Comments on: Draft Contribution to Tech Central Station

By: Strange Doctrines

Strange Doctrines — Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:58:37 +0000

Very nice job. I think they might have some work for you over at the CSC as well.

By: Tom Weisshappel

Tom Weisshappel — Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:37:08 +0000

Sad to say but 10 years might as well be 50 or 100 in the eyes of some of my fellow Americans. I would guess that most business leaders’ vision extends out to 5 years at most. However, even this narrow vision is mainly focused on the next year or next quarter. Politicians are only concerned if something will come back to bite them before they come up for re-election (OK – maybe I’m over-generalizing on that one but it seems to hold true more often than not). Given that the longest term in U.S. government is 6 years (for senators), it seems unlikely that any solution will be put forward by U.S. political leaders anytime soon. I think, in the end, it’s up to each of us to do our part. We need to continue to build our own awareness and let our actions flow accordingly. As small and insignificant as it may seem, what we do is really the only thing we have control of. And if enough of us do it, we can do more than any politician or business could ever hope to do.

By: Gar Lipow

Gar Lipow — Sun, 05 Dec 2004 05:42:58 +0000

The one thing that bugs is commens about effects “50 years from now”. A fair number of people are suffering today from global warming; that suffering is currently trivial compared to world hunger and preventable diseasers , war and such, but still kills a fair number of people in the absolute sense. Further recent data shows those effects increasing much faster than expected a few years ago. We may start seeing catastrophic results in as little as a decade – certainly within 20 or 30 years. In short global warming is our problem – not merely our grandchildren’s.

By: vernaculo

vernaculo — Sun, 05 Dec 2004 05:32:37 +0000

Automobiles: biggest industry in US. Traffic fatalities: biggest single cause of death in US for people under 30. Oil. Gasoline. Cars. I don’t know, but I think there’s a connection in there somewhere. Iraq. Iran. Ossetia. Sudan. Nigeria. And, oh yeah, increasing incidence of “extreme weather” due to increased temperatures. Glacier melting. Species migration into previously inhospitable regions and away from vice versa. Inuit hunters on thin ice. The scam is to make the individual driver/owner feel responsible, because you know, you chose to do that. And American TV is roaring with brand-new SUV’s all shiny and protectively large and powerful, conquering the hostile landscape. Suggesting confidently the fear will be ameliorated by its cause. Who’s running this scam? Where’s the inertia? We’re living in a climate of politcal/religious security/terror that requires constant vigilance and endless pre-emptive war to make us safe. Well?

By: Gar lipow

Gar lipow — Sun, 05 Dec 2004 05:30:26 +0000

Also if you look at literature, the idea we will see major effects in 50 years is pretty much obsolete. We are seeing significant effects now, and can expect major effects within ten or fifteen years. This is not just your grandchildrens problem people. Real email is Garlpublic followed by the at sign, then dot then net.

By: Tom Weisshappel

Tom Weisshappel — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:54:52 +0000

Warren – yes, I’ll admit that mine was an overly simplified perspective. However, what if the Earth’s climate can be accurately described as a chaotic system? Tinkering with the “initial conditions” as we are doing could push the Earth’s climate into a pattern that has not been experienced by mankind for a long time (or perhaps ever). That, at least to me, is scarier than any other alternative could possibly be. We could, as some have suggested, continue to study the issue. Maybe in 100 years a climatologist will give a worldwide press conference and say, “Ladies and Gentlemen. We now have a perfect understanding the Earth’s climate.” (applause) “We now know with 100% certainty that the Earth’s climate passed a tipping point 10 years ago and that there is absolutely nothing we can do at this point to prevent it from continuing. Thank you and have a nice day.”

By: cloquet

cloquet — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:51:15 +0000

To John Quiggen: The main point is that action was taken. If anything at all, this points to the difficulty in implementation when you have point vs. non-point pollution. Point pollution is usually industrial. Non-point are things like sewage treatment plants, even though they also release at a “point” to change requires sacrifice on the part of everyone, rather than focusing on industry as the bad guy. Just look around, you can see cases that when proper pressure was applied, private industry did what it was supposed to do. In a community near where I like, they still have problems with sewage treatment overflows during heavy rains, primarily because the cost of proper sump drainage must be met by the individual, and not one industry. The individual gets leeway that industry would never get if faced with the same cleanup responsibility.

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 21:35:17 +0000

Tom Weishappel, if “Kyoto” is insufficient, and most people I think knowledgeable do think so, it is due to the will to find a middle ground that would be acceptable by the USA, in the hope that once agreed upon a way to mitigate the effects, more useful methods would get effected. DSW

By: Chet Murthy

Chet Murthy — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 20:17:51 +0000

Gotta love it: “The market, and not Lysenkoist scientists, should be allowed to decide the truth about climate change.” You had me fooled for a sec there! I was about to flame-on!

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:55:50 +0000

“After all, there was concern not too many years ago to the loss of ozone to fluorohydocarbons, and this led to use of different propellants, not a long dispute over whether this was normal or not.” On the contrary, cloquet, many of the leading CO2 sceptics cut their teeth as ozone layer sceptics and a few (eg Singer, I think) still maintain this position. Here’s Sallie Baliunas

By: cloquet

cloquet — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:22:26 +0000

If you read the last few paragraphs of the Oreskes paper, you may get the feeling that yes, the author agrees with the conclusion, but nevertheless the unanimity of the scientists to that degree is a bit disturbing. It is as if the scientists have segregated themselves into like minded groups, and you have to be careful when you look at their conclusions. She states that of “928 papers, none argued that current climate change was natural.” But I would agree that upsetting the balance of CO 2 in the atmosphere is the major concern. After all, there was concern not too many years ago to the loss of ozone to fluorohydocarbons, and this led to use of different propellants, not a long dispute over whether this was normal or not.

By: Jim Harrison

Jim Harrison — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 17:33:33 +0000

I’ve worked with some of the technical folks who project future coal prices. They routinely include the cost of the recapture of CO2 in their estimates because they take it for granted that any administration, left or right, will eventually have to take serious action about greenhouse gases. These economists and engineers are hardly radicals or even environmentalists, but they are realists.

By: Robin Green

Robin Green — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 17:28:44 +0000

Warren, your link is broken.

By: Warren

Warren — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 17:15:15 +0000

technical difficulties. The Patrick J. Michaels link seems to be broken. It was meant to show that he is the best selling 'global warming' author. Try this one, or better yet this one

By: Warren

Warren — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 16:28:09 +0000

Hi there, First time visitor here, and for the record a big Hayek booster. I thought I might introduce you to Patrick J. Michaels an actual accredited scientist type fellow. One of his main critiques of the so-called scientific literature is that there’s not enough peer review. Tom, (2) They’re wrong and we implement changes? We breathe a sigh of relief – but inhale much cleaner air than that found in You’re overly simplified perspective has done you a disservice. The actual consequences run more along the lines of; Millions of people remain, and are forced into poverty. Power is further concentrated into the hands of the elite. Tyranny… corruption… end of civilization… Hmmmm, I might be overstating the matter.