Sure, be gald to. First, realize that industrialization has been a very good thing for humanity. Second, accept that CO2 is a trace element that nature knows what to do with. Third, remember that when we were kids they told us an ice age was coming, there was a growing hole in the ozone layer, acid rain was making all the lakes sterile, and there would be no more food, rain forests, or fossil fuel by the year 2000. In short, develop a little critical scrutiny. Sure, waste is bad--whether it's fuel, food, wood, or life---every generation has their 'sky is falling' theory, and they are wrong. Collapsing ice shelf? Sorry, but they wax and wane consistently. Not scary. Ozone hole? it was there the first time they looked and now the media driven folks that want to blame everything on corporations have backed off due to a preponderance of evidence.
Three things to make the world better for civilization:
1) Don't hamstring business through environmental laws based on faulty theory
2) Encourage business in any way you can
3) Don't artificially manipulate any economic influences---if give the chance, the market will figure things out for the better.
Everyone complains about the weather. Only a liberal will try to legislate it.
great website
I love you, Steve, but it's hard to take you seriously when everything you put here, is parroted misinformation popularized by characters like Rush Limbaugh. Oh, yeah, HE'S a clever guy. Feh.
Your points seem to indicate you are assigning ideas and views to me, that I don't have. You don't need to convince me that industrialization is good. I also don't believe in laws based on faulty theory, and so on.
Making up a non-existent viewpoint and then arguing against it is one of Rush's favorite techniques, as is using the label "liberal" when trying to create an image of foolishness.
The two most respected and learned organizations of scientists in the world have determined that global climate change is real and human-induced. They have no agenda for saying so, other than a love of truth. Anyone who spends effort misleading you is pushing an agenda.
Spending money on solving or mitigating this is good for the economy! People want to feel good about their purchases. There are billions of dollars to be made in a green revolution. So don't get caught up in someone else's narrow-minded views about how things don't need to change.
Thanks, Alan! Mostly I try to steer towards personal choice and a higher quality of life within a smaller footprint, but once in a while I write something a bit more challenging.
Well, Venus' greenhouse gases spiraled out of control until it was 900 degrees there all the time, but there weren't plants and volanoes to regulate the carbon cycle.
But the earth had both the little ice age (1300-1850) and the medieval warming period (800-1300) before industrialization. So I guess temperature changes that reshape the habitable land and change which crops can be grown and the snowlines are natural, but can also get out of hand.
Also I meant to say the warming period made the population go up and is when we settled Greenland and all that.
Good points about the amount of change from small, natural variability. I wonder how big the change is going to be from this massive poke we are giving the climate?
What are your learned and respected scientific organizations? NASA refutes global warming. There is a consortium of climatologists from NOAA, Rand, and some other places that have been begging for a public debate with Al Gore and whoever he chooses to join him----so far Al Gore refused. I'm not parroting Rush. I didn't know the global warming stuff was on his agenda until you told me. Maybe I'll look up his website.....
I've learned to scrutinize things in the media. Reality simply isn't what the majority believe. Heck---you can find lots of people that believe we never walked on the moon and George Bush planned 911. That doesn't make it true.
There is simply no scientific proof linking human behavior to global warming. If you look at the climatic history of the earth, we're in a carbon deficit---380 ppm, compared to a prior high of 7000 ppm (co2, actually) The greenhouse effect is necessary for life and mostly regulated by water vapor. There are many factors to the planet's temp---continental positions, precession of the equinoxes, solar activity, and so on. To try to tie global temps in with a few parts per billion increase in a trace gas that nature knows what to do with is what I question. I remain open to proof and have no political agenda tied to this. Your original post read like a guilt ridden consumer. I think consumerism puts food on tables. I think oil is a very cheap and clean energy source. I applaud recycle efforts and growing your own food (we do) but I refuse to worry over a very nebulous speculation.
Bob,
Steve asked me to 'weigh in' on this posting. I stopped reading your blog over a year ago because I found your postings were arrogant, narrow minded and intolerant. This pretty much confirms what I found a year ago.
Attacking the messenger (even when that wasnt the messenger in this case) really hurts and cred off the bat.
Stick to your noble projects of housing cheap and green. your good at that.
Drop the destructive negative stuff and pontificating.
Then I for one would be read.
Although I do listen and enjoy Rush Limbaugh so I probably would be dismissed in your world.
I just discovered your blog, and love this post. I feel I'm coming into a conversation I don't understand in the comments (I must be missing nuances based on past posts). But it's a great letter. Someday I hope some of my friends and family will write me such a letter. ; )
OK here's an outside synopsis. Many people that grew up with this blogger can't find any scientific evidence that there is global warming, that it is caused by industrialization, or that we should alter our economic interests as a result; The blogger (Bob) seems to be building a life around the beliefs of Al Gore. We are impressed and humbled by his accomplishments in providing housing and applying his beliefs to everyday life, and at the same time in stark disagreement with his politico/environmental world view. (Bob---is this an accurate summation? Please correct me if I'm wrong)
Steve and Lee, I really appreciate that you stop in and read my entries (epithets and putting words in my mouth notwithstanding). I think I owe you a post about the difference between persuasion and critical thinking, though. Since that's the industry I work in, I'm singularly qualified to parse these.
Thanks, Melinda! It's a conversation that is not very complex, but many folks try to use reactive argumentation (including introducing extraneous, non-relevant topics) to keep from having the real conversation. In any case, I too, hope for you that someday you receive a letter of apology and healing from those whom you love.
I find this page very interesting, but am rather surprised that this issue is still being debated given the scientific findings of the last five years. Let me just pick one person’s response, Steve.
>NASA refutes global warming.
The briefest visit to the NASA website page on this topic (http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/
global_warming_worldbook.html) reveals quotes like "A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming." Please note the use of the word MOST.
>There is a consortium of climatologists from NOAA . . .that have been begging for a public debate with Al Gore.
The NOAA is a well-respected organization, it is true. But once again a quick trip to their web page on this topic (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/
globalwarming.html) reveals statements like:
" . . . . the IPCC projects a a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season). Additionally, it is very likely that heat waves and other hot extremes will increase."
Note that the range of increase given (1.8 - 4.0°C) is in Celcius. Four degrees C is 7.2 degrees F.
So to answer the question “What are your learned and respected scientific organizations?” I would have to say the NOAA, which you site as an authority on the subject
majority of climatologists, because science is based on democracy. Its Majority rule!!
So any website can put something up on global warming and that makes it a fact.
Idiot.
Edited By Siteowner
The suggestion to force people to register to post comments is hard to resist when you all start calling each other names.
As for creating facts, I recall an entertaining time when several different NASA scientists were emailing me asking for details on my combined cycle rocket/jet engine design. They'd seen a design doodle I'd stuck on Geocities, and assumed I knew what the heck I was talking about. So hard, to tell them that I was an artist not an engineer. They were sure I had a white paper around somewhere.
It's teh interweb, peepol! Use some discernment.
Bob, I agree about the name calling. It's also unfortunate that the person who called me an idiot also used my name when posting, so I appear to be arguing with myself.
That poster seemed to miss my point. I am arguing mainly about the ability of members of this thread to accurately reflect the viewpoints of other organizations they are citing as an authority. I was not quoting "any website” but the NASA web site as a way to demonstrate that Steve was incorrectly stating the official views of a government organization he claimed “refuted” global warming.
Now, as to the issue of science is not a democracy. It is true that science is based on evidence and experiment, not majority opinion. However, if you harbor the faintest hope that the scientific method can be trusted, then most scientists agreeing on global warming is a fact of major importance. Even if you disagree with their conclusion you should at least be familiar with the basic outline of mainstream scientific research and reasoning. This thread appears to lack that basic understanding.
Here’s another way to describe it. A rational argument against global warming might begin "It is true that most climatologists have concluded that global warming is mainly the result of human activities, however . . . “ and then give some explanation as to why those guys are wrong.
Instead we have a very different kind of conversation, one that seems to ignore the last 10 years of evidence and debate To ask the question “What are your learned and respected scientific organizations?” To me, this is like saying “Cigarettes are linked to cancer? Gosh, what organization said that?” It feels so out of touch, so many years behind the times, that it’s hard for me to believe the person is being honest (sorry to keep picking on you, Steve, I just grabbed your post as a typical example). How could this person have read the web pages of the organizations they are invoking? To me it’s like saying “You know, the American Cancer society thinks that cigarettes are harmless.”
I know that’s an extreme comparison, so let me state it another way: If you’re going to argue against human-enhanced global warming it would increase your credibility a lot if you at least knew the conclusions and findings of the organizations you cite to support your position. It took me 5 minutes of to learn that some of the statements here made about outside organizations and their official positions can be easily refuted by anyone with a web browser and Google. This does not inspire much confidence in the general quality of opinions.
You should always prove a negative.
Edited By Siteowner
Jim, I'm sorry there are people who aren't able to comment seriously. I've gone through and changed the posts that aren't yours to an aouthor name "Not Jim Gleaves."
If this person keeps being abusive, I'll ban their IP address.
Bob,
Thanks for the edits.
I'm not too worried about the name-calling. I figure that it's the last resort of someone who fears they are losing an arguement.
The Real Jim Gleaves
Commenting by HaloScan
