Wow. I am SUCH a jerk. I'm the loser who has been leaving my cell phone charger plugged into the wall 24/7. If I promise to unplug it every morning from now on, will you guys promise not to beat me with all the penguins that are going to die next week?

My bad!

Mary
Mary | Homepage | 01.31.07 - 1:55 pm | #

Didn't Ted Danson predict the same thing, like, fifteen years ago?
Tim J. | Homepage | 01.31.07 - 1:57 pm | #

"I feel a "We are the World" benefit concert coming. Something where 50,000 people come together to emit vast clouds of pot smoke and beer-induced methane into the environment."

Hey, the important thing is that they feel good about doing something.
dpt | 01.31.07 - 2:45 pm | #

Mocking and laughing is not a wise way of confronting the problem. Nearly all reputable scientists acknowledge that global warming is real although the differ as to the severity and the effect it has on the world.

Did not God entrust the world to us to be good stewards and look after it? Why do so many professed Christians balk when confronted with this and endorse a society of production and consumption which not only does great harm environmentally but also great harm to society both spiritually and morally.
Cajetan | 01.31.07 - 2:55 pm | #

"Nearly all reputable scientists acknowledge that global warming is real although the differ as to the severity and the effect it has on the world."

That's kind of a big qualification, isn't it? If two people agree that a meteor is going to hit the earth, but one thinks it will do minimal damage while the other thinks it will end all human life, the fact that they agree about the existence of the meteor doesn't mean much.
Josiah | 01.31.07 - 3:01 pm | #

The other question being debated by scientists (reputable and disreputable) is the extent to which humans are responsible for global temperature change. The fact remains that it has been much warmer than it is now, and it has been much colder than it is now. The amount of time that humans have been around is not long in the grand scheme of things, and the time since the industrial revolution is even less than that.

This isn't to say we shouldn't be good stewards, but it does put the hysterical folks in context.
Ipsitilla | Homepage | 01.31.07 - 3:36 pm | #

"The other question being debated by scientists (reputable and disreputable) is the extent to which humans are responsible for global temperature change. The fact remains that it has been much warmer than it is now, and it has been much colder than it is now. The amount of time that humans have been around is not long in the grand scheme of things, and the time since the industrial revolution is even less than that.

"This isn't to say we shouldn't be good stewards, but it does put the hysterical folks in context."

Yeah, all those Ph.ds in atmospheric physics, chemistry and geochemistry should put their degrees in a drawer and get their ideas from tabloids like the Sun.

The notion that climate is variable must be entirely new to them. [irony alert]

Eggheads! What do they know?

Dear Ipstilla, the only people who have a stake in how much of global climate change is human-caused are the legal departments of energy companies.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 01.31.07 - 3:42 pm | #

OK. My chargers are unplugged. Wow, that crisis wasn't so bad. Next crisis?
JAMAWG | 01.31.07 - 3:42 pm | #

Pavel,

Your point is well taken, but it seems that other might have a stake in the debate as well - such as those who want to impose greater regulations on industry (and industrialized nations) for reasons both ecological and otherwise.

My training is in environmental biology and genetics, not atmospheric physics or geochemistry, but among the professors I have known (and whose work I have read) there is a wide range of opinion on how much credit/blame we should give ourselves for global warming.
Ipsitilla | Homepage | 01.31.07 - 3:57 pm | #

"Did not God entrust the world to us to be good stewards and look after it? Why do so many professed Christians balk when confronted with this and endorse a society of production and consumption which not only does great harm environmentally but also great harm to society both spiritually and morally."


Do you own a car? a TV? a DVD player?a computer?

If so, how as a Christian can you show that owning such non-essential man-made goods, produced by extractive industries, is showing good Christian stewardship.

I sense a cult of self-righteousness with some in regards to the questions/trends of global warming, yet such leaves one susceptible to charges of hypocrisy.
dpt | 01.31.07 - 4:21 pm | #

Wait, so how much money am I wasting on my electric bill by leaving chargers plugged in? Is that little green light sucking all my money away?

They should appeal to penny-pinchers like me. It's easier to save a buck than to save the earth.
Kevin Jones | Homepage | 01.31.07 - 4:28 pm | #

A phone charger won't use any electricity when a phone is not plugged into it. At least mine doesn't get warm, and where else could the energy go but turn to warmth?
Phil W. | 01.31.07 - 4:57 pm | #

"Yeah, all those Ph.ds in atmospheric physics, chemistry and geochemistry should put their degrees in a drawer and get their ideas from tabloids like the Sun."

Who knows? Maybe they do so already....
JonathanR. | 01.31.07 - 7:20 pm | #

Environmentalists have a vested interest in global warming being as alarming as possible. Should we ever solve the immediate environmental problems, they would all have to find honest work. The Holy Grail of some evironmentalists is to somehow push us back to an feudal agrarian, with them as the nobility.

I consider many members of the environmentalist movement to be morally bankrupt, as they rail about the damage that our society does to the environment, but simultaneously try to forbid the very thing that holds the most promise to solve the problem-- nuclear power.

Nuclear power is much cheaper than other forms of electrical power generation, yet has a much smaller footprint than any other technology. The Hydrogen economy that so many people predict can only come about with a society literally awash in cheap electricity. The only other way to provide all of the hydrogen is with fossil fuels (which defeats the point).

A truth about our environmental impact is that it goes down with the relative price of our energy. African women are not deforesting their continent out of malice, but because they need to cook, but cannot afford to import coal. Pay them in bags of coal to plant trees, and then teach them to make carbon-neutral charcoal, and Africa will be reforested. As farming techniques in North America improved, the less land was actually farmed. Much of south-eastern Ontario, in Canada, has more trees now, than at any time since the arrival of european colonist. If energy became cheap enough for even third world farmers to grow crops hydroponically, much of Man's encroachment into rain forests would end.

An important aspect of cheap energy is that the cheaper energy becomes, the cheaper recycling becomes.
Richard Bell | 01.31.07 - 7:59 pm | #

"My training is in environmental biology and genetics, not atmospheric physics or geochemistry, but among the professors I have known (and whose work I have read) there is a wide range of opinion on how much credit/blame we should give ourselves for global warming."

If you know any working field biologists, ask them if they see any effects of global climate change in their studies.

" there is a wide range of opinion on how much credit/blame we should give ourselves for global warming."

How may experts completely exclude an anthropogenic component of global climate change? There is a range of quantitative estimates on the subject, since you can't plug the equivalent of a volt meter into the atmosphere and plug the other end of the cord into planetary human energy production. But by now the possiblity that there is no appreciable human input has been pretty much excluded, even by skeptics. Look at the models under guidance, which you're no doubt more qualified to weigh than I am.

How much additional input do you need to ratchet up the energy budget of an entire planet the size and composition of the Earth by 0.5 C.? Imagine raising the temperature of a planet - sized tea kettle by 0.5 C.

Even if there were very little human input - a vanishingly small possibility - why would we want to accentuate a trend which is negative for us?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 01.31.07 - 11:07 pm | #

Researchers/scientists have been able to drill through glaciel ice to determine the carbon dioxide levels over thousands of years. Never have the greenhouse gas levels been higher then they are now.

I live in Alberta, Canada. My father and uncles sy that since the 1950s the Columbia icefields have receded several miles. It is predicted that at this rate they will be gone within the next 50 years. Also winters have noticably been milder. In eastern Canada (as well as the North-Eastern United States) winter did not come until recently.

For some of us who live in locations affected by global warming (as well as those anywhere who know where their milk comes from) global warming is a reality.

You would have to be a total imbecile to believe that burning 60 million years of fossil fuels have no effect on the climate nor the environment.

Instead of acting as if you know the thoughts and motives of scientists and dismissing them slight of hand why not address their arguments and explain why you think they are wrong.

Better yet, why not name for me scientists do not buy into global warming so we can all read their reasons why. Using the general term "scientist" and treating it as a bogeyman only shows how weak and insecure you are.
Cajetan | 02.01.07 - 12:04 am | #

"Also winters have noticably been milder. In eastern Canada (as well as the North-Eastern United States) winter did not come until recently."

Is that a bad thing that winters are milder?
dpt | 02.01.07 - 3:37 am | #

The Holy Grail of some evironmentalists is to somehow push us back to an feudal agrarian, with them as the nobility.

Agrarian yes, feudal no. Anarchistic agrarian is more like it.
Admiral Ackbar | 02.01.07 - 9:39 am | #

I asked this in the last thread, and I'll ask it again: why do people care whether global warming is caused by humans or not?

If melting glaciers are a bad thing, then they will be presumably just as bad if they are a completely natural phenomenon than if it's partially due to human activity. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time, so if it's the culprit then even getting rid of the internal combustion engine now would only slow the problem, not stop it.
Josiah | 02.01.07 - 9:40 am | #

" I asked this in the last thread, and I'll ask it again: why do people care whether global warming is caused by humans or not? "

One reason: Ask the tobacco companies.

Another: Ask the insurance companies.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 02.01.07 - 10:04 am | #

Is that a bad thing that winters are milder?

Who likes cold weather?

However, keep in mind that the plant and wildlife are designed to live under their climates. If the climates warm too greatly some will either be pushed further north or die out.

We have seen it this year with various hibernating animals awakening in the warm weather and venturing out as if it were spring. They will burn off their fat which they have worked up over the winter and when it cools off again and they cannot find food they will die.

During the summer farmers have been losing their crops due to the heat. I spoke with one farmer who lost everything saying his crops were literally baked.

Yes there have always been fluctuations in the climate. However, nothing has ever happened so fast as what we have been witnessing over the last 40 years. There is great reason for concern.
Cajetan | 02.01.07 - 10:30 am | #

Pavel,

I must be a little dense this morning. What do the tobacco companies and insurance companies have to do with global warming?
Josiah | 02.01.07 - 10:59 am | #

Because second-hand smoke is causing global warming, don't you know? Ban cigarettes and light bulbs or the world will end!!!

As for the insurance companies, that's a bit harder to decipher. My guess is that if they think it is happening, they'll jack up rates, or deny coverage, in areas they think will be adversely affected.
Publius | Homepage | 02.01.07 - 11:15 am | #

Ban cigarettes and light bulbs or the world will end!!!

You forgot belching cows.
Admiral Ackbar | 02.01.07 - 11:33 am | #

"However, nothing has ever happened so fast as what we have been witnessing over the last 40 years."

"Nothing has ever"? I would like to see the science behind this statement.

Anecdotal stories about one year of animals out of hibernation or farmer's crops drying out is NOT science. I know a farmer who had a bumper crop seasons the last two years. Heck, farmer's crops in the California central valley would dry out each and every year if it where not for the vast irrigation system.


There are problems with such so-called observations:

1) with Hurricane Katrina, we were told by some that hurricanes in 2006 would be worse and more in number. I don't think this played out.

2) Recently, there was some short-term studies indicating that the Atlantic conveyor was slowing, yet when actually examined in more detail the facts showed the variation was within the noise. Science Magazine reported that it was a False Alarm to proclaim the conveyor was slowing as much more analysis over decades is needed.
dpt | 02.01.07 - 1:31 pm | #