In response to My posting on Global Warming Robert Rosenberg wrote the following reply. I must say that there is a great deal of Validity to his informed comments.
I am more convinced than ever that no trumpeting of “scientific consensus,” no UN press release and no press conference can obscure the fact that the theories on anthropogenic (human caused) climatic forcing are far from proved. Neither is the opposing case proved, however. The documentary to which you linked does a good job, not necessary illustrating a scientific case against global warming, but showing the case for uncertainty. The best analogy is a medical one. Hippocrates first dictum was to do no harm. The climate is so vastly complex, so little understood that, to me, the effect of any human intervention is unknowable. Thus we have roughly equal chances of doing harm or good (and probably vanishing little of either). And we’ll spend close to a half quadrillion dollars doing it (latest estimates $450,000,000,000,000) over the next 50-75 years. The law of unintended consequences is already beginning to rear its ugly head. Corn-based ethanol is all the rage in the US now. A perfect storm of nefarious political influence (corn state politicians, ConAgra, Archer Daniels Midland, etc) and environmental activism has generated huge interest from industry is making more ethanol and converting more automotive energy generation to this source. At first glance this appears wonderful. The net carbon effect on the environment of ethanol use appears to be zero. The carbon emitted from the exhaust pipe into the atmosphere came from the atmosphere just a season or two earlier. Let’s, for a moment, ignore that we may have to use more petroleum energy to cultivate, harvest and refine the ethanol than we obtain from it use. Good arguments have been made for and against this proposition. (No “scientific consensus” here). Even assuming massive subsidies from the government to bring the price of ethanol down to where it’s competitive with petroleum, it seems that the worst case is that we’re only hurting ourselves. A few more billion for ethanol subsidies, a couple less billion for the war in Iraq, or for Medicare, or for other corporate subsidies. Fine with me so far. Here’s the problem: all the ethanol generation has increased competition for corn supplies. The price of corn has more than doubled in the last year. This is not a huge factor in American food prices (little corn is actually eaten here; it is mostly used as animal feed, and constitutes a relatively small, but not inconsiderable factor in the cost of raising livestock). The price of corn meal throughout Latin America has skyrocketed, however. Corn meal is a staple food from Mexico south. People are starving right now as a consequence of our concern with carbon budgeting. I’ve read estimates that as many as 5,000 – 15,000 additional people will starve this year alone in Latin America as a consequence of increased corn prices. And for what? So we can feel self-righteous and pure? I call this the Prius effect.
The Prius is a neat car and a brilliant idea. It gets tremendous mileage using a very clever technological fix that holds great promise for the future of automotive transport. If someone would have the balls to manufacture a plug-in version, its effective mileage would approach 100 mpg. It also has a total energy footprint many times greater than that of a Hummer H1 due to the difficulty and cost of manufacturing its batteries. But I’d bet that each driver behind the wheel of one feels like an environmental saint. It’s hypocritical, but harmless. At least the cost of that particular sainthood isn’t the starvation of a few thousand poor brown people. The problem is that each particular energy trade-off we make, while inconvenient for us rich Americans, will be devastating to the world’s poor. This harkens back to a criticism made of the environmental movement in general and the anthropogenic global warming advocates in particular, by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. He accuses the movement of being, at its core, anti-human. Scratch a radical environmentalist and under the surface you’ll find someone who believes that the world would be better off with 90% of its human cargo dead. Of course the 90% doesn’t include any of his friends or family or any of the “right” people. In this regard the philosophy closely resembles the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I’ve personally encountered this mindset and explicit ideology at dinner parties. When I’ve explained that massive famines will be the inevitable result of the energy cutbacks contemplated by warming advocates, my friends have responded stoically that such a price must be paid. Just not paid by them or anyone they know. Black, yellow and brown people, preferably poor, would suit the bill just fine.
Robert info@arrelle.com
______________________________________________________
By Larry Lubell
I can’t help but come away with the idea that we are having an impact on our environment.
Has man changed the entire global climate, that has not been proven, but I still think the odds are better than 50/50 that we have impacted the Earth. But I absolutely agree that the computer models needed to attempt to to answer the question for sure, are beyond our present technology.I will also concur that politics are playing a role and at times are pushing the science.
The question is what steps can we take that will help our environment, reduce greenhouse gases without causing economic hardship. Is there technology that we can build in the US. that creates jobs and wealth and reduces our dependency on fossil fuels?
I refuse to apologize for being human! I always found it comical when people talk about “Saving The Planet” As far as I’m concerned- Man comes first. My concern for the planet is tied to what is best for us. But I will add, what is best for us includes what is best for future generations. ( at least as far in the future as my child and my child’s children). I don’t like the idea of animals being hurt in the name of research, and I will go out of my way to buy shampoo that is not tested on animals, but if testing on animals is necessary to find a cure that could save my child- Test away.
People come first.
I must say I was upset the way Present Bush handled the Kyoto Accord. Not because he did not sign it ( I recognized it was a flawed proposal) but because he rejected it with out presenting an alterative. I always felt Kyoto was in part a “Game of Chicken”, by the US saying no, it safely let most of Europe say yes for free.
The question is what should we do. By ”We” I mean the average consumer, as well as The US. and UN lawmakers and policy makers? Do we do nothing till we have super computers capable of creating valid models. Do we just cross our fingers and wait? Does complexity mandate inaction?
Is there anything we can or should do that fits with my concept that people come first?
Boy, it sure is easier to ask questions, or to find fault with other peoples answers, then to come up with answers your self. I must admit, I have far more questions than answers.
Larry Lubell
I am more convinced than ever that no trumpeting of “scientific consensus,” no UN press release and no press conference can obscure the fact that the theories on anthropogenic (human caused) climatic forcing are far from proved. Neither is the opposing case proved, however. The documentary to which you linked does a good job, not necessary illustrating a scientific case against global warming, but showing the case for uncertainty. The best analogy is a medical one. Hippocrates first dictum was to do no harm. The climate is so vastly complex, so little understood that, to me, the effect of any human intervention is unknowable. Thus we have roughly equal chances of doing harm or good (and probably vanishing little of either). And we’ll spend close to a half quadrillion dollars doing it (latest estimates $450,000,000,000,000) over the next 50-75 years. The law of unintended consequences is already beginning to rear its ugly head. Corn-based ethanol is all the rage in the US now. A perfect storm of nefarious political influence (corn state politicians, ConAgra, Archer Daniels Midland, etc) and environmental activism has generated huge interest from industry is making more ethanol and converting more automotive energy generation to this source. At first glance this appears wonderful. The net carbon effect on the environment of ethanol use appears to be zero. The carbon emitted from the exhaust pipe into the atmosphere came from the atmosphere just a season or two earlier. Let’s, for a moment, ignore that we may have to use more petroleum energy to cultivate, harvest and refine the ethanol than we obtain from it use. Good arguments have been made for and against this proposition. (No “scientific consensus” here). Even assuming massive subsidies from the government to bring the price of ethanol down to where it’s competitive with petroleum, it seems that the worst case is that we’re only hurting ourselves. A few more billion for ethanol subsidies, a couple less billion for the war in Iraq, or for Medicare, or for other corporate subsidies. Fine with me so far. Here’s the problem: all the ethanol generation has increased competition for corn supplies. The price of corn has more than doubled in the last year. This is not a huge factor in American food prices (little corn is actually eaten here; it is mostly used as animal feed, and constitutes a relatively small, but not inconsiderable factor in the cost of raising livestock). The price of corn meal throughout Latin America has skyrocketed, however. Corn meal is a staple food from Mexico south. People are starving right now as a consequence of our concern with carbon budgeting. I’ve read estimates that as many as 5,000 – 15,000 additional people will starve this year alone in Latin America as a consequence of increased corn prices. And for what? So we can feel self-righteous and pure? I call this the Prius effect.
The Prius is a neat car and a brilliant idea. It gets tremendous mileage using a very clever technological fix that holds great promise for the future of automotive transport. If someone would have the balls to manufacture a plug-in version, its effective mileage would approach 100 mpg. It also has a total energy footprint many times greater than that of a Hummer H1 due to the difficulty and cost of manufacturing its batteries. But I’d bet that each driver behind the wheel of one feels like an environmental saint. It’s hypocritical, but harmless. At least the cost of that particular sainthood isn’t the starvation of a few thousand poor brown people. The problem is that each particular energy trade-off we make, while inconvenient for us rich Americans, will be devastating to the world’s poor. This harkens back to a criticism made of the environmental movement in general and the anthropogenic global warming advocates in particular, by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. He accuses the movement of being, at its core, anti-human. Scratch a radical environmentalist and under the surface you’ll find someone who believes that the world would be better off with 90% of its human cargo dead. Of course the 90% doesn’t include any of his friends or family or any of the “right” people. In this regard the philosophy closely resembles the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I’ve personally encountered this mindset and explicit ideology at dinner parties. When I’ve explained that massive famines will be the inevitable result of the energy cutbacks contemplated by warming advocates, my friends have responded stoically that such a price must be paid. Just not paid by them or anyone they know. Black, yellow and brown people, preferably poor, would suit the bill just fine.
Robert info@arrelle.com
______________________________________________________
By Larry Lubell
I can’t help but come away with the idea that we are having an impact on our environment.
Has man changed the entire global climate, that has not been proven, but I still think the odds are better than 50/50 that we have impacted the Earth. But I absolutely agree that the computer models needed to attempt to to answer the question for sure, are beyond our present technology.I will also concur that politics are playing a role and at times are pushing the science.
The question is what steps can we take that will help our environment, reduce greenhouse gases without causing economic hardship. Is there technology that we can build in the US. that creates jobs and wealth and reduces our dependency on fossil fuels?
I refuse to apologize for being human! I always found it comical when people talk about “Saving The Planet” As far as I’m concerned- Man comes first. My concern for the planet is tied to what is best for us. But I will add, what is best for us includes what is best for future generations. ( at least as far in the future as my child and my child’s children). I don’t like the idea of animals being hurt in the name of research, and I will go out of my way to buy shampoo that is not tested on animals, but if testing on animals is necessary to find a cure that could save my child- Test away.
People come first.
I must say I was upset the way Present Bush handled the Kyoto Accord. Not because he did not sign it ( I recognized it was a flawed proposal) but because he rejected it with out presenting an alterative. I always felt Kyoto was in part a “Game of Chicken”, by the US saying no, it safely let most of Europe say yes for free.
The question is what should we do. By ”We” I mean the average consumer, as well as The US. and UN lawmakers and policy makers? Do we do nothing till we have super computers capable of creating valid models. Do we just cross our fingers and wait? Does complexity mandate inaction?
Is there anything we can or should do that fits with my concept that people come first?
Boy, it sure is easier to ask questions, or to find fault with other peoples answers, then to come up with answers your self. I must admit, I have far more questions than answers.
Larry Lubell
Posts
3 comments:
Global Warming… Fact or Fiction
Wednesday, January 17th, 2007
When scientists look back over the 4.6 billion year history of Earth it is clear that the climate has changed many times, ranging from ice ages to long periods of warmth. Throughout time, natural forces including major volcanic eruptions, small fluctuations in the Earth»s orbit, solar cycles, and even asteroid impacts have affected the Earth»s climate. Beginning with the Industrial Revolution in the 18th late century, human actions have also changed the composition of the atmosphere. By burning Fossil fuels for energy man is increasing the amount of carbon and Methane in the atmosphere. and therefore likely are influencing the Earth»s climate.
Carbon is called a “Greenhouse” gas because it works in the atmosphere in a similar way that the panes of glass work in a greenhouse. They allow the sunlight (Ultra-violet rays) to enter warming the ground and air. Then the resulting inferred energy is trapped inside causing the room (or planet) to heat up. Global warming is the result of more energy coming in, than what is able to leave. If greenhouse gases continue to increase, climate models predict that the average temperature at the Earth»s surface could increase from 2.5 to 10.4ºF above 1990 levels by the end of this century. Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet’s climate.
We all have a vested interest in the “Status Quo”
I have to laugh when I hear people talk about “Saving the Planet”, with the exception of an Everest sized asteroid hitting Earth; our planet is pretty safe form the next few billion years. The Earth does not care if the oceans are 30 feet higher or 10 degrees warmer. For more than one billion years the earth had no oxygen. The simple truth is we all have a vested interest in the “Status Quo.” The Earth does not care what the coastline is but if you just paid $900,000.00 for a condo in South Beach, you do not want to see it washed out to sea.
Every scientist working in climatology will tell you just how complicated and difficult it is to create a climate model. Even the most advanced super computers with thousands of parallel processors are only able to scratch the surface of the data required to generate a complete picture. So anyone who says they “Know” the precise future of the Earths next 100 years of climate in delusional, but history and reasonable projections give us insight into the direction we appear to be headed.
In the film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth”, the former Vice President, Al Gore lays out a tail of Earth’s recent past and possible near term future.
The question is how accurate are some of the scientific claims made in the documentary?
In an attempt to clear the air, National Geographic News checked in with Eric Steig, an earth scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, who saw An Inconvenient Truth at a preview screening.
He says the documentary handles the science well.
“I was looking for errors,” he said.
“But nothing much struck me as overblown or wrong.”
Claim: Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense as temperatures rise.
“There’s no question about this,” the University of Washington»s Steig said. “If the average is going up, the extremes have to go up as well.”
2005 was the hottest year on Earth since the late 19th century, when scientists began collecting temperature data. And Britain»s Meteorological Office said there was a 60 percent probability that 2007 would break that record. The past decade featured five of the warmest years ever recorded, with the second hottest year being 1998. (Article continues below)
_______________________________________________________
We Proudly Offer:
Low Cost
Car Insurance
Start Your Insurance Today
Call 1-800-680-0707 for a Free quote
or Click
We Proudly Offer:
Same day SR22 Filing
No Credit Check
Low Down Payments
Low Monthly Payments
Urban Insurance Agency has been helping people save on their car insurance for more than 45 years. We offer the lowest prices in Chicago on SR-22 filings, SR22 car insurance, non owners, liability insurance and electronic filings. We can help drivers in Chicago, Illinois get the lowest quotes even if they have a DUI, suspended license or pending suspension.We sell insurance in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Florida. Our rates for auto insurance are often lower than Progressive,, InsureOne, esurance.com,and Alstate.. We also offer preferred rates for low risk drivers and renewal discounts.
Urban Insurance Agency
Claim: Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet (6 meters) with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
There is little doubt that sea levels would rise by that much if Greenland melted.
Reduction of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets similar to past reductions would cause sea level to rise 10 or more meters. A sea-level rise of 10 meters would flood about 25 percent of the U.S. population, with the major impact being mostly on the people and infrastructures in the Gulf and East Coast.All over Greenland and the Arctic, rising temperatures are not simply melting ice; they are changing the very geography of coastlines.
“We are already in a new era of geography,” said the Arctic explorer Will Steger. “This phenomenon — of an island all of a sudden appearing out of nowhere and the ice melting around it — is a real common phenomenon now.”
The sudden appearance of the islands is a symptom of an ice sheet going into retreat, scientists say. Greenland is covered by 630,000 cubic miles of ice, enough water to raise global sea levels by 23 feet.
Carl Egede Boggild, a professor of snow-and-ice physics at the University Center of Svalbard, said Greenland could be losing more than 80 cubic miles of ice per year.
“That corresponds to three times the volume of all the glaciers in the Alps,” Dr. Boggild said. “If you lose that much volume you»d definitely see new islands appear.”
“Even a foot rise is a pretty horrible scenario,” said Stephen P. Leatherman, director of the Laboratory for Coastal Research at Florida International University in Miami.
On low-lying and gently sloping land like coastal river deltas, a sea-level rise of just one foot would send water thousands of feet inland. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide make their homes in such deltas; virtually all of coastal Bangladesh lies in the delta of the Ganges River. Over the long term, much larger sea-level rises would render the world’s coastlines unrecognizable, creating a whole new series of islands.
“Here in Miami,” Dr. Leatherman said, “we»re going to have an ocean on both sides of us.”
Claim: The Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer by 2050.
Some climate models are more conservative, suggesting that there will be no summer ice in the Arctic by the year 2100.
But new research shows it could take as little as 20 years for the sea ice to disappear.
“Since the advent of remote satellite imaging, we»ve lost about 20 percent of sea-ice cover,” said Mark Serreze, a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.
“We»re setting ourselves up for very big losses this year.”
“We think of the Arctic as the heat sink to the climate system,” Serreze said.
“We»re fundamentally changing this heat sink, and we don’t know how the rest of the climate system is going to respond.”
There is no doubt that as sea ice continues to melt, habitat for animals like polar bears will continue to shrink.
In addition to the legitimate complexity of environmental models, you also have some companies funding reseach explicitly for the purpose of “Throwing up smoke,” in order to create the illusion that the scientific community is more divided than is actually the case. Of these companies Exxon has been the largest funding source for data contrary to the main wave of the scientific community.
Therefore it was noteworthy when Exxon announced it had stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank that last year ran television ads saying that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is helpful. After funding them previously, Exxon decided in late 2005 not to fund for 2006 CEI and “five or six” other groups active in the global-warming debate,said Kenneth Cohen, Exxon»s vice president for public affairs.
Exxon says important questions remain about the degree to which fossil-fuel emissions are contributing to global warming. But “the modeling has gotten better” analyzing the probabilities of how rising greenhouse-gas emissions will affect global temperatures, Mr. Cohen said. Exxon continues to stress the modeling is imperfect; it is “helpful to an analysis, but it»s not a predictor,” he said. But he added, “we know enough now - or, society knows enough now - that the risk is serious and action should be taken.”
Apropos of our last e-mail exchange, let me know what you think of the following:
London Times Article
Rob@arrelle.com
Thanks to everyone for all of your hard work on our global warming campaign. Over 5000 people wrote their legislators in support of legislation curbing global warming. Thanks!
Many people are surprised to learn that the energy we use in buildings?" for heating, cooling, and lighting?" is one of the biggest sources of global warming pollution. In fact, global warming pollution created by the average home doubles that of the average car.
Too much of this energy is simply wasted through inefficient home construction and design. Unfortunately, Illinois is one of a small handful of states without any standards for energy efficiency in new residential construction.
Illinois politicians cannot continue to let our state fall behind. A bill before the Illinois state legislature - The Energy Efficient Building Act - creates minimum energy efficiency standards for new Illinois homes in accordance with the latest national model code.
With determined advocacy, we may be able to turn this legislation into law this session. But we need your support!
Urge your legislators to help curb global warming pollution by voting for the Energy Efficient Building Act in 2008. Let's make it happen!
To take action, click on the link below
http://www.environmentillinois.org/action/new-energy-future/efficientbuildings?id4=ES
BACKGROUND
Saving energy is one of the best ways to improve our economy and cut global warming pollution. One of the largest energy uses is for heating, cooling and lighting buildings -- building energy use accounts for nearly 40% of total energy used in the U.S., and over 70% of total electricity consumption. Global warming pollution caused by the average home doubles that of the average car.
The best time to make sure a new building is using energy-saving design is at construction. New buildings can be energy efficient from the start or lost opportunities that stand for the next 30-50 years...or more. This lost opportunity manifests itself in greater global warming pollution and increased energy costs.
Most states require home builders to incorporate energy saving measures when they build new homes. These building codes can dramatically cut global warming emissions as well as home energy costs. For example, a recent study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy found that if Illinois adopted the latest national energy efficiency standards statewide, we would save 12.8 million tons of CO2 pollution in Illinois alone by 2020 versus current construction practices.
The economic benefits are significant. Statewide residential energy efficiency codes at the latest model code standards would save Illinois families up to 32% on heating bills and up to 24% on cooling costs. Utility bill savings for Illinois families reach up to $466 annually.
While states like Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania feature codes at the latest national standards, Illinois is one of only ten states without statewide residential energy efficiency codes.
Two bills before the Illinois state legislature in 2008 -- HB 1842 and SB 526 -- would bring Illinois in line with the latest standards for new residential construction. This legislation, the Energy Efficient Building Act, is supported by a broad coalition of proponents: from environmental groups, to municipalities, to low-income housing groups.
This legislation passed the House by a 74-38 margin in 2007, but stalled in the Senate. We hope to pass the Energy Efficient Building Act into law in 2008, but we need your support!
Urge your legislator to pass the Energy Efficient Building Act and bring Illinois in line with national energy efficiency standards. To take action, just click on the link below:
http://www.environmentillinois.org/action/new-energy-future/efficientbuildings?id4=ES
Sincerely,
Rebecca D. Stanfield
Environment Illinois State Director
RebeccaS@environmentillinois.org
http://www.environmentillinois.org
Post a Comment