Today is worldwide Blog Action Day, an annual event held every October 15 that unites the world’s bloggers in posting about the same issue on the same day with the aim of sparking discussion around an issue of global importance. Blog Action Day 2009 will be one of the largest-ever social change events on the web.
In this spirit, we’d like to announce an environmental flash gathering taking place in Riverfront Park. Meet your friends at the blue Howard St. bridge at noon on Saturday, October 24th to have a group picture taken. This image will be sent to the 350 campaign headquarters and will be presented to local, state, national and world leaders with a message to set global goals of reducing carbon to 350ppm in the atmosphere.
350 parts per million is what many scientists, climate experts, and national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere.
Accelerating arctic warming and other early climate impacts have led scientists to conclude that we are already above the safe zone at our current 390ppm, and that unless we are able to rapidly return to 350 ppm this century, we risk reaching tipping points and irreversible impacts such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and major methane releases from increased permafrost melt.
To help volunteer, please contact Bea Lackaff at: 509-327-8303, beala[at]icehouse[dot]net
There will be a procession walking back to the Community Building Lobby where members of the Youth Sustainability Council will conduct a teach-in about locally generated climate solutions.
Just another exciting day for the environment in the Lilac City!
- Sign a petition to President Obama to take strong action on climate change
- RSVP to 350 Day Spokane on Facebook
Tags: Political Surprise · Sustainable Development · Young People63 Comments
63 responses so far ↓
Mariah…do you have/know of an article or two showing what the safe limits for CO2 are? I’ve not heard of any data like that. Also though, does anyone know how CO2 is related to earth temps?
I just haven’t seen any data. It’s talked about . Any articles in Nature, Science or something reliable? D
Hello…We have had global cooling for 11 years in a row now. Our sun this year has been spotless (not a common event) and you are worried about CO2 levels? PLANTS EAT CO2!!!
Why is there a tree line???? Why is there a veg line?
CO2 weights more than O2 and N2. It STAYS NEAR THE GROUND where the PLANTs eat it. Clouds hold heat – they are made of watter vapor. Ask ANY weather pro. No clouds overnight on a winter monring IT GETS VERY COLD.
This is not hard science folks. We should be more worried about global cooling (since our sun seems to be under the weather as of late). This is truly the greater threat.
Dazzeetrader – I’d have to say that we’re at a point now where there is no point in talking about safe limits of CO2.
SpoWind – yes, you are right – there has been no warming in the world’s air temperature averaged over all the land and ocean between 1998 to 2008 – as there wasn’t from 1997 to 1985 and 1981 to 1989. But it’s just too easy to “cherry-pick” a period to reinforce a particular point of view, as you are doing. It’s the long-term temperature readings that have been collected over the past century that are startling, and those show us a climate being warmed by man-made carbon emissions.
I encourage you to read this report from NASA where you will find all of the above information and MUCH more – http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html
“Spokane 350″ is the title Bart. I’d like to know why “350″. And so I asked MARIAH. And by the way, who is this “we” you refer to? If the alleged warming isn’t present since the 80′s, I wonder if it hasn’t gone away as cycles in earth phenomena usually do.
I remember in the 70′s there was data indicating global cooling and the thought was that the globe (or at least the US component) was headed for a major cool down and possibly a mini ice age as occurred for 70-80 years in the 1800′s.
So what is the “Spokane 350″ moniker about if there isn’t any CO2 trending upwards with an ill effect on health as indicated in Spovangelist’s text?
Bart Mihailovich wrote,
“It’s the long-term temperature readings that have been collected over the past century that are startling, and those show us a climate being warmed by man-made carbon emissions.”
Er, no, they don’t, Bart. The temp series only show a warming trend. They say nothing about the causes of that warming. You need a theory to make that connection, and evidence sufficient to warrant adoption of that theory and rejection of others.
Why the government on this one too? The Spovangelist has invoked government in past posts that in my simple mind would be better done on a grassroots level ( “This July 4th, let’s declare our food independence by sourcing the ingredients for our holiday meals as locally, sustainably and deliciously as possible, and let’s ask our elected officials to do the same”).
If blogs are really as powerful as people say why not go with a list of simple personal things you can do at a local level to reduce CO2? At what point in ones life do they become convinced government is the answer? I would rather have Italian guys in nice suits carrying violin cases come shake me down for using to much electricity then a bureaucrat with a form that says “please remit payment to…”.
Hello SpoWind. For your latest comment I propose The Great Gazoo Theory: That sometime since the sun went under the weather you began taking marching orders from the Great Gazoo, the tiny, effeminate green alien only Fred Flintstone could see. For example, the “global cooling” theory is completely understandable if you imagine The Great Gazoo hovering over SpoWind’s ear and whispering “Hey dum-dum, if you really want to show that Spovangelist fool what’s what, ask if they know why it’s cold outside. That’ll teach ’em.”
Greenhouse gases have increased 25 percent since the industrial revolution began 150 years ago; during the past 20 years, about 3/4 of human caused emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, concentrating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plant photosynthesis helps– natural process absorb some of the net human caused carbon dioxide emissions produced each year but an estimated 4.1 billion metric tons are added to the atmosphere annually and rising. This imbalance between emissions and absorption results in an increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Rising greenhouse gases produce an increase in the average surface temperature of the Earth over time; these temperatures produce changes in rain patterns, storm severity, and sea levels. Hence climate change. So I’ll see y’all at the bridge on Saturday!
http://www.amath.washington.edu/~farnum/gazoo.jpg
Economist William Nordhaus’s latest DICE model of the economic impacts of various carbon reduction strategies puts the net cost of a reduction in atmospheric CO2 to 420 ppm at $13 trillion. That is, it would cost $27 trillion to reduce harms (from doing nothing) by $14 trillion. Even if it reduced expected harms to $0, there would still be a net loss of $4 trillion. A reduction to 350 ppm would obviously cost many trillions more.
But then, religious crusades are never concerned with economic realities.
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_14_02_03_murphy.pdf
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/dicemodels.htm
Paul: you give and recite great figures. As I asked Spovangelist in the first post, do YOU have any references from which you draw those CO2 numbers? Do you have anything that those number cause damage either to man or to the environment? As of the past several years, it now appears that the earth is indeed cooling. All this while the EPA has no numbers to show CO2 cause much besides higher CO2 levels. Even the method by which CO2 is measure in the atmosphere is under protest since it doesn’t appear to be reproducible from lab to lab. Further though, If CO2 is rising and the early is cooling, what should humans make of that? Sources of CO2 are scattered……thus “man made” reasons aren’t quite so secure. Do you have any data or reference otherwise or is the argument inferential? I honestly don’t know. My brother is at Harvard Med and in his group, they cross talk with the MIT group about this. They don’t seem to know either. There must be something rock soid.
Dazzeetrader – here’s where 350 comes from – NASA scientist James Hansen:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf
Thanks so much for “narrowing” the findings on CO2 Bart. Specifically though, can you point to one page or one or two graphics defining the issue of how, where or at what level CO2 is to blame for global heat, cooling or is somehow harmful to humans? It’s not readily apparent upon reading the report in its entirety.
Thanks in advance. D
Dear Dazzeetrader,
Don’t argue.
Love,
Al
Here you go Dazzeetrader –
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/smoking_gun_humans_climate_change.html
Carbon emissions increase with more humans.
Increase in carbon rising global temperatures.
Today’s climate could NOT have happened if humans did not exist.
Why are you censoring humble little Spowind, Spovangelist?
I go to post for a few days now and my post never see the light of comment. Have I been defrocked?
Are my words too harsh?
Is it a server problem?
Please tell us it is and you are not censoring folks with vaild comments.
I’m hoping for a light warm winter this year. Last year with 5ft of snow in less than a week was too much.
About that ‘global cooling’….
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
Are you censoring Spowind? I have had two different post not posted.
What’s up here Spovangelist?
I’m sorry you (SpoWind) seem to be having some technical difficulty. I haven’t received notice of any comments that I haven’t been able to approve.
I have a policy of approving everything that isn’t hate speech or spam. I’ve received plenty of the latter and none of the former to date.
i have a question: when did accepted scientific theory become open to politically styled “debate” amongst those of us who aren’t actually scientists doing research in that particular field?
The public should always be debating scientific “theory”. That debate will be political when tax dollars are at stake.
President Eisenhower said this in the same speech as his Military-Industrial Complex quote:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite”
Bart M wrote,
“Dazzeetrader – here’s where 350 comes from – NASA scientist James Hansen . . . ”
Hansen is Chicken-Little-in-Chief of the AGW crusade. Here is a comparison of his 1988 climate predictions with reality:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2602
Contrarian, I’m curious: What’s your take on the other kind of crusade, the kind where “reducing harm” is achieved by simply not checking your inbox?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/13/tech/main5382587.shtml
“The e-mail and the 28-page document attached to it, released Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency, show that back in December of 2007 the agency concluded that six gases linked to global warming pose dangers to public welfare, and wanted to take steps to regulate their release from automobiles and the burning of gasoline.”
“The document specifically cites global warming’s effects on air quality, agriculture, forestry, water resources and coastal areas as endangering public welfare.”
Also, interesting citation of Nordhaus. He’s not as chicken-little as say Hansen, but he has some pretty radical economic solutions, believing “the most efficient strategy for slowing or preventing climate change is to impose a universal and internationally harmonized carbon tax levied on the carbon content of fossil fuels.” We both know there’s an abundance of DICE models out there in the green jobs sector but his belief that the current price on carbon—$0, of course—is too low and needs to be changed, like now, seems at odds, with your realism.
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_prepub.pdf
Your dice.
This is what I wrote days ago and it would not post
Well Paul, I’m glad to see you are up on your TV cartoons. Using them, as a reference to support a logical argument however is a technique I’m sure you have failed employing many times.
There have been numerous ice core studies that have demonstrated rising and falling CO2 levels over the last 800,000 years. Average global temperatures have been both higher and lower than they are today. Long before industrialized man ever drove the earth.
Could it be it is a natural process based on other factors besides human activity? What is the perfect temperature for the earth?
We are in a 11 year global cooling trend (so far). The sun is spotless this year. Yet CO2 levels have gone up. Hmmmmmmmmm, apparently there is not a direct 1:1 correlation between CO2 levels and Global warming….
Also, Paul, pontificate how a gas that is heavier than air ever gets as high as the clouds to hold in the heat. Do CO2 molecules stay together or would they disperse?
(Hint: clouds stay together in order to hold in the heat)
Think it through if you are able, and I believe you will find what I discovered years ago, Global Warming and Cooling is a natural process that will happen with or without human activity. CO2 is not our enemy; rather it is the folks who are attempting to manipulate us with bad science.
Oh SpoWind, you were best not to post that last bit seeing as most of your points were already brought up and refuted.
Lego posted this link about the 11-year “cooling” trend – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
And it said:
(1) This discussion focuses on just a short time period – starting 1998 or later – covering at most 11 years. Even under conditions of anthropogenic global warming (which would contribute a temperature rise of about 0.2 ºC over this period) a flat period or even cooling trend over such a short time span is nothing special and has happened repeatedly before (see 1987-1996). That simply is due to the fact that short-term natural variability has a similar magnitude (i.e. ~0.2 ºC) and can thus compensate for the anthropogenic effects. Of course, the warming trend keeps going up whilst natural variability just oscillates irregularly up and down, so over longer periods the warming trend wins and natural variability cancels out.
(2) It is highly questionable whether this “pause” is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 ºC per decade – just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.
And it’s not a natural process based on other factors as shown with this research – http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/smoking_gun_humans_climate_change.html
Look at figure 3.6 please
Please allow me to take on some myths.
Tree line: This is not due to the “heaviness” of the carbon dioxide. While it is true that carbon dioxide is heavier than air, so is oxygen. The atmospheric level we live in is stirred pretty much constantly (by nothing more exotic than the weather we see every day) which allows molecules of different weights–such as carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen–to actually be dominated by the lightest of these three (nitrogen is 78%).
Clouds hold heat: No, not really. They reflect light and heat. Just as having clouds at night holds heat in, having clouds in the day blocks heat out. This is why is seems warmer when there’s a break in an otherwise overcast sky. But, at least, I am glad people believe that the temperature of the earth is affected by something that’s in the air.
The house wins: It is common for people trying to understand global climate change to bring up the weather. It is said that weathermen can’t predict the weather next week, let alone a century from now. The difference is whether we’re talking about individual instances versus a long term trend. I can’t tell you if you’re going to throw boxcars on your next trip to the craps table. But what I can tell you is that, if you stay there long enough, the house will win. The long term trend is that you’ll lose. Same goes for “evidence” such as the fact that Spokane had a record snowfall last year. Individual years are interesting trivia, but are only important as single data points in a long term upward trend of climate changes. Indeed, global climate change is not an increase in temperature in every conceivable location. It is a generalized increase in thermal energy, and a shift in climate patterns in reaction. This results in unusual weather. Spokane may very well have an increase in precipitation as a result, however the localized effect will be much smaller than the global one, obviously.
Scientific elite: It is important for people to be critical (not destructive, but merely using their thinking circuits) of the so-called scientific elite. The question is not whether the data is false or not, but whether the “scientific elite” can be trusted as humans. Any small group must be held to account by other people who can critically examine the data. This is actually part of the theory behind modern scientific inquiry. It isn’t enough for a few scientists to say something for it to be considered true. There was significant skepticism in the 80′s when some University of Utah scientists said they had invented cold fusion. Critical analysis by competent scientists showed this to be false. with the case of global climate change, we have a rigorous, worldwide scientific consensus that global climate change is underway and that it is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. This is not a scientific elite. This is worldwide consensus. It’s different.
In the clouds: I’m going to assert that the sky is blue (if you wish to debate this separately, let’s do so, but in another thread). There’s a reason for this. When blue colored light from the sun enters our atmosphere, it encounters a great deal of oxygen and nitrogen, and these molecules happen to be of such a length that the blue parts of the spectrum are refracted in random directions. Blue photons of light passing over your head and destined to otherwise strike the ground miles away from you get refracted down to you, so you can see blue light coming from a place above you, even though there’s no apparent source of light in that location. Carbon dioxide (and methane and water vapor) is a longer molecule than oxygen and nitrogen–it scatters longer wavelengths, such as infrared. In this case, however, the earth is the emitter–visible rays of sunlight pass easily through the carbon dioxide, warm the earth, then the infrared radiates away. But, now, with more greenhouse gasses, the infrared can’t get away as easily. The amount of heat near the earth’s surface increases. If we had the ability to see infrared directly, you could have noticed over the course of the last 150 years the sky getting more (not blue) but more infrared as more of it is reflected back down to you.
This is natural: It is true that there have been changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the past. Indeed, it is the best evidence we have that global climate change is possible–it has happened before. However, it has not happened by this cause, nor to this extent in the measurable past. The difference between a jungle and a mile of ice above your head here in Spokane is what the planet has experienced before. However, and this is key, that variability is correlated with a much smaller amount of change in carbon dioxide than is currently being experienced. Carbon dioxide levels as high as those being anticipated have not been measured before. The fact is, the earth has a natural (but very slow) cycle for sequestering carbon–and removing oil and coal and natural gas from the ground is the way humans are interfering with that natural cycle. It was sequestered. Now it’s not. That is NOT natural.
I have a big to-do on Saturday out in Cheney, so I won’t be at the rally. I hope y’all make your point, and have fun doing it.
Interesting discussion. But I have a couple thoughts:
First, I don’t know about you but if a majority of doctors was telling me I had cancer, but one or two said I was fine. I would tend to go with the opinion of the majority and address the illness. Same thing with climate — a majority of scientists — particularly climate scientists — agree that we have a problem. I think perhaps we should listen and not focus on the small minority that think otherwise.
Second, it won’t bankrupt us to do so. If anything, we need a radical change in our economy to create new jobs, create a new tech sector, and make the U.S. more energy independent. In fact, in a recent report 200 economists found that a worldwide effort to reach 350 parts per million carbon emissions is affordable; it can create more new jobs, spur more innovation and protect businesses, governments and households from the damages caused by the rapid heating of the earth.
See
http://eon.businesswire.com/portal/site/eon/permalink
/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20091006005432&newsLang=en
So if a majority of scientists think we need to address the problem and our economy will benefit — the question is why not? Why not be “conservative” in our management of the environment and make sure we leave our children with an economy and environment that will be healthy and sustainable.
Paul wrote,
“Contrarian, I’m curious: What’s your take on the other kind of crusade, the kind where “reducing harm” is achieved by simply not checking your inbox?”
Speculative emails warning of hypothetical harms predicted by theoretical models whose prior predictions have proved false should be forwarded directly to the recycle bin.
Paul wrote,
“Also, interesting citation of Nordhaus. He’s not as chicken-little as say Hansen, but he has some pretty radical economic solutions . . .”
I cited Nordhaus for just that reason. He is an economist often cited by greenies, but even his analysis shows the 350 ppm standard to be a losing proposition.
All such analyses are, of course, so speculative as to be worthless.
Brian Sayers wrote,
“With the case of global climate change, we have a rigorous, worldwide scientific consensus that global climate change is underway and that it is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. ”
While your post was accurate and informative in general, that particular claim is nonsense. A *consensus* is *unanimous* agreement among all those informed about a particular issue and qualified to have an opinion. Agreement of a majority is not a consensus. The latter is a loose and misleading usage.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
There is, and never has been, a consensus on AGW theory. The theory is built from a handful of data and a truckload of assumptions, every one of which has been questioned by some of the best qualified investigators in the respective fields.
Riverlawyer wrote,
“In fact, in a recent report 200 economists found that a worldwide effort to reach 350 parts per million carbon emissions is affordable . . .”
Your link did not lead to a source. But see the Nordhaus links I posted earlier.
Bart M wrote,
“And it’s not a natural process based on other factors as shown with this research . . .”
Re: 12C/13C ratios. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
I really dig all the scientific debate going on here but my special talent involves seeing the future. As I was looking through a newspaper from 2019 I noticed this headline- “Global Warming Real; Bridge Photo Did Nothing To Prevent It”. The story went on to say how online petitions were this fad and how counterproductive they are because it made people think they were doing something.
I go weeks without getting outside of a two mile radius of my home. I don’t have kids. I don’t even have a dog. My drinking glasses are old jars. I am better then you because I will not leave global warming up to politicians.
Here is the link to the complete report finding that the economy would benefit by striving to meet the 350 goal.
http://www.e3network.org/papers/Economics_of_350.pdf
Riverlawyer,
The “study” you cited was produced by a group of “greenie” economists with a express agenda. To get the results they wanted, they 1) reduced the standard discount rate (used for computing present value of future events), 2) doubled the climate sensitivity accepted by the IPCC (which is likely already too high), 3) raises the exponent relating damages to temperature increases, and 4) adopts wholly unrealistic estimates of the costs of various mitigation strategies. And thus got the results they wanted.
In other words, GIGO.
Wrong again Contrarian. Your comment seems to dodge the issue that a President was submitted a study from his own appointees and hid it because he wasn’t taking any chances on regulating fossil fuels since, hey, let the good times roll. Good to know you recycle though, maybe you’re not so bad after all.
I hav e not had time to address some of the hot air being passed here. Business is booming….For your viewing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W-BePJOLbw
Enjoy!
Contrarian –
That report cites from a large number of peer reviewed reports and studies and pulls together a large number of data and conclusion in support of the 350 goal.
Moreover, your beloved Norhaus report itself has been called into question by over relying upon mitigation as opposed to adaption to reach reduction goals. See
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/07/06/nordhauss-less-than-optimal-climate-strategy/
Riverlawyer wrote,
“That report cites from a large number of peer reviewed reports and studies and pulls together a large number of data and conclusion in support of the 350 goal.”
Sure it does. It uses good data wherever that data will not upset the conclusions they want to reach. But then it applies arbitrary climate sensitivity, future discounts, and damage formulae to those data.
“Moreover, your beloved Norhaus report itself has been called into question . . .”
Nordhaus’s report is by no means beloved by me. But at least it uses standard assumptions for the key multipliers. Like all such studies, it ” . . . still leaves the problem of relying on analyses over time frames that demand, in Coleridge’s words, “willing suspension of disbelief,” as Goklany said. Trying to predict the future state of the economy, or of any complex system, beyond the very near term is always an idle exercise. Nordhaus himself says that he “has no confidence in the projections beyond 2050.” That is pushing it.
BTW, Riverlawyer, neither study compares the net gain from carbon mitigation strategies to the gains obtainable from devoting the same resources to solving other problems, such as reducing hunger or malaria, both of which will cause more deaths in the future than climate change, *ceteris paribus*.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-609.pdf
So what is your solution Contrarian? Staus quo? Is that working for our environment? Our economy? Our energy independence?
Riverlawyer,
Pondering solutions before you know the magnitude of the problem, or even whether there is a problem, is premature.
Riverlawyer,
Clicked “submit” too quickly there.
Your goals of improving the economy and energy independence conflict. You improve the economy by obtaining energy from the cheapest source, as with every other commodity.
That’s pretty simplistic.
Actually by retooling and revamping our economy by investing in new green energy and green tech, we could improve the economy and create new jobs (just as the Tech Bubble of the 1990s created a ton of jobs and much wealth to out economy).
Riverlawyer wrote,
“Actually by retooling and revamping our economy by investing in new green energy and green tech, we could improve the economy and create new jobs (just as the Tech Bubble of the 1990s created a ton of jobs and much wealth to out economy).”
The tech bubble would not have occurred if a cheaper technology for accomplishing the same purposes had already existed. You don’t get a “boom” by investing in costlier technologies when cheaper alternatives are available. That is a version of the “broken window” fallacy (break windows, because fixing them will create jobs and stimulate the economy). Investment in alternative energy technologies will occur to the extent that it makes market sense.
Not if we create tax incentives or develop legislation that creates a market demand. We were and to some extent the leaders in water treatment technologies because we were the first to have comprehensive water quality legislation. Contrary to popular opinion at the time, the Clean Water Act benefitted and continues to benefit our economy rather than harm it.
Riverlawyer,
“Not if we create tax incentives or develop legislation that creates a market demand.”
That is an oxymoron. You can’t create *market* demand by legislation. The two are antithetical concepts. Demand resulting from tax incentives or other political intrusions into the economy is synthetic demand, not market demand. It is created by siphoning money out of the economy by force, thus reducing demand for the other goods and services that money would otherwise buy. It always yields a net loss, because it forces people to pay more for goods they value, or buy goods they value less. It is another version of the broken window fallacy.
Yes Contrarian, because we really live in a true Capitalist society don’t we? Status quo works pretty good, eh?
Maybe its time to wake up and smell the bail outs.
There’s something to be said for standing on the courage of your convictions Contrarian. You’re like Davy Crocket at The Alamo: Swinging away despite the odds. Your position is a creative paralysis though: Environment and economy are holistically compatible, where energy efficiency saves money AND cuts emissions. Measures by the Climate Corps—26 MBA students—will collectively save an estimated $54 million at 22 companies (and one university) which translates into 100,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases avoided annually. No broken windows needed.
Riverlawyer,
“Maybe its time to wake up and smell the bail outs.”
Don’t expect me to defend bailouts. Also, don’t confuse free-lunching and political schmoozing by corporations with free markets, or “capitalism.” As long as political power is for sale, corporations will be lined up at the trough, along with all the other hogs.
Paul wrote,
“Measures by the Climate Corps—26 MBA students—will collectively save an estimated $54 million at 22 companies (and one university) which translates into 100,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases avoided annually.”
Nothing wrong with saving energy. That is only common sense. But if some kind of State coercion is required to force the changes, that tells you the changes proposed are not “market clearing,” i.e., that there are some unaccounted costs involved. Else the changes would be made voluntarily.
I guess when it comes to do what is right, I don’t believe in leaving it to the market. I shutter to imagine the “market-driven” world that you seem to crave Contrarian. Sounds like anarchy.
Riverlawyer wrote,
“I guess when it comes to do what is right, I don’t believe in leaving it to the market. I shutter to imagine the “market-driven” world that you seem to crave Contrarian. Sounds like anarchy.”
I guess you don’t understand what “market-driven” means. A free market is simply one in which each person is free to enter into a relationship with any other willing person, for any purpose and on any mutually agreeable terms, and enjoy the fruits of their labor and cooperation without interference from others, as long as they do not violate the rights of any third party. That last proviso distinguishes it from anarchy.
The only alternative is some form of slavery, where some persons — Il Duce, Der Fuerher, the Pope, the Czar, the Massa, or bureaucrats dictate to everyone else what relationships between whom are allowable, what their terms must be, and confiscate the fruits of others’ labor.
Those are your choices. Take your pick.
A free market is also one in which each person is free to do what she thinks is right, to the extent her own resources allow, as long as she violates no one else’s rights. Slavery is the condition where most persons are forced to do what someone else (the Massa, Der Fuerher, etc.) deems to be “right.”
Hope this helps.
Full week of reading and I still cannot find ANY scientific article or data that confirms CO2 correlates or determines any warming whatsoever. I’m beginning to think there is very little relationship except in opinion pieces. If one “wills” it to be fine. If one thinks buying into the green movement is good for the economy, fine.
Not one biologic marker has been discovered that indicates the overall minor warming in some climates harms anything. It would be nice to think fossil fuels or use of cars, busses, etc is causing the change we see might be stopped. Looks like it’s inexorable though. Might be that warming cycles are part of an evolutionary process.
Before the world spend trillions of changes aimed at conquering or even lessening warming, many people would like to see some firm evidence. CO2 350 as goal is mostly a nice opinion. What will happen when 300 or 350 is reached ( is it) or maintained isn’t known. Most of this is speculative. SO where’s the science? Where’s the standard error or the estimates? Where is the multivariate analyses?
These ideas appear to be mostly coffee house talk. I don’t expect the proponents to do anything but criticise. Before you do though, find some facts and not just everyone else’s opinion. It’s like an Al Gore movie…..it wins awards but it cannot be defended except in loose terms. No wonder he won’t debate the “facts”. There might not be any.
By the way River, “shutter” is best used for houses. “Shudder” is the nervous shakes one gets when uncertainty scares you.
God bless you Contrarian for laying this out so nicely. Remember what Dr. Economy says- “A healthy economy is based on voluntary co-operation between individuals exchanging goods and services.”
FYI – here is some peer-reviewed science for everybody.
Jon….define “Peer” in this context.
Peer reviewed means that the work has been vetted by other experts in the same field. Wikipedia, in as much as it can be called a source, has an extensive article on the IPCC AR4 report, contributed to by 620 authors, alongside criticisms that have been made of it – both in terms of it overstating the dangers and understating the dangers of climate change.
Here is an article in the journal Science speaking to the report and to the peer review process the report went through.
Dazzetrader – Your participation is lazy.
You keep coming back telling everyone else to fetch you scientific research – and at the current pace we’ll be at 200 comments and you won’t be satisfied. Take a nice day off, hunker down in the library, and start taking notes. Then come back here and tell us what you learned.
And at the very least, please use Google before commenting. We’re over 300 and 350 ppm.
Bart…i’ts not your blog. Mariah is about the only one who should be saying what you said. She has what we call “standing”. You don’t. To the point though…I have read everything I can get my little hands on. Sorry if you’re irritated. I’m very informed now. I cannot seem to find the objective research that might convince a science person that CO2 matters much. Nothing yet….
The reason I asked for Jon to define “Peer” is because of this: we need a definition of the terms bandied about before we can intelligently discuss these issues. Sorry if that bothers you. Not remembering that I’ve ever in my life having been called “lazy”…..I work 80 hrs/week.
SO when I ask questions, it’s not because I haven’t done the work to be informed old chum. No… it’s that I’m not sure the definitions in a given field are unclear. One thing I haave discovered since OCT 16th is that CO2 is related to nothing causing health problems and very little to do with warming directly. Seems to be an accompaniment (as many things are) but not causative of much as it sits right now. I ask for data to achieve a complete picture.
“Peer” is an elusive term. For example when half of the 750 alleged experts who at one time supported all the propaganda have retracted their support, are they still “peers”? How are they thought of? Are they still “experts” now that they cannot make up their minds? If they’re not experts anymore, do they still review manuscripts?….and do they do that chore objectively.
AMong the biggest flaw in this whole field is that the so-called “peers” quote each other but don’t do their own research. This leads to a “rah-rah” group but not critical thinking or valid criticisms of their friends who are “true believers”. Bart…if you’ve ever sat on a scientific editorial board or referred manuscipts, you’d know what I mean. I used to do some of that before I was kicked upstairs….and subsequestly changed fields. I know from which I speak.
Lots of what I’ve found is just sloppy science in a culture of cheerleaders. Lots of it ( the preponderance) is garbage masquerading as science. SO I ask details because it’s severly important to know who knows what. It might be a “world-changer”. Because it’s so important o know, I will continue to look and continue to ask. You should do the same. Best wishes. D
Anyone interested in this issue should certainly read IPCC AR4, Jon. They should also read the works of some of the scientists listed here (among other works):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Then they should evaluate the competing claims, and not rely on any *ad veracundiam* arguments.
The pro-global warming data has been doctored. Human caused global warming debate has been suspended. (Besides, it has been cooling for the last 11 years anyway)
Apparently it is not science but a political agenda looking for science to legitimatize it.
Global warming as I stated before is a hoax. Upon further research since my last post, it is costing the City of Spokane millions of tax dollars unnecessarily. (The extra cost on the new STA Hybrids alone makes the case.) Wait and see how the global warming hoax pans out before wasting another dime of tax money.
Al Gore should be paraded as the very fool he actually is. The very Internet the “fathered” was the author of his human caused global warming downfall. He should give back his Nobel Prize if he had any integrity.
Let’s hope the liberal community who swallowed the pack of lies about human caused global warming will have the courage and conviction to except the fact they have been mislead and act accordingly.