What scientists are saying about global warming
Denver, Colorado. (Photo: Kaptain Krispy Kreme)
On the heels of a series of climate reports in 2007, scientists are still discussing the subject of global warming.
In a series of reports released throughout 2007, thousands of scientists with the U.N.‘s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – or IPCC – found that humans have been the main force in changing Earth’s climate since the mid-20th century. Earth & Sky spoke with climate expert Eric Barron at the University of Texas at Austin, about the way scientists are now speaking about global warming.
Eric Barron: I think it’s left behind, the notion of whether it’s happening and whether or not humans play a role. It is entirely focused on how fast the changes will occur, how large the changes will be. And, in my view, it’s also introduced the significant new question, and that is, really, how serious will the impacts be?
Barron said that cities will feel warming’s impact most in their water resources. He used drought-prone Denver, Colorado as an example.
Eric Barron: And so nature’s storage device of putting a lot of snow in the Rocky Mountains and then melting it through the year and providing water for Denver starts to change. It melts faster if you have warmer springs and summer, and it may not still be there by the time midsummer comes.
Tell us your thoughts on global warming in the comment section below.
Eric Barron also said, “But now, if it becomes hotter, and evaporation increases, then drought tendency in Denver starts to increase. But you also couple that with the fact that snow pack is going to change in the Rocky Mountains. And this is occurring because, if you think about warming you can think of the snow line as marching its way up to the top of the mountain. And so nature’s storage device of putting a lot of putting a lot of snow in the Rocky Mountains and then melting it through the year and providing water for Denver starts to change because there’s less snow stored is the snow line goes higher and higher, and it melts faster if you have warmer springs and summer, and it may not still be there by the time midsummer comes. And so Denver has a tendency towards drying. And this natural storage device for water starts to change. So now, what is the implications for that in terms of water management, and how it is that you might have to have human devices to store water?”
Our thanks to:
Eric J Barron, Ph.D.
Dean
Department of Geological Sciences
Jackson School of Geosciences
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX
NEW! Find related content with Sphere
Dr Barron’s point is well taken. Here in California we have the same concern about snow melt.
Interesting that you’ve recently been talking about population and now this podcast on water problems. In an attempt to highlight the linkage, I recently wrote water, the unarguable limit on growth.
Dear JPanicker,
You are certainly correct in noticing that everyone is playing to BLAME GAME to some extent.
On the other hand, if people do not wake up to what Trinifar and Lou Hanson are reporting, forbidding global challenges could present themselves to my not-so-great elder generation’s children.
From my humble perspective, humanity could soon to come face to face with formidable global challenges, ones that are themselves derived from the leviathan-like scale and skyrocketing growth rate of absolute global human population numbers. That is to say, humanity’s greatest challenge (the proverbial “mother” of all potential global confrontations) is itself.
Sincerely,
Steve
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
Where is the proof that humans have any effect on climate change? This thought seems to be injected into every aspect of this concept, however, it is always stated abjectly and without substantiation.
What I don’t understand is why people are reluctant to believe the humans have affected the climate. Humans have changed the land and waterways – heck, we’ve built waterways. Of course we can change the climate. And there are so many humans on Earth. We must adapt to climate change. Stop fussing about defending ourselves, and adapt.
I am very interested in this argument. My first impression is that if there is permanent ice around Denver, then surely, if it melts, there will be water instead (I assume that Denver has a suitably sized reservoir to store this water). This water store will presumably help with the drought.
On second thoughts: If it is still too hot, then that store will evaporate and then be precipitated elsewhere. Indeed, this must surely become the case for much of the earths stored water as temperature increases.
Precipitation often occurs when warm air meets a mountain. As the air rises, it cools. The water vapour in the air condenses and forms rain.
My point is: If Denver is located near mountains and it suffers droughts due to either a lack of precipitation or there being too much water held up in ice nearby. Will the amount of water it recieves not increase as a result of global warming for the reasons outlined above?
How does warming affect the distribution of precipitation?
Hello to all,
An email from a distinguished colleague and a personal friend of mine follows, with a request to you for assistance.
Dear Steven,
FEEDBACK DYNAMICS and the ACCELERATION of CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate change is non-linear. Once set in motion it is acceleratingly self-perpetuating. There is
then only a small time-window within which human intervention has any (rapidly diminishing) chance
of halting the process and returning the system to a stable state. Failure to act effectively
within that window of opportunity would inevitably precipitate cataclysmic change on a par with the
five mass extinction events known to have obliterated almost all life on earth.
This WESTMINSTER BRIEFING (subtitled PLANET EARTH WE HAVE A PROBLEM) was delivered to a packed
audience in the House of Commons in June 2007. It is now released in the approach to the Bali
Meeting of the UNFCCC because it presents material not yet addressed by the IPCC, but which is
absolutely critical to the decision-making process at and beyond that event.
Click on (if the link is not active, copy and paste the address to your
browser) then follow the link to BALI & BEYOND to access the Introduction, Summary for Policy
Makers, Sample Presentations, and Book Order Form.
FEEDBACK DYNAMICS and the ACCELERATION of CLIMATE CHANGE provides an essential briefing for every
person and organisation involved in the UNFCCC Bali Meeting. Beyond Bali it lays the foundation for
all future strategic engagement with the imperative task of climate stabilisation.
Please do everything in your power to ensure that the material reaches:
All delegates and participants involved in the UNFCCC Bali Meeting
Political leaders and members of government at every level of society
Business leaders with strategic responsibility
Academics and research institutions working on climate change and environmental studies
NGOs and organisations of the Civil Society
Concerned citizens of all ages throughout the world community
Friends and family, colleagues and contacts
E-mail lists, groups, listings, networks, postings and web-sites
With best wishes,
David Wasdell
Director: The Apollo-Gaia Project
(Hosted by the Meridian Programme)
Meridian House
115 Poplar High Street
London E14 0AE
Tel: +44 (0) 207 987 3600
E-mail: wasdell@meridian.org.uk
Web-site: www.meridian.org.uk
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Version 4.3.46 using the F-Prot Antivirus engine Version 3.16f]
Always, with thanks,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
It is terribly frustrating to me when people just won’t believe or accept that humans could possibly be responsible for climate changes, especially in the light of so much evidence. It gets old having to drag out the evidence over and over and over and over again and still nobody wants to believe it. We have the power to change almost every facet of the earth, why is it so hard to believe that we could change the earth’s weather as well? Mostly, I think it’s not a matter of believing we’re the problem (and therefore the solution) but an issue with whether or not we want to disturb our endless quest for gathering money to spend on increasing our conveniences that gets in the way of reality. We’ve become so lazy that it seems easier to just do nothing in the short-term, even in light of tremendous work ahead in the long-term. There is substantial evidence that our activities are the cause of this, people have been saying this for over a hundred years. You’d think eventually we’d get the point and fix the problem… I guess maybe if the earth paid us to fix the problem we might consider it…
I like proof in things and this global warming thing does not provide much. I live in New York State. Last year it rained on Christmas for me. This year it snowe4 inches for thanksgiving. I could basically go around saying the Earths going into an ice age. I dont have any real proof. My proof is Last year it was warm and this year it is cold. Id say thats enough proof to fool an uneducated person. I can believe that the Earth is getting warmer but I dontbelieve it is our fault. I believe proof is found in mathematics not in information, theories and data. If you can put global warming into a mathematical equation Ill believe, if not it is just another theory to me.
Uhh about the third last comment saying that we can change the Earths weather.We cant even predict the weather tommorow much less change it completely.
The climate change/global warming scam is just that. There is no, I repeat no, scientific evidence that there is a substantial global warming happening. Then it is also true that there is no scientific evidence that shows human causes. This whole thing is a political ploy to end capitalism, individual sovereiignty and liberty. Bottom line,
a ploy to end capitalism? and pray tell how will it accomplish that?
you would agree, would you not, that placing an area inside a glass enclosure will significantly raise the temperature of the air inside it, yes? please tell me you believe greenhouses exist, or do I need to provide an equation proving they exist? now think about how the earth’s atmosphere retains heat… (and it does, it’s been proven, if you need to see the proof go look for it, this is the internet after all) our atmosphere does this to a certain extent that depends upon the type of particles in the atmosphere and their relative volumes. think of the atmosphere now as a greenhouse that is not constructed completely of glass. now think about the amounts of CO2 we are releasing into the air (and yes we are, again, go look for the proof) it’s true there are CO2 sources that are natural, these sources were here before us, and will remain after us, it’s like taking a stream and adding more water to make it a river… this “man-made” CO2 is very much like slowly making all of the panels in the greenhouse into glass ones, to an extent the completely glass greenhouse is much warmer than the brick house with a few windows. for those that ramble on about proof, I’d like to say that you ought to go find the proof, just because it’s not handed to you on a silver platter doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
another point stems from the person who made a post about it being kind of warm one year and cold this year… just because my yard is cold doesn’t mean it’s not warmer overall. the earth is not going to one day rise in temperature 30˚ in response to global warming, it all happens fairly slowly. this is coupled with the fact that global warming doesn’t necessarily mean every place on earth will get warmer, some places will warm more than others and some may even cool. does adding tons of water to a stream make the whole thing a huge, wide river? no, some parts may widen, while some may just get deeper, it depends upon the shape of the existing banks. but the changes are all related to the same cause: the addition of more water.
Dear Benjamin Napier,
Based upon the carefully and skillfully established scientific consensus on climate change, do wealthy and powerful leaders not have a “duty to warn” our children of whatsoever knowledge has been given to humankind by good science? Inasmuch as apparently unforeseen science has potentially profound implications for life as we know it, the future of children, and the integrity of Earth and its ecosystems, does our current leadership not have responsibilites to discharge and clearly defined but unwelcome duties to perform?
Perhaps, Ben, you will kindly explain what foundation in human thought and behavior can be reasonably and sensibly chosen as an adequate justification for what looks like a perverse determination by a small minority of people within the family of humanity, the wealthy ones with selfish interests and political power, to consciously eschew and willfully refuse to openly affirm the knowledge that God’s gift of science has provided to humanity for its benefit.
Sincerely,
Steve
If globalwarmings so gradual then what are you so worried about. Oh no global warming is gonna make the sea levels rise! an what we drown, whjat is going to happen. Are the polar bears gonna die? If it happens gradually we and all other animals have enoue to adapt.
Dear Friends,
From my perspective, we have a remarkably large and loud number of people, many of them are our leaders, who are denialists and naysayers with regard to the good science of global warming. They have been doing what they are doing now during much of my adult life. What they are saying and doing, I suppose, is derived from one form or another of self-interested-thinking. At least one consequence of their widely shared and consensually validated way of viewing the world could lead the human community into danger. Let me say more now about what I mean.
Self-interested-thinking is potentially dangerous because it serves to hide the truth of global warming, among other things, as well as “poison the well” of public discourse regarding climate change.
Too many of our politicians, economists, big-business benefactors and the talking heads in the mass media are all “whistling the same tune.” What is even worse is the way they entice many appointees and surrogates to whistle that same tune, too. After all, who can resist offerings of great wealth, power and privileges that accrue to those who go along with one’s self-interests, with whatsoever is political convenient, economically expedient, religiously tolerated and socially agreeable. In the face of such temptation, we can readily understand why the scientific gains of the IPCC would be everywhere, in every way, rejected by the denialists and naysayers. The science from the IPCC could forcefully impede their acquisition of more wealth, more power and more privileges.
Not only are too many leaders trying to hide or otherwise deny the good scientific evidence of human-driven climate change, they are also actively involved in poisoning the well of public discourse by strategically disseminating disinformation. And for what? Evermore power, wealth and privileges for themselves and their minions so they can carefreely play out the “conspicuous consumption fantasies” of their “Me Generation” by living large and unsustainably, come what may, having forsaken the future of their children and forgotten how human life depends upon Earth’s limited resources and frangible ecosystem services for its very existence.
It seems to me that the human community has reached a crossroads in Bali, Indonesia, December 2007: EITHER we will choose to “stay the current course” of endless economic growth, ever increasing conspicuous per capita consumption and skyrocketing human population numbers OR we will find other ways to go forward. If these distinctly human overproduction, over-consumption and overpopulation activities we see overspreading the surface of Earth are unsustainable, then I am going to suppose we will insist upon some changes in our behavioral repertoire so that sustainable ways of living in the world are proposed by policymakers and adopted by our leaders.
With thanks to all,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
Even if it happens “gradually”, we and all other animals cannot adapt. Let the temperature rise gradually, say, 0.05 degrees centigrade per year (this temperature rise is so small to be noticed in one’s front yard), in 2000 years it would be 100 degrees centigrade higher than it is now. So the fish would have to live in boiling water. No fish can adapt to such new conditions.
Dear Perry Bolin, Benjamin Napier, Bob, Han and Friends,
For just a moment, let us consider how to get to the year 2050…......from here and now.
Perhaps we could follow what we already know from good science, reasoning and common sense. We can choose to respond ably and differently, in a more reality-oriented way, to the global challenges before humanity, the challenges that we can manage because they have been induced by the spectacular unrestrained overgrowth of human activities now threatening to engulf the surface of Earth.
Of course, it is fair to ask what the family of humanity could choose to do “ably and differently.” There are several ideas that come to mind.
1) Implement a universal, voluntary program that encourages people to limit the number of offspring to one child per family.
2) Establish an upper limit on the growth of the individual human footprint.
3) Restrict immediately the reckless dissipation of limited natural resources so that the Earth is given time to replenish them for human benefit.
4) Substitute clean, renewable sources of energy, through the use of substantial economic incentives, for the fossil fuels we rely upon now.
5) Recognize that everything human beings do on the surface of our planetary home utterly depend on the finite resources of Earth. One consequence of this realization is understanding that there can be no such thing as an endlessly expanding global economy, given its current scale and growth rate, on a relatively small and noticeably frangible planet the size of Earth.
Godspeed,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
Come on you naysayers. The Goracle has spoken, “We are doomed!” Who cares if Mars is seeing higher temperatures and the Sun would be the common factor. Who cares if no one has shown what the norm is for Earth’s temperature and if we are below or above that norm. No, the Goracle has spoken. There will be no more debate. Be sure to buy the Indulgences the Church of Global Warming is selling.
Dear Steve Salmony, Thanks for your detailed response. You still did not provide any proof that humans have any effect on the climate of this Earth. However, your comments inspire a question. How do you propose to have your guidelines administered? Your first suggestion of limiting family size has already been implemented in Communist China for several years and has carried severe penalties for bearing more than 2 children per couple. China so happens to be one of if not the largest polluters of the atmosphere also. I agree that we need to be careful stewards of our resources and of our living space, and that conservation and wise use of our resources should be a paramount concern, but the solution must not be entrusting our present and future to a single entity. Unfortunately your suggestions reek of Communist and Marxist regulatory rules, which seem to be more apparent as the Climate Change arguments continue to be presented. At the risk of being boring, show me proof that humans have an effect on the climate of the Earth, and just to make it interesting, what is the ideal temperature for the Earth?
Read this from an IPCC contributor as further indication that we are being misled.
Doug
Dishonest Political Tampering with the Science on Global Warming
Written By: Christopher Monckton, Denpasar, Bali
Published In: News Releases
Publication Date: December 5, 2007
As a contributor to the IPCC’s 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords – through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers – profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate’s alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year’s Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.
Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.
My contribution to the 2007 report illustrates the scientific problem. The report’s first table of figures – inserted by the IPCC’s bureaucrats after the scientists had finalized the draft, and without their consent – listed four contributions to sea-level rise. The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10.
The result of this dishonest political tampering with the science was that the sum of the four items in the offending table was more than twice the IPCC’s published total. Until I wrote to point out the error, no one had noticed. The IPCC, on receiving my letter, quietly corrected, moved and relabeled the erroneous table, posting the new version on the internet and earning me my Nobel prize.
The shore-dwellers of Bali need not fear for their homes. The IPCC now says the combined contribution of the two great ice-sheets to sea-level rise will be less than seven centimeters after 100 years, not seven meters imminently, and that the Greenland ice sheet (which thickened by 50 cm between 1995 and 2005) might only melt after several millennia, probably by natural causes, just as it last did 850,000 years ago. Gore, mendaciously assisted by the IPCC bureaucracy, had exaggerated a hundredfold.
Recently a High Court judge in the UK listed nine of the 35 major scientific errors in Gore’s movie, saying they must be corrected before innocent schoolchildren can be exposed to the movie. Gore’s exaggeration of sea-level rise was one.
Others being peddled at the Bali conference are that man-made “global warming” threatens polar bears and coral reefs, caused Hurricane Katrina, shrank Lake Chad, expanded the actually-shrinking Sahara, etc.
At the very heart of the IPCC’s calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: “The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005).” Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.
Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physicalthe Stefan-Boltzmann equation – that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCC’s 2007 report do not mention it once.
The IPCC knows of the equation, of course. But it is inconvenient. It imposes a strict (and very low) limit on how much greenhouse gases can increase temperature. At the Earth’s surface, you can add as much greenhouse gas as you like (the “surface forcing”), and the temperature will scarcely respond.
That is why all of the IPCC’s computer models predict that 10km above Bali, in the tropical upper troposphere, temperature should be rising two or three times as fast as it does at the surface. Without that tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot”, the Stefan-Boltzmann law ensures that surface temperature cannot change much.
For half a century we have been measuring the temperature in the upper atmosphere – and it has been changing no faster than at the surface. The IPCC knows this, too. So it merely declares that its computer predictions are right and the real-world measurements are wrong. Next time you hear some scientifically-illiterate bureaucrat say, “The science is settled”, remember this vital failure of real-world observations to confirm the IPCC’s computer predictions. The IPCC’s entire case is built on a guess that the absent hot-spot might exist.
Even if the Gore/IPCC exaggerations were true, which they are not, the economic cost of trying to mitigate climate change by trying to cut our emissions through carbon trading and other costly market interferences would far outweigh any possible climatic benefit.
The international community has galloped lemming-like over the cliff twice before. Twenty years ago the UN decided not to regard AIDS as a fatal infection. Carriers of the disease were not identified and isolated. Result: 25 million deaths in poor countries.
Thirty-five years ago the world decided to ban DDT, the only effective agent against malaria. Result: 40 million deaths in poor countries. The World Health Organization lifted the DDT ban on Sept. 15 last year. It now recommends the use of DDT to control malaria. Dr. Arata Kochi of the WHO said that politics could no longer be allowed to stand in the way of the science and the data. Amen to that.
If we take the heroically stupid decisions now on the table at Bali, it will once again be the world’s poorest people who will die unheeded in their tens of millions, this time for lack of the heat and light and power and medical attention which we in the West have long been fortunate enough to take for granted.
If we deny them the fossil-fuelled growth we have enjoyed, they will remain poor and, paradoxically, their populations will continue to increase, making the world’s carbon footprint very much larger in the long run.
As they die, and as global temperature continues to fail to rise in accordance with the IPCC’s laughably-exaggerated predictions, the self-congratulatory rhetoric that is the hallmark of the now-useless, costly, corrupt UN will again be near-unanimously parroted by lazy, unthinking politicians and journalists who ought to have done their duty by the poor but are now – for the third time in three decades – failing to speak up for those who are about to die.
My fellow-participants, there is no climate crisis. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Take courage! Do nothing, and save the world’s poor from yet another careless, UN-driven slaughter.
The writer is an international business consultant specializing in the investigation of scientific frauds. He is a former adviser to UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher and is presenter of the 90-minute climate movie Apocalypse? NO! He can be reached at monckton@mail.com.
Hah, hah, Doug and Perry. Doesn’t matter. The Goracle will not be denied. After all, he has an Emmy and Nobel Peace Prize. The proof is undeniable. Be sure to purchase your Indulgences from the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Dale,
You’re righter than you may know, the outcry against supposedly manmade global warming is much more like a religion than a science, and that which does not concord with church dogma is vigorously suppressed. Carbon Credits or Offsets are indeed much like an indulgence and no one audits these agencies and governments that claim to have planted literlly billions of trees…how many were actually planted, and of those how many survived, and of those, howmany actually serve a useful purpose, other than assuaging the guilt of those who fly their lear jets to Bali to decide how the rest of us must stop lighting Hannukah candles or give up vacation trips to save the planet..Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it’s a naturally recycled component of the atmosphere, and makes up a miniscule portion of the greenhouse gases…and since it’s greenhouse action is only effective in certain specific frequencies (and since there are other mechanisms by which energy radiates back into space at other frequencies) it’s very unlikely to be significant in global warming. I’m a chemical engineer, I don’t play one for the movies like Al Bore. Stop the hysteria before it causes global economic and cultural stagnation.
Dear Dale, Perry Bolin and Doug,
Thanks for your comments. In light of the scientific consensus on climate change, your views now look like productions of still widely shared and consensually validated specious thinking, without an adequate foundation in good science. Perhaps your views are logically contrived, filled with anecdotal evidence and incorrect.
Let me suggest something for your consideration. The Bali Conference on Climate Change is in its second week. National news networks in the US are not reporting on the event. Would you mind taking a moment to comment on the work being done by those many scientists and leaders? Almost 200 nations are participating in the conference. Have all of these nations, their leaders and those they represent got it wrong?
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
OK Steve, I’ve been reading the news today and have discovered that the Bali conference has begun to come back down to earth. (no pun intended) The cost of implementing the “solutions” to “climate change” have finally been given a look. They are astronomical! While wealthy nations with robust economies might be able to absorb these costs, smaller nations cannot. A few years ago when the Kyoto Protocol was embraced by nations desperate to make an international difference, New Zealand put their numbers together and found that it was going to cost 5 to 7 times their GDP (don’t know what that means? Look it up in the dictionary)to comply. The people with a penchant for spending other peoples money said that seeing as how wealthier nations could afford it they should take up the shortfall. Redistribution of wealth or “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” (Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto).
I also read with great interest at Newsmax.com the report by several scientists who have concluded that the science used in the current global warming models leaves out a great many variables. In other words, the science is at the least severely flawed if not downright fraudulent. They also concluded that CO2 has a very minimal effect on the greenhouse effect but the control methods proposed are extremely costly and don’t work.
Then we have our pal Al Gore ranting over his Peace prize(How does this stuff contribute to peace?) that we are all doomed and speedy,radical action must be taken now to avoid certain death!
There is always going to be room for improvement in all our environmental practices, however, demanding that everybody rush to one side of the boat because a list has been noticed is only going to sink the ship. By the way, you didn’t tell us what the ideal temperature of the Earth is, nor did you offer any proof yet that climate change is caused by humans. And just who is going to administer the climate change action? Are they trustworthy? I love this debate. It sharpens the mind! Perry Bolin
Whoa there Steve, I’m on your side. I’m heard brother Al preach and I believe. I’m a member of the Church of AGW. I have the faith, for faith is what it takes.
I find it sad that the Bali conference doesn’t have enough tarmac space for all of our fellow brothers’ and sisters’ private jets and they have to ferry back and forth to the conference. Alas, that is the price Gaia has to pay so we can get the word out. Fortunately, all the attendees will be purchasing carbon offsets to atone for their sins.
Gaia be with you,
Dale
Dear Perry Bolin, Dale, Doug, naysayers and denialists,
It seems like only yesterday that the prevailing view was global warming was a hoax, as ideological groups maliciously chose to mislead the public by discrediting good science, by adamantly spreading uncertainty and relentlessly manufacturing controversy where none objectively existed, all for the purpose of supporting their selfish interests as well as the evidently specious idea that the global economy can grow infinitely in a finite world…........without damaging the Earth’s ecosystems or dissipating our planetary home’s limited resources. A hoax has surely been fraudulently perpetrated on the public; but it not the hoax we have been hearing about for 30 years, I suppose.
Perhaps an actual hoax is being uncovered, here and now.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steve, It was only yesterday, and today. You still have not answered my questions, nor offered ANY PROOF that man is involved in climate change. You talk loud and long about “good science” yet you fail to qualify your remarks. I doubt that you research any of the challenges offered you during this discourse. The only thing that comes through in your postings is that you are vehemently opposed to wealth generating more wealth through intelligent choices and practices. You and your kneejerk reaction climate change colleagues are being conned. Al Gore is not a dumb man. He has found a way to generate a very healthy income by preying on the ignorance of the dumb masses. Not only does it satisfy him monetarily but Al has his ego constantly stroked. He has never met a camera he didn’t like.
Dear Al Gore,
Perhaps the time has come for you to run for the US Presidency again. You won the job once already. This may be the remaining unfinished work of your life.
The United States was meant to lead the world in our time. Admittedly, things have not gone well recently; however, no other country has the wherewithall to do what is necessary.
People around the world are looking to the United States for moral leadership, but apparently see our country as a woefully inadequate exemplar today.
As you put it, since “we have to travel far quickly,” there is not time to waste….no sensible reason for waiting.
All the current presidential candidates in the USA are not talking about the real issues of our time. You and you alone can “re-center” our national debate on issues like the unsustainability of increasing conspicuous per-human overconsumption of limited resources; the unsustainability of skyrocketing absolute global human population numbers; and the soon to become patently unsustainable, seemingly endless growth of large-scale industrial/corporate activities, now threatening to engulf the surface of the planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit and, I suppose, not to overwhelm.
Sincerely,
Steve Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
I found this tidbit on the Faint Sun Paradox interesting, and thought I’d share it with anyone interested in Earth’s climatic history.
Bruce
We have limited resources. That is a fact, not a theory.
Bob writes:
[[If you can put global warming into a mathematical equation Ill believe, if not it is just another theory to me.]]
Okay, here’s an equation for you (from Myrhe et al. 1998):
RF = 5.35 ln (C / Co)
where RF is the radiative forcing in watts per square meter, C is the concentration of ambient carbon dioxide, and Co is a reference level of concentration. Co is usually taken to be the average preindustrial concentration of CO2, 280 parts per million by volume.
For a doubling of carbon dioxide, we get a radiative forcing of about 3.7 watts per square meter. With a climate sensitivity of 0.75 kelvins per watt per square meter, this translates into about a 2.8 K rise in temperature. Of course, this includes all the estimated feedbacks. For CO2 alone, the rise would be more like 1.2 K (Houghton 2004).
Does that help?
***************** ALERT*******************
Hear ye, hear ye, words from representatives of the “Masters of the Universe” among us.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/925
United Nation Climate change, Bali
Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing’ At UN Conference
By EPW Blog Tuesday, December 11, 2007
BALI, Indonesia – An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to “have the courage to do nothing” in response to UN demands.
Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.
“Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,” Monckton told participants.
“The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)” Monckton added. (LINK)
Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.
“UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings,” Monckton explained.
“It is a circus here,” agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN’s climate claims.
“This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences,” Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: “Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.” – LINK)
Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)
“We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don’t cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years,” Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper “Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming.” (LINK)
Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found “Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence.” (LINK)
“Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction,” Evans explained.
[Inhofe EPW Press Blog Note: Several other recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. For most recent sampling see: New Peer-Reviewed Study finds ‘Solar changes significantly alter climate’ (11-3-07) (LINK) & “New Peer-Reviewed Study Halves the Global Average Surface Temperature Trend 1980 – 2002” (LINK) & New Study finds Medieval Warm Period ‘0.3C Warmer than 20th Century’ (LINK) For a more comprehensive sampling of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007 see “New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears” LINK ]
‘IPCC is unsound’
UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.
“There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any affect whatsoever on the climate,” Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)
“All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails,” Gray, who wrote the book “The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “Climate Change 2001,” said.
“It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics,” he added.
‘Dangerous time for science’
Evans, who believes the UN has heavily politicized science, warned there is going to be a “dangerous time for science” ahead.
“We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction” away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.
“The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between,” he concluded.
Carbon trading ‘fraud?’
New Zealander Bryan Leland of the International Climate Science Coalition warned participants that all the UN promoted discussions of “carbon trading” should be viewed with suspicion.
“I am an energy engineer and I know something about electricity trading and I know enough about carbon trading and the inaccuracies of carbon trading to know that carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else,” Leland said.
“We should probably ask why we have 10,000 people here [in Bali] in a futile attempt to ‘solve’ a [climate] problem that probably does not exist,” Leland added.
‘Simply not work’
Owen McShane, the head of the International Climate Science Coalition, also worried that a UN promoted global approach to economics would mean financial ruin for many nations.
“I don’t think this conference can actually achieve anything because it seems to be saying that we are going to draw up one protocol for every country in the world to follow,” McShane said. (LINK)
“Now these countries and these economies are so diverse that trying to presume you can put all of these feet into one shoe will simply not work,” McShane explained.
“Having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn’t be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules,” he added.
‘Nothing happening at this conference’
Professor Dr. William Alexander, emeritus of the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, warned poor nations and their residents that the UN policies could mean more poverty and thus more death.
“My message is specifically for the poor people of Africa. And there is nothing happening at this conference that can help them one little bit but there is the potential that they could be damaged,” Alexander said. (LINK)
“The government and people of Africa will have their attention drawn to reducing climate change instead of reducing poverty,” Alexander added.
Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
Dear Deborah and Friends,
Perhaps you can help me here.
Does being audacious like the Masters of the Universe now and having “the courage to do nothing” make any sense at all. What are too many of our leaders thinking? If doing nothing in the face of the scientific consensus on climate change is an example of courageous behavior, perhaps someone will kindly explain this line of reasoning to me.
At least to me, our current politicians appear to be exhibiting predictable, woefully inadequate, jaded, unconscionable leadership, whose failure to respond ably to the requirements of practical reality could have profound implications for the future of our children, biodiversity and the environment, Earth as a fit place for human habitation, and life as we know it.
The Bali Climate Change Conference is yet another of many monumental failures to act responsibly on the part of leaders in a single generation of elders….... and for what: for the sake of more money, money, money, money and more power and many unchecked privileges to conspicuously consume Earth’s limited resources, come what may, I suppose.
Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Is it possible that the leading Masters of the Universe have been right all along by perniciously proclaiming their silence and enjoining others to do the same?
Even if that is so, to somehow now condone this behavior by naming it courageous action, marked by “ having the courage to do nothing,” is perverse and pitiful.
The techno-fixes that are now unimaginable cannot even be useful to us, if we choose the kind of courage found in “doing nothing.”
Even technological miracles will hold out nothing more false hope to our children, if we continue to relentlessly expand the current scale of the global economy, to adamantly advocate increases in per-capita consumption of limited resources, and to perversely condone the skyrocketing growth of absolute global human population…......all of which appears to be occurring synergistically on the surface of our planetary home.
Rather than a strategy driven by the idea of “doing nothing”; let me suggest an alternative, one that is given to us by Al Gore.
“The great Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen, wrote, “One of these days, the younger generation will come knocking at my door.”
The future is knocking at our door right now. Make no mistake, the next generation will ask us one of two questions. Either they will ask: “What were you thinking; why didn’t you act?”
Or they will ask instead: “How did you find the moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a crisis that so many said was impossible to solve?”
We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource.
So let us renew it, and say together, WE….....WILL....ACT.”
We are in danger of losing the exquisite value of one of God’s gifts to humanity: the carefully and skillfully developed science on climate change.
Is it possible that the standard for determining what is real and true in our culture today is this: whatsoever is widely shared, consensually validated and judged to be ecomonically expedient, politically convenient, socially agreeable and religiously tolerated is true and real?
At least to me, it seems that good science is being ignored and silence allowed to prevail when reasonable and sensible evidence comes into conflict with what culture prescribes as real and true. Perhaps science does present culture with evidence of inconvenient truths.
Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
Steve, define your good science please. You still haven’t addressed my questions: Where is the proof that humans have any effect on climate change? What is the ideal temperature of the Earth? Who is going to administer the wealth redistribution to implement the proposed regulations? Where is the money coming from? Are the facts irrefutable?
Awaiting your reply, Perry Bolin
Dear Perry Bolin,
Thanks for your questions. Because of the number of questions, I wanted to think before responding.
1. Are facts irrefutable?
NO facts are irrefutable.
2. Where does the money come from?
From the people who have money, I suppose.
3. Who will administer wealth re-distribution?
I do not know.
4. What is Earth’s ideal temperature?
Now this is a personal perspective, and the following idea should not be taken as more than that. The ideal temperature of Earth is any temperature that protects and preserves life as we know it.
5. Where is the proof of human-induced climate change?
Again, at least to me, great scientists like James Hansen, Chris Rapley, E. O. Wilson and thousands of other top-rank scientists have produced so much evidence of human-forced climate change that I do not know where to begin to answer this question in a manner that would have meaning. Afterall, science speaks for itself. Scientists are only the messengers, I believe.
6. Define good science, please.
Good science is derived from sound scientific observations and empirical data that are not contaminated by what I would like to call “cultural bias.”
Let me explain. It appears to me that some scientists allow their efforts to do scientific research to become unconsciously influenced by what their culture judges to be economically expedient, politically convenient, socially agreeable and religiously tolerated. Their biased research is not good science.
Let us look at the emerging science of human population dynamics, which, incidently, could explain the current skyrocketing growth of absolute global human population numbers. Why would this example of what I call “good” science be denied?
Well, we can being by considering how the Catholic Church might find the new science intolerable because it directly contradicts Church doctrine. The new evidence indicates with remarkable clarity that the human species could benefit from allowing the use of contraceptives, among other things that would slow the growth of population numbers. The Catholic Church will not “receive” the good science because the Church opposes contraception.
To take another example, our brothers and sisters in economics and demographers provide another case in point. Note first that economists are great investigators, but they are not scientists. That is to say, economics is not a branche of science. Economists are not doing science, per se. When it comes to commenting on a problem like human-driven global warming, it appears to me that these investigators are in an exceptionally weak position to do so. That some economists choose to do so, nonetheless, appears unhelpful.
As yet another example, let’s turn attention to our politics. My view of politicians is uncharitable. Too many of these leaders appear to me to be clever posers, devoid of a capacity for the intellectual honesty necessary to understand the work of good science.
Needless to say, there is much more to say about all this. I have not yet touched on how people desirous of maintaining the status quo, come what may, will believe virtually anything that supports their current lifestyles.
Perhaps enough has been said by me for the moment. I hope these responses are helpful to you, and will encourage further discussion.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
Dear Perry Bolin,
Perhaps my responses, just above, were inadequate.
Let’s turn our attention to matter that is related to all your questions, but a concern of mine that was not made explicit either in your questions or in my responses to them.
From my vantage point, now is a favorable occasion to discuss the human overpopulation of Earth and how a population of 6.63 billion people now can SUSTAINABLY GROW to a projected 9.2 billion people in 2050. That is a 40% increase in the global human population in the next 43 years.
Let’s look at what is happening now. We have millions of people who are conspicuously over-consuming Earth’s limited resources and becoming obese; on the other hand, billions of people do not have substantial sustenance, are going hungry, living in poverty and many are emaciated.
How on this good Earth are we going to realistically add 2 1/2 billion people to our current population by 2050 and also improve life for the family of humanity? Is such a goal reasonable and sensible? If so, how? If not, then what can be done to move forward in a humane, more reality-oriented way, thereby preserving life as we know it and the integrity of Earth?
Skyrocketing absolute global human population numbers could soon threaten life as we know it; and obscence per human over-consumption of resources, at a rate that dissipates Earth’s resources faster than they can be restored for human benefit, could irreversibly degrade our planetary home.
Scientific research, reason and common sense fail to provide good evidence of how “proper management” and “improvement in human wellbeing and environmental health” are realistically accomplished between now and 2050. I am supposing that we cannot keep doing what we are doing now: that is, over-consuming and overpopulating the planet we inhabit. Ideas of “staying the current course” remind me of magical thinking and such a strategy looks like a prescription for disaster.
For example, the seemingly endless growth of the global economy we see today, or of any other human construction, for that matter, is bound to become patently unsustainable at some point in time in a finite world, will it not? Whatsoever is is, is it not…..regardless of human wishes and intentions to the contrary?
Is it reasonable and sensible to consider an alternative? Let us examine the probability that in 2050, we will have millions more people over-consuming resources, just as we are doing now. We will also have billions more people going without substantial sustenance by 2050.
If such an unsustainable situation was somehow likely to occur in first half of Century XXI, then we could begin now to protectively and ably respond by putting forward a humane and more reality-oriented “action plan” both for limiting per-capita over-consumption of finite resources and rapidly reducing absolute global human population numbers.
Always,
Steve
Perry, You’re talking to the proverbial brickwall, a member of the true faithful whose mind is made up…don’t bother trying to confuse him with facts.
Doug
Dear Doug,
Your idea of me as a “proverbial brickwall” seems somehow not quite fair or correct. What would think of comparing me to an old oaken tree?
Your acknowledgement of the value of facts, if you mean scientific facts and not ideological factoids, is something I find useful to this discussion, too. Scientific facts are indeed welcome.
What concerns me most at this moment is the way you and other people who appear to be denialists and naysayers cleverly contrive logic, select data, spread uncertainty, manufacture controversy by referring to outdated reports, all the while ignoring newer, more reasonable, sensible and reality-oriented scientific evidence.
With the hope of continuing this discussion, and choosing not to support your unvarnished attempt to prematurely shut it down, I remain here
Sincerely,
Steve
Steve, where do you get the notion that we must police the consumption of our resources and the growth of population? You make it sound like the human race is like a swarm of locusts, consuming anything and everything in it’s path and leaving behind a barren wasteland. We have had an increase in worldwide population through a convoluted series of developments. Better medicine, agriculture, nutrition and general living conditions have enabled us to live longer, more healthy lives, and also given many of us the ability to share our knowledge and resources. Would you stymie this advance and deny the same opportunities you and I have to those less fortunate? It would seem so, inthat you are lumping all who do not see things your way into yet another group, who should go with your flow quietly, or risk being labeled as idiots. You underestimate the power of the individual. As an individual, I see through the concept of “universal”, “mankind”, “the common good”. Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it, and the climate change bunch are proposing another shot at Marxism, by demanding a worldwide consensus and an overseeing body to tackle this “imminent disaster.” Give the clever individuals who have relied on supply and demand in the free market a chance. They will come up with a solution more quickly and efficiently than any committee, just as they have throughout modern history.
Dear Perry Bolin,
Please give me the time to think about what you presented. Your ideas and questions are significant, and deserve a meaningful response.
Thanks,
Steve
Dear Perry Bolin,
While I do not want to get into semantics, I do want to point out that I am suggesting the voluntary regulation (not policing) of certain human activities that, at least to me, appear to be approaching a point in human history when the current scale and anticipated growth rate of these activities could become unsustainable on a planet with the size and make-up of Earth.
As a father, I want for my children and children generally to have better lives than the ones you and I have had. However, that wish has to conform to the requirements of biophysical reality. Otherwise, our wishes for our children holds out nothing more than false hope. According to this perspective, finding ways to limit increases in growth, and not to stymie developmental advances, is worthy of consideration. Making things better is something I favor; however, it is an all-too-human inclination to make things bigger that could soon present humanity with daunting challenges.
Please understand that there is nothing in what I either declare or report that is intended to diminish the value and splendid capabilities of the individual to perform ably. Having said that, I need to note that I am one of those people who believes human beings have “feet of clay” and, under no circumstances, have achieved such powers as are proclaimed by the “masters of the universe” among us.
For the past 30 years people who spoke out as I am doing have been regularly referred to as peddlers of junk science, as a cacophany of screamers, shrill alarmists, among many other names. I seem to call being called an idiot, too. It is not my habit to name-call. I do not think you are an idiot.
Of all that is worrisome in what you report, one statement stands out.
“Give the clever individuals who have relied on supply and demand in the free market a chance.”
Again, from my viewpoint, if we follow the workings of the free market, then imminent disaster, either a colossal economic wreckage or an ecological calamity could soon occur. The dissipation of natural resources, the degradation of the environs and the destruction of Earth as a fit place for human habitation are occurring now as 6.63 billion people —— projected to be 9.2 billion people in 2050 —— relentlessly over-consume limited resources, adamantly advocate the endless growth of the global human economy and overpopulate the planetary home God blesses us to inhabit and, I suppose, not to overwhelm between now and 2050.
Looking forward to comments from you and others in the E&S community.
Thanks again for your views. They are respected.
Sincerely,
Steve
Dear Perry Bolin,
Perhaps I can elaborate a bit more on my concerns about the rampant expansion of economic globalization activities that are now overspreading the surface of Earth.
Once again, from my humble point of view, the “powers that be” who are managing the growth of big-business activities worldwide could be in denial of the practical reality of the finite world we inhabit and also unwilling to openly and honorably acknowledge the validity of research from no less than 2000 IPCC Nobel Laureate scientists that is being reported with regard to the ominous, distinctly human-induced predicament which is looming before the human community, a predicament that is already visible on the far horizon to many in the human community, but not yet openly and adequately discussed. That many too many politicians and economic powerbrokers adamantly support the continuous, unrestrained growth of the global economy, which could soon become an unsustainable human enterprise, does not favor our children’s well-being or safety, I believe.
Too many of our current leaders appear to have religiously pledged their primary allegiance to the short-term ‘successes’ of unbridled economic globalization, whatever they may be, regardless of the long-term potential for catastrophe that such a recklessly unchecked and unrealistic pursuit portends. For leaders of the political economy to conspicuously ignore the carefully and skillfully obtained scientific evidence on climate change, and global warming in particular, is an incomprehensible failure of human thinking, judging and willing, with potentially profound implications for the future of our children.
Plainly, what is necessary now is intellectual honesty, clarity of vision and courage as well as a willingness among leaders of economic globalization to begin “centering” their attention on the probability of converging threats to humanity that could soon be posed by the gigantic scale and patently unsustainable growth rate of the over-consumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities of the human species in our time.
Always, with thanks,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
A RUNAWAY TRAIN AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL?
Does how “I feel” or how “we feel” or how anybody else “feels” about the predicament involving the human-induced global challenges that are already visible on the far horizon have any meaning or value? So what?
There is a light in the offing at the end of a tunnel covering the “primrose path” we have set out for our children to march along to reach their future. I think magically and also remain somehow wishful for the children’s long-term wellbeing, for environmental protection and preserving Earth’s body; however, please understand that deep within me is a keen sense of foreboding for the children because the light at the end of the tunnel, at this very moment, appears to be moving toward all of us….........fast.
Steve, Thanks for your replies. I read into them that you are a thoughtful man who has a very deep concern for all of our futures. One thing bothers me though, Are you really willing to surrender your liberties to some body of people with questionable ethics and beliefs, who, once given the opportunity, will compel all to submit to their ideologies without recourse to question or debate, simply using the excuse that it is for the good of the future of mankind? Your mention of “economic globalization” scares the hell out of me. This is one area where individualism must play a part. Only foolish business invests in a short, sharp burst style of income generation. Thankfully, they are a minority. The smart business looks to a longterm sustained method. In other words, they do not want to fizzle out in short term. Environmentalists and economists must work together, each has weaknesses and strengths that the other doesn’t, therefore, they can shore up each others efforts. Let me issue you another challenge, (and anyone else who cares to answer is welcome,): Name 2 things that Government does better than Private Enterprise? Perry Bolin
Steve, I found a very good article which may interest you at: worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59319 Hope you enjoy it. Perry Bolin
Dear Perry Bolin,
If I may, this missive will be a response to your second email above. Your first email is requiring work on my part before responding.
Thank you for both replies. They mean a lot because it appears to me that our generation has got to get what we are doing on Earth right. At least to me, a failure by our generation to “get it right” — to fail to adequately understand the way the world we inhabit works and not to ably respond to the challenges looming before humanity — could have profound and pernicious consequences for the future of our children.
The article you have shared from climate skeptics is fine. It reports things that have been presented since the days of Rachel Carson. Please recall the response to this lone scientist’s research. Even then, a concerted effort was undertaken to discredit her work. Scientists who have followed her leadership have also been subject to ridicule and worse. Since the days of Rachel Carson, virtual mountains of scientific evidence have been carefully and skillfully developed about the impact of human activities on the extirpation of biodiversity, the loss of original wildlife habitats and wilderness space, the dissipation of natural resources and the degradation of the environment; and at the same time, denialists of this evidence have continued to employ the same rhetorical tactics and strategies found to be useful to the leaders of the tobacco industry in their contrived, unsavory efforts to deny the link between smoking and cancer.
Perry, please consider that our generation of elders could be leading our children down a proverbial “primrose path” toward daunting global challenges, ones already visible on the far horizon. Pollution could be one of those challenges.
At a minimum, would you not think it a good idea for our generation to proceed cautiously with regard to its unrestrained consumption of Earth’s limited resources? If we keep ravenously consuming as we are now, and Earth’s resources are being dissipated faster than they can be restored for human benefit, what resources will be available to our children? Would it make sense to consider a plan to cap per capita consumption of resources?
Sincerely,
Steve
I am surprised the IPCC hasn’t honored A. Hitler for almost singlehandedly eliminating 6 million people that cause global warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The role of the IPCC is to produce assessment reports for policy makers based on published, peer-reviewed science literature. Every country in the United Nations, including the U.S., must agree with the wording of the assessment reports before they are released. As an American, I find reference to Hitler spurious and offensive, as the aim of the thousands of scientists with the IPCC is to provide governments of the world with the best science known on Earth’s changing climate, something which impacts the livelihood of everyone today and for generations to come. Please keep discussions on this thread at least above a bare minimum of civility.
Dear Doug in Colorado and A.P.Garcia,
Please note that each of you employs a different tactic for closing off discussion. That is what I find most unfortunate. We cannot address our problems so long as people successfully undo valuable open discussions.
What you are doing here are examples of what I call transparent tactics. I have found that other people use more subtle strategies to disrupt meaningful dialogue like the one Perry Bolin and I (and hopefully other members of the E & S Community) are trying to have openly.
Of all the efforts to disrupt discussions like this one, there is nothing so potentially pernicious as silence. Silence in the face of good science is the worst.
In closing for the moment, I hope both of you will find constructive ways (Doug) and civil ways (A.P.) to contribute to discussions like this one.
Sincerely,
Steve
Dear Perry Bolin and the E & S Community,
Very best to you and to all for a happy and healthy year in 2008.
Perhaps we have before us a situation in which contrived logic, linear thinking, material obsessiveness and a mechanistic world view, that we see pervading the predominant culture on Earth in our time, could result in our children recklessly charging down a “primrose path” to be confronted by a colossal ecologic or economic wreckage, the likes of which only Ozymandias has seen.
Despite our best efforts, could it be that your and my generation of elders is communicating with one another and our children as if we are living in a modern day Tower of Babel? Is our noticeable failure to communicate reasonably and sensibly about whatsoever is somehow real, and to widely share adequate understandings regarding both how the family of humanity “fits” within the natural order of living things and what are the limitations of the planet we inhabit, in evidence here and now?
Perhaps the human community is indeed in a serious multifaceted predicament, but only in part because of the objective biological and physical circumstances defining our distinctly human-driven predicament. The global challenges in the offing are further complicated by our failure to communicate effectively about the potentially pernicious results that could be derived from having recklessly grown a soon to become patently unsustainable, colossal global economy, one which we have artificially designed, conveniently constructed, and relentlessly expanded without enough conscious, intelligent regard for the practical requirements of biophysical reality.
Could it be that the current gigantic scale and unchecked growth rate of the global economy is unsustainably driving increases both in adamant per human over-consumption and skyrocketing human population numbers toward the point in human history when the willful, rampant, unregulated growth of consumption, production and propagation activities of the human species precipitates the collapse of Earth’s ecology, even in these early years of Century XXI?
Your consideration is appreciated; your comments are welcome.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Dear Perry Bolin and Friends,
What are we going to say to our children when they ask us the two following questions?
Question One:
When did you know your generation was foolhardy and selfish, inadvertently precipitating the massive extinction of life as we know it and ravaging the Earth?
Question Two:
Why did you and your leaders not stop what you were doing and at least try to do something different, that might have given life as we know it a chance for a good enough future rather than keep charging ahead down the “primrose path” of endless human over-growth activities, the ones you could see would lead humankind to confront some kind of colossal wreckage, the likes of which only Ozymandias has seen?
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
Dear Perry Bolin,
Very best to you for a happy and healthy New Year.
The way the global economy has been organized has produced spectacular successes. No doubt about it. You and I are two of a small minority of super wealthy people within the family of humanity who are all-too-conspicuous, random beneficiaries of the astounding expansion of production and distribution capabilities bound up in the relentless and soon to be patently unsustainable process of economic globalization.
Consider the extraordinarily large size of the human footprints to be left by each of us on the surface of Earth at the end of our lifetimes of obscene consumption and plunder of the resources of the planet where we live.
Surely, we can share an understanding of a desire, however misguided, to present ideological factoids of any and every kind — and to say what is not true over and over again — to deny good scientfic evidence showing us that we cannot keep doing what we doing now by overpopulating Earth; by grotesquely overconsuming limited resources; and by endlessly “growing” big-business activities and polluting the relatively small, evidently finite, noticeably frangible planet God blesses us to inhabit….....and not to overwhelm, I suppose.
If we keep doing what we are doing now, how on Earth can a good enough future for our children be assured? We will have consumed the lion’s share of Earth’s resources and, in that process, will dissipate those resources much faster than the resources can be restored by the Earth for the benefit of our children. The way things are going now, at the behest of powerful leaders with wealth such as you and I possess, I think we can confidently say that we will leave our children with a stupendous economic mortgage to repay as well as an incalculable ecologic debt, most of which cannot be reclaimed.
Perry, let us look at humanity’s predicament another way. If per human overconsumption of scarce resources; unbridled economic globalization; and the skyrocketing increase of absolute global human population numbers could be occuring synergistically in our time, and could have something to do with the distinctly human predicament which looms ominously before humanity, does it not make good and common sense to consider, at least for a moment, what might to done to set limits on increases only in these dangerously overgrown human consumption, production and propagation activities now rampantly overspreading the surface of our planetary home?
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
Dear Perry Bolin,
Our positions at the top of the global economic pyramid give us opportunities to see and do things other, less fortunate people are prevented from experiencing, I suppose. Somehow, it seems to me that privileged people have a responsibility to comment on how the world works for us, despite the realization that our strict silence is golden.
I have a concern that businesses are growing so large that they have become more powerful than the governments of the nation-states they call home. If people were not the consumers of their products, people would receive little regard, if any at all, I believe.
Evidently, humanity has a global warming challenge, in large part induced by the industrial activities of big businesses worldwide. During the last 30-40 years at least one big business has admitted “poisoning the well” of public discourse about fulminating environmental degradation by giving millions of dollars to ideological think tanks, (Exxon Mobil) to spread disinformation, to willfully misrepresent the science of climate change and to literally manufacture the uncertainty and controversy surrounding otherwise good science.
Leaders of big corporations have too much power to influence the decision-making of politicians, many of whom are already bought-for-paid-for by great wealth provided by the very big business entities that fill the politicians’ coffers.
How can national governments and their politicians be expected to sensibly regulate the activities of multinational conglomerations?
Are we now to think of multinational corporations as GLOBAL citizens? If so, what global entity is supposed to regulate them? If not, how an Earth can these gigantic corporations be made to serve the interests of humanity more reasonably and sensibly and not just their owners’ bottom line requirements for profits?
The multinational businesses now operating rampantly and overspreading the surface of our planetary home represent a giant, soon to become patently unsustainable dinosaur-like presence on Earth. The current scale and continuous growth rate of the expanding global economy cannot be maintained much longer, much less forever, can it, Perry?
Yours truly,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
Steve Salmony and the E&S community, I came upon this column while reading over the holidays, and trust that my sharing it will stimulate more thought and discussion. I’ve decided to withdraw from this topic and let the chips fall where they may. I believe that I’ve made my position clear and have thoroughly enjoyed the insights we’ve shared. I will be observing from the sidelines and may even offer a comment or two as we go along. My best wishes for all in 2008. Enjoy this column. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24090&s=rcmp
Dear Perry Bolin,
Please know how much I have appreciated your willingness to participate just as you have in this discussion. I also have respect for your decision to “observe from the sideline.”
If it is suitable for you to do so, I hope you will choose to “offer a comment or two from time to time.” At least to me, it appears that people like us, who are similarly situated near the top of the global economy have a great deal to offer our children in helping them come to an adequate understanding of the distinctly human predicament with which humanity could soon be confronted.
It is my hope that by openly discussing the global challenges before humanity, ones already visible on the far horizon, it will possible for the human community to respond ably to whatever challenges present themselves. As long as people with foresight and the great advantages of experience remain electively mute about what we are discussing here, the status quo will remain unchanged.
And if humankind keeps reflexively overpopulating Earth, conspicuously overconsuming limited resources, and endlessly expanding big-business activities, thereby polluting the relatively small, evidently finite, noticeably frangible planet, as we keep doing now, then a good enough future for our children cannot be assured, I suppose. Not only that, there is something more forbidding that could occur.
I am concerned that our generation of leading elders is selling a bill of goods to our young people today; but we have no intention of making good our promises and will fail to deliver the goods. In part, this unfortunate situation results from our generation’s unbridled over-consumption of Earth’s limited resources as well as from our reckless dissipation of resources bound up in the huge scale and growth rate of economic globalization. Our generation appears to be both mortgaging and threatening the future of its children by remaining religiously focused upon the endless accumulation of material wealth, the unrestrained increase in per capita consumption of scarce resources, and the continuous consolidation of political power. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, we need not look far to see that money, power and privilege for ourselves, for our bought-and-paid-for politicians, and for our newly-made rich minions in the mass media are the primary objects of our desire. Regardless of the human-driven calamities that might befall our children and coming generations, the leadership in our generation advises all of us to live long, and live LARGE, in a patently unsustainable world of idle comforts, effortless ease, conspicuous consumption, secret handshakes, exclusive clubs, exotic hideaways and thousands of McMansions and private jets, having abandoned our regard for the less fortunate among us, for the maintenance of life as we know it, and for the preservation of the integrity of Earth. Recognize the single-minded pursuit of dollars, political power and privileges to profligately consume, and to willfully ignore both the requirements of practical reality and the hopes of those who follow us, as our raison d’etre. Are we leading our children down a “primrose path?”
When ou