them. Forcing everyone to switch "within ten years" sucks money right out of, well, the whole economy.

So, given that, I have to wonder... does it really make sense to force economic changes that bankrupt everyone on the planet?

Especially given that the long term consequences of any course of action are *not* currently known and may not be knowable at all.

For instance, ethanol. It's less efficient than gasoline, but it's better for the environment, so we use it. The corn to produce it, though, is diverted from other uses -- like feeding the hungry. I think we all saw that last year; there were riots over higher food prices. Nobody in Congress set out to starve people, of course, yet that's what their actions led to.

So let me make a final point about CO2. And let me make it from an astronomical point of view.

Please look at this graph:



This graph shows how stars of different masses will evolve over time when it comes to luminosity and temperature. Please note that luminosity has to do with total energy output. The more luminous a star is, the more energy it releases.

The graph shows the evolutionary tracks of stars of different masses. The lowest track shows the evolution of a star like the Sun.

The solid diagonal line represent the zero age main sequence. The zero age main sequence is when the hydrogen in the core of the very young star has become compressed and hot enough to spontaneously start hydrogen fusion. To put it simpler, that is when the star gets access to its internal fuel and gets its stellar engine going.

The slashed diagonal line represents what happens when the star has used up the hydrogen in its core. At this point, the star has no more hydrogen fuel in its "core tank". After that, the star's luminosity and temperature will evolve dramatically, as you can see from the evolutionary tracks to the right of the dashed diagonal line.

I want you to note three things about the evolution of the Sun. First, of course, that the Sun is going to grow dramatically brighter when it has used up the hydrogen in its core. It is going to swell to a red giant, and it might possibly grow large enough to engulf the Earth. As you can understand, life on Earth will not be able to survive that.

The second thing I want you to note is that the main sequence - the distance between the solid and the dashed diagonal lines - seems so incredibly short for a star like the Sun. That, however, is not true at all. The Sun is going to spend about 90% of its lifetime on the main sequence and only about 10% as a red giant. In other words, it is going to remain more or less the way it is now for hundreds of millions of years, maybe for a few billion more
years.

Note that I said more or less the same.

Look at the graph again. You can see that the Sun's is going to be brighter when it leaves the main sequence than it was when it first entered it.

In short, the Sun is going to grow slowly but steadily brighter during 90% of its lifetime. It has grown slowly and steadily brighter while humanity wasn't around, and it will grow slowly and steadily even brighter from this point onwards.

I'm not saying that the Sun may not have periods of lower activity, the way it seemingly does right now, when it has no sunspots at all. But the overall trend is toward a higher luminosity and a greater energy output. Consider this graph, which, I must point out, has nothing to do with the Sun at all:



In this graph there are short-term peaks and dips, as well as longer-term hills and depressions. The overall trend, however, is that this graph is pointing upwards. And so it is with the Sun. We know that the Sun is mildly variable and cyclical, but there is an overall trend of an ever-increasing energy output.

This is an image of a famous young cluster, the Pleiades:



All the stars in this cluster were born together about a hundred million years ago. Compare that with the age of the Sun, which is 4.5 billion years. The Sun is 45 times older than the Pleiades.

Astronomers have found many stars which resemble our own Sun in the Pleiades. They look like faint dots in the picture above, insignificant compared with the short-lived bright blue giants which dominate the cluster.

The stars which resemble the Sun can be easily identified by their "spectral lines" (I won't even try to explain that here), which show that their temperature is the same as the Sun's. However, given the distance to the Pleiades, 400 lightyears, astronomers can see that the sunlike stars in the Pleiades are 20-30% fainter than the Sun.

The Sun is 45 times older than the Pleiades. The sunlike stars in the Pleaides are 20-30% fainter than the Sun. But it is probable that the Sun was about as bright, or faint, as its counterparts in the Pleiades when the Sun itself was only a hundred million years old.

The Sun is growing brighter. Slowly but inexorably.

Now maybe you are saying that if the Sun had been that faint in its youth, then the Earth would have been frozen solid and there could have been no life on Earth for a very long time. But in fact, biologists and geologists claim to have found evidence for microbial life on Earth three billion years ago.

The reason for that appears to be that the Earth itself was hotter in its youth than it is today. Back then it had more internal heat and more heat-generating radioactive elements than it does today. The low energy levels from the young Sun were made up for by the heat leaking out of the young Earth's red-hot core. In those days the Earth needed as much internal heat and atmospheric insulation as it could get. Today the situation is different.

Imagine that you lived not too far from a big fire, which for some reason couldn't be put out (and you wouldn't want it to be put it out) and also it couldn't be really contained. It was bound to spread, slowly but inexorably. And for whatever reason, you couldn't move farther away from it.

Would you tell your kids that it was okay to play with gasoline around your house?

Would you tell your neighbours that it was okay to release flammable gases into the air close to your house?

Would you tell them it was okay to release flammable gases into the air close to the fire?

The Sun is like that fire that can't be put out and can't be contained. The CO2 that humanity releases into the atmosphere is like the flammable gases that those people released close to the fire close to their house.

I agree that there is no simple solution to the problems of global pollution, global deforestation, increasing global drought, increasingly severe hurricanes, and the ever-increasingly rapid extinction of huge numbers of plant and animal species.

You can take three approaches to this situation. You can say that there is no real problem, of if there is, it is too costly to do anything about it. Therefore we must go on releasing flammable gases into the air close to a fire just like before.

Or you can say that those who talk about the problem are the real problem, and people like Al Gore should be jettisoned into the Sun.

Or you can decide that you are going to get together and pool your resources and do whatever you can to deal with the problem.

As you can imagine, I'm for the idea of getting together and trying to do something real and serious about the problem.

There is only so much we are going to be able to do. We can't stop the Sun from getting inexorably brighter.

But we can buy ourselves and other lifeforms on this Earth some time.

Ann

Here's my issue with that statement; the "powers that be" are trying not to allow me that decision. They're trying to FORCE this plan on me. That is, rather than trust me to use MY resources(that is the money I earn with my time spent working), there are folks who have decided that they know better than I do how to spend MY MONEY.

One thing about all this "pooling your resources" is that SOMEBODY always wants to be in charge, and all too often(per history on human nature) these guys want a cut for all their hard work of "being in charge" and then they end up doing whatever the hell they want with this luxury while the those of us forced to "contribute" to these "projects" are expected to keep contributing.

You have these folks with all these "good intentions" that get together and say what we should do, but what they never really disclose is that they are going to be in charge of how they go about accomplishing these goals and how they are going to take my hard earned time and cash toward these "good intentions".

mr algore, with his $30,000 a month electricity bill mansion, and his private jet to concerts and speeches, and his airconditioned houseboat has already proven his pretentiousness to me. There is no way, with a hypocrite like HIM leading the pack, I will EVER agree to freely give to anything he proposes and I will fight tooth and nail to avoid giving to anything he proposes.

As far as buying us time on earth, tomorrow is NEVER guaranteed. We could be hit by a meteor any minute now and all that panic and hand-wringing about saving the planet(snort) will have been a complete waste of MY resources, regardless of whatever graphs and heavenly photos have been presented. I'd rather have the free choice, right now, to do what I want with the time and money I have, thanks anyway.

TEEEEEEJ

Wow, Ann. Beautiful pictures. Talk about your big picture view -- you must spend lots of time looking for those things.

"Coming together to do something" -- that sounds great, in a big picture sort of way, but, see, the details matter. A lot. Do *what* specifically? And can we talk about the options calmly and realistically, weighing the science and economic and social effects before taking action? Can we have an honest assessment of *all* the world's problems (AIDS, poverty, women's rights, etc), and decide where our money and efforts would do the most good? Without it being dominated and distorted by politics? So far, apparently not.

And it would help a bunch if the people screaming loudest about the crisis started living as if it was true. (I loved the climate conference in Bali, with hundreds of people from around the world travelling in their private jets... :rolleyes: I mean, c'mon!) If they're not practicing what they preach (and by "they" I don't mean "you"), if the leaders and activists don't act like they believe there's a problem, then it really looks like they're just trying to use this as a means of gaining political power and telling other people what to do. Or at least the satisfaction of feeling morally superior to those who don't fall in line.

PJ

Shouldn't we conclusively figure out if we're actually having global warming first before doing something about it? What if the last ten years are the trend and we're now in a cooling period, such as we were in the 60's and mid-70's when the left had their global cooling hysteria?

It seems silly to combat a problem that people don't agree even exists. What if in the name of fighting global warming, we precipitate a worsening of global cooling? That's no better for our planet than global warming. Granted I love cold weather.

To me, trying to solve a problem that hasn't been agreed upon is dangerous and may exacerbate the opposite problem since evidence of the last ten years points more to a cooling trend.

Ann, correct me if I'm wrong but are you proposing that we enact solutions to the problem of the sun potentially warming in the next few hundred million years (or up to five billion years since our sun is middle-aged) as it transitions from a yellow sun to a red star? Otherwise, I'm not sure why it's part of this discussion. To combat the sun and its enormous forces would require technology that simply doesn't exist. I propose that we wait a hundred million years or so until our science is up to the task.

Imagine that! The sun causes global warming!

As Terry says, nobody's arguing against a clean planet. I would encourage people to recycle, not drive as much as they can (you should be rooting for $4/gallon gas or 13 kronor/liter gas in Sweden and higher), and do their part. But to impose "solutions" such as Kyoto, which would only serve to bankrupt the United States, is simply too draconian. There's a reason our Senate voted against it 99-0.

P.S. 13 kronor/liter in Swedish crowns is about $8.50/gallon, which is what I saw it for when I was there two weeks ago.

I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh at this thread.

People have an opinion on either one side or the other, and seem to be able to try and preach about their side until they are blue in the face. It's funny.

But it comes down to the individual and what they feel they have to do, or not do, about it in the end.

You can walk to work/school, never catch a plane again, plant 100 trees, recycle, compost and "reduce your carbon footprint"... you do it for you... not because the end of the world is nigh, or some politician tells you to. You do it because you feel you want to make a difference to yourself.

Some of the emerging countries are big polluters... they are really only coming to the front with their industrial economy now... not unlike other countries did in the 40's, 50's and 60's... probably with as much (and possibly more) pollution back then. And trust me.. when the wind blows a certain direction, Hong Kong gets smothered in the pollutant smog from Shenzen in China... soooo.... I see it pretty regularly (but it's not contributing to global warming yet... just Hong Kong warming ).

However, if you believe humans are the reason for global warming, then you shouldn't be pointing the finger at countries who are polluting at the moment. Perhaps you need to look back at what occurred 40 years ago... global warming is a gradual process.

The earth has been cycling through global warming and ice ages for a long time. I wish I had brought some of my climatology
books with me.. they do make for interesting reading... and as to 'how do they know what historic climate was like'... arctic and antarctic ice core samples are full of an invaluable wealth of historical climatological information. The earth leaves little signs everywhere to let you know what's happened to it... but I digress.. sorry... that's the geographer in me.

The debate of climate change is not dis-similar to the evolution vs creation stuff... people get so passionate...

Believe what you want to believe, listen (or don't listen) to what you want to. That's the beauty of the world we live in today. There is a freedom for choice, opinion and voice.

That's the way it should be.

It's just that when some people are convinced it's a crisis, they think they have the moral right to coerce the rest of us... for our own good, of course :rolleyes:

Didn't NZ get hit with lots of fines under Kyoto? No disrespect to New Zealand but they've surely never been a major source of pollution...

PJ

Last night I noticed that Roger had posted to this thread, so I checked it out to see what he had to say.

Uh, Ann -- are you actually serious? Now, I admit that my astronomy knowledge may be a little out of date. I took a basic astronomy course at Solano Community College in the 80s, but I can't believe that the information was that far off.

When I studied astronomy, the estimate was that the Sun is about 8 billion years old, and that it is about half way through its lifespan. Even if that has changed somewhat, the changes in the Sun that you are talking about won't become significant for millions of years, at least, and maybe not for a few billion. How in Heaven's name is something that we do or don't do *now* going to make any difference at all?

Taking drastic, panicky steps now, over AGW, which we aren't even sure is happening and which we aren't even sure how to tackle without making things a lot worse, seems a bit premature, don't you think?

Nan

PS: And now I really *am* through, because I think everything has pretty much been said. May I add that making wild accusations about people objecting to keeping the planet clean, when you know very well that isn't what was being said, is bound to cause some anger. While I trust that I am adult enough not to take such accusations personally, I must admit to a tiny bit of annoyance at the way you twisted what I said just to make a point. I am not a professional debater, and I may not always phrase things correctly, but I think you knew very well what I meant.

Well, since I have been interested in astronomy since the early seventies, I know that an absolutely huge body of astronomical knowledge has been added since the eighties. Today the consensus is that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. Exactly how far it has to go before it becomes a red giant is less certain - or more exactly, astronomers are less sure of it - but the general consensus is that we are certainly talking much, much longer than humanity can realistically expect to survive. In short, we don't have to worry about what happens when the Sun becoms a red giant, because we won't be around by that time. Or rather, if we have actually managed to survive that long, chances are that we have learnt to live sensibly in a way that uses up a minimum of resources. Not only that, but if we have survived that long, we will probably know how to look for and move to another planet where we can survive.

Anyway, most astronomers still believe that the Sun is about mid-way through its main sequence existence. But even if the Sun won't actually turn into a red giant for a very long time, it will still get brighter and more energetic long before it takes that final plunge into red gianthood.

This is what Wikipedia says about the coming brightening of the Sun, although other sources claim that a solar brightening has been going on since the Sun was born:

The brightening of the Sun

This is what Wikipedia says about the Sun in general. You may note what it says about the Sun's age:

My point is that since we orbit a life-giving star which, however, is bound to get ever more uncomfortably bright, we shouldn't add greenhouse gases to our atmosphere. It's a bad idea to buy extra heaters for your house if you know that a heat wave is coming. Particularly if you don't know how to turn those heaters off.

Exactly. We have to pay a lot of tax for our gas, and the government uses that tax money to, among other things, pay for a lot of public transportation. I'm fine with that. But I'm not trying to tell other countries what to do, and I'm certainly not trying to tell other people how much money they should have to pay for gas in their own countries. Bottom line, that's none of my business. More precisely, it's not up to me to decide. And precisely because I am one of the many Swedes who use public transportation and get by without a car, I don't feel qualified to discuss what the price of gas should be.

Also, for the record, even though I don't have a car I'm no Ms. Goody Two Shoes when it comes to being environment friendly. I waste and live frivolously like most people do. I don't have the right to tell others how they should live. All I'm saying that every last one of us is dependent on the Earth for our survival, and what we do to the Earth has consequences, and I hope that everyone will be interested in the question of how we treat our world.

Ann

Just some interesting information on global temperatures.

UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere (Jan 1070 - June 2008)

Scroll down to Global Temperature Trends

Roy W. Spencer: Global Warming and Nature\'s Thermostat

quote: "Didn't NZ get hit with lots of fines under Kyoto? No disrespect to New Zealand but they've surely never been a major source of pollution..."

Yeah... it's all the methane our agriculture releases into the atmosphere.. did you know there are 22 sheep to each person in New Zealand? and I'm sure I have a few cows as well. (and yes... I can laugh about the fact people like to tease New Zealand about it's sheep count).

Seriously though, I thought I would look up what the idiots in government in New Zealand have been up to (since I am only there once or twice a year), and what-do-you-know... they've generated a potential 4.2 billion deficit (or $1000 per New Zealander) by committing to the Kyoto Protocol.
The irony is, New Zealand is a green nation, and I'm not just talking about all those lush green paddocks of grass.
The main power sources in New Zealand are hydrothermal (water). The country has a strong emphasis on forestry and protecting the natural environment, mountains, forests & waters (which in turn helps scoop a great venue for movie locations). Recycling has been a concept I've been used to since I was in high school in the 80's. Because of the number of highly endangered species there (caused by the introduction of humans and mammals), environmental awareness has always played a major part of society in New Zealand. Asking for a styrofoam anything in New Zealand is like asking to have your armed chopped off... biiiig nono. And did I mention New Zealand has a no nuclear policy, which has meant US naval ships haven't been allowed into NZ waters since around 1985 because they don't disclose the nuclear nature of their vessels. New Zealand was also the first country to give women the right to vote (not that that's relevant to the global warming issue... but I figured a bit of trivia to show the openness of the country was worthwhile).
The hole in the ozone layer fluctuations over Antarctica have been of extreme interest to New Zealand for some years now as not only can it effect agriculture, but also cause health issues (such as increased rates of melanoma).

So to me, it seems silly that the government of the day would be willing to sign a protocol without knowing (because who can actually know the costs) what impact it will have or even researching the ramifications to the New Zealand environment (let alone the economy).
It just shows you now much politicians base their judgement on facts *yeah right*.

I've not been reading the thread - sorry . Basically, because I know what my opinion is and I don't have that much interest in debating it.

But I thought this was an interesting sidebar when I heard it on the news today.

The activists claimed that although their actions were technically unlawful - criminal damage - that climate change is even more criminally damaging to the country and so their actions were justified for the greater good. Apparently, the jury agreed with them:

Source: BBC News Website

LabRat

Yes, I heard about that. Surely you don't see this as a good thing??

"Well, sure, it was criminal, but, see, we're really really sure that there's this crisis, see, and so we think destroying other people's property is, y'know, okay."

Sorry, when "criminal damage" is okay against one unpopular industry, it's only a matter of time until it's okay against others. And the definition of "unpopular" changes over time. This is a horrible precedent.

PJ

Greenpeace is an 'interesting' organisation.

I can not say I agree with their motives, or actions. They do some downright dangerous intervention methods. They don't mind endangering other peoples lives for the sake of their cause. Case in point is the metal stakes they put in trees. If a chainsaw hits one of these, there is a good chance the lumberjack (who is only an employee of a company) will end up maimed or dead.

Now I know they were the target of terrorism (I was there when it happened, I saw the boat, the damage, etc).. but ever since then they seem to have upped the ante to what they do in the name of 'environmental awareness'.

Their environmental terrorism could be compared to a small scale version of other militant terrorism organisations... and I have to wonder if they get away with this what they would stop at to get their point across 'in the name of peace'.

So now I'm wondering, if someone decided to bomb a college science lab because they use live rats for their experiments, then it's okay because the "greater good" is making sure live animals aren't used in experiments??? That's some twisted thinking on that jury.

I guess if we don't go along with the global warming religion, we'll just have to be bullied into it. I guess if they want to start hacking our bank accounts to support their agenda of "saving the earth" we should just accept it. I recall several SUV's on the left coast being damaged by a bunch of fanatics a year or so ago. But no, it's okay because they were doing it for the greater good of the planet :rolleyes:

TEEEEEJ

This is from today's USA Today (11-18-08):

Ann