NY Greens ask: How immediate is the crisis?

The Babylon Greens are hosting Dr. Scott Carlin, the founder of the Long Island Climate Solutions Network, speaking about Global Warming: How Immediate is the Crisis? at the Pisces Café, 14A Railroad Avenue, Babylon, NY on Wednesday, April 1, 2009 at 7pm

Carlin says

If we continue on the same path, we will soon face a Mad Max world of starvation, wars and environmental die-off on a scale we have not seen.

67 thoughts on “NY Greens ask: How immediate is the crisis?

  1. Steve

    Considering that my state has just undergone a brutal winter that approached last year’s record cold and followed an unseasonably cool spring and summer of ’08. I’ll go with “not very.”

    I would invite all Greens and others concerned about “a Mad Max world of starvation, wars, and environmental die-off” to join us in Iowa. We have plentiful food supplies, low rates of violent crime, and yes, freezing cold.

  2. Kimberly Wilder

    Hey, Steve,

    To be blunt, your comments show that you don’t have even a rudimentary enough understanding of climate change to take a position on it.

    “Global warming” does not mean that the temperature or even average temperature have to be hotter.

    In global warming, there are weather extremes of hot AND COLD. So, your example would demonstrate possible global warming.

    In addition, with global warming, there are also other weather extremes such as more hurricanes and other storms.

    Might want to brush up on things before commenting again.

    By the way, here is my commentary on global warming, in the form of an amusing video:

    http://www.youtube.co/watch?v=ZIj4mZRgzjA

  3. LibertyDave

    All this flap about mankind being the cause of global warming reminds me of the story of Galileo. In his time all the scientist claimed the sun revolved around the earth. When he present evidence that the earth revolved around the sun, he was ridiculed because most of the scientist in the world can’t be wrong.

    Climatologists see that the earth is warming up and then claim that mankind is the cause without bothering to see if the other sciences might hold clues to the cause, for example if global warming is caused by mankind then how come mars is experiencing global warming also. (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html). Is it just coincidence or is there another reason both planets are experiencing global warming.

    I have even heard some scientists claim that if we don’t stop CO2 emissions that we will reach a tipping point and global warming will be irreversible. But when you look at agricultural science plants can absorb up to 5 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere suggesting that at some time in the past there was a whole lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today, did mankind also cause this before we were even around. (http://www.progressivegardens.com/growers_guide/co2.html)

    The earth has been warming up then cooling down by itself long before man and will continue long after mankind is gone. To think that mankind is the cause of this is the height of arrogance. Even if mankind were able to stop releasing any CO2 into the atmosphere, we still face a mad max future of starvation, wars and environmental die-off on a scale we have not seen before because of over population.

  4. Trent Hill

    Kimberly,

    Isnt that a rigged discussion? It the 1970s it was Global Cooling. In the early 2000s it was Global Warming. When both were found to be wanting, it changed to “Climate Change”

    Isnt that a rigged game, Climate Change? The mean temperature would have to stay approximately even indefinetly in order for there not to be “Climate Change”. Furthermore, the Earth goes through cooling and warming trends (see Ice Age) and Weather Patterns.

    Lastly, even if Climate Change were real (and I dont think it is), and a true threat (Assuming it were real, I dont think it would be a true threat)–why does it neccesitate government action?

  5. Kimberly Wilder

    Trent,

    Aha. I can see this is something we will have to agree to disagree on.

    😉

    Just because science is confused, and then figures things out does not mean it is rigged. It just means it is learning.

    First of all, I do not think we have to “prove” that it was a result of man’s wrongs, to realize that if ice is melting in the polar regions, which could raise sea level and wipe out whole, populated coastlines, if there is a way to address it we should.

    So, for me, seeing thousand-year-old glaciers melting is enough to want some government scientists to think about if there is something to do to stop the glaciers from melting (while, hopefully, other government folks are informing the public not to build on the coastline.)

    Also, why does it necessitate government action?

    Well, I see that you are very Libertarian/Conservative about the role of government. And, I can understand that approach, and do apply it to some level and some areas. Yeah, the government is not always very effective, and, yeah, the government does things in a very expensive way.

    But, I believe that some things – like our planet warming – are on a big enough scale that each human being, or even a human family, would not have the resources to address the problem themselves. It would be like Don Quixote fighting a windmill. So, sometimes, we need the complexity of a larger entity to tackle the problem.

    Now, that entity could be a non-profit corporation, a religious group, a corporation, or a government.

    In the instance of global warming, the corporation won’t want to help (because it’s bottom line is year-to-year and this problem happens over time). Most religious groups won’t see it as central to their mission (though, some are and are actually doing part of the work, the education to slow things down. A few non-profits recognize the problem and are addressing it. But, they probably don’t have the power and clout to correct and address international corporate empires where need be. So, the government is probably the best bet to have the resources to study such a global situation, and the resources to transmit education to people and corporations about why their behavior should and must change.

    I see your premise that “government should/could stay out of this situation” as a basic flaw in conservative thinking. In fact, government has so much power, that in situations like this, when you look at it closer, government is acting, they are acting precisely in ways that are worsening the problem. And, the stance that they should be “laissez-faire” by not educating the public, for instance, is bogus. Because, in fact, at present, the government is seriously influencing things so that the public gets mis-educated.

    Why is government action needed?

    Well, if you don’t want the government to do carbon caps, and public education, etc., because you think that is too off-target and imposing on folks, just be more simple and less intrusive.

    Part of the reason we have global warming is from the pollution and carbon use of the military, the bombs, the flights to Afghanstan and Iraq. So, maybe people who like government non-interference should simply start telling the government to stop running their own engine on high for all these years.

    And, a p.s.: Even if there was not climate change and global warming, all attempts to stop burning carbon are wonderful and helpful. In almost every city, the air is so polluted that more and more people have asthma. What good is philosophy or conservatism if we can’t even breathe?

  6. Susan Hogarth

    Well, if you don’t want the government to do carbon caps, and public education, etc., because you think that is too off-target and imposing on folks, just be more simple and less intrusive.

    I am – my house is completely off the coal-nuke grid, powered by solar, warmed by wood.

    Now can I have my smaller government?

    Part of the reason we have global warming is from the pollution and carbon use of the military, the bombs, the flights to Afghanstan and Iraq.

    Right-you-are!

    So, maybe people who like government non-interference should simply start telling the government to stop running their own engine on high for all these years.

    Oh, yes! We do. But it doesn’t. So other people call for more government interference. The only ‘winner’ here is …. Government!

    (see ‘ratchet mechanism’)

    And, a p.s.: Even if there was not climate change and global warming, all attempts to stop burning carbon are wonderful and helpful.

    Err. Not necessarily. “Burning carbon” goes by another name among scientists: breathing. That’s how we live.

    In almost every city, the air is so polluted that more and more people have asthma. What good is philosophy or conservatism if we can’t even breathe?

    What good is breathing if we can’t breathe free?

  7. Kimberly Wilder

    Great line, Susan.

    I take it as a definite zinger that you win on.

    😉

    But, I still think that the situation on the ground is that government actually supports and props up corporations. So, asking government to regulate corporate pollution, is just a way to force it so that all the rich and powerful be held accountable.

    Each of us, personally, cannot stop global warming. There has to be something to stop (wasteful) rich people and corporations from spiraling out of control with pollution and wasting resources. If those of us who care about the environment act as individuals only, we don’t stand a chance against those bigger entities.

    If I see that the corporations are smothering me by spewing smoke into the air, one way to stop them is to vote to demand my government stop the pollution (which pollution comes into my air-space.) I can vote by electing people who believe the government should say NO to corporate pollution. Or, I can vote in some places by putting an initiative/referendum on the ballot.

    Then, I am freely using my voice inside a democratic government, to force the government to save me, instead of allowing government to ignore or contribute to the problem.

  8. Jim Davidson

    The science is not just confused, it is dead wrong. Liars in the science community manipulate the data to create a false sense of urgency.

    http://inspacetoday.blogspot.com/2009/02/nasa-goddard-lies.html

    The truth is 1934 was still the hottest year on record, after NASA got done remembering the Y2K bug in their data from a few years back which pretended a more recent year was hotter. And this October 2008 hottest month on record was a lie, produced by repeating all Russian reporting stations September data in October – and they were caught at it.

    We were told by these liars in the environmental movement in the 1960s that DDT would wipe out all bird populations. Instead, they banned DDT and malaria wiped out tens of millions of humans in the time since. That’s because environmentalists would rather have people die of horrid diseases. Not for any gain, just because environmentalists want to see people suffer and die.

    The environmentalists told us we were running out of oil in 1970, and they were wrong. In the late 1970s we were assured that a new Ice Age was coming, and Newsweek told us what the last big Ice Age was like, and, of course, that it was all our fault for burning wood to keep warm. (Sorry, Susan, but they enviro-wackos don’t want you to have a comfortable temperature in your home. If you aren’t freezing to death in winter, they aren’t happy. They want you dead.)

    Julian Simon bet what’s his name the enviro wacko that major commodity prices would go down, and they did. Simon’s view is that more people are a better thing, because what makes the world go around? Production. More people, even if they aren’t as productive as they could be, make life better for everyone.

    Environmentalists were wrong about these crises before. They have demanded that we agree that the sky is falling, and give up our lives and our freedom. They have demanded that we give up our privacy and private property. Environmentalists are human haters who want to eliminate the human race.

    Of course, humanity is natural. We are a part of the natural world. It is in our nature to build buildings just as it is in the nature of beavers to build dams. Everything humans do is natural – human nature is natural.

    But environmentalists don’t believe that. They invariably object to human behaviors. They want humans to be more miserable, so they object every time one of us rubs two sticks together to make fire. They want us to suffer and die so they make up lies about bird eggs to ban DDT, making EPA administrator Ruckelshaus arguably the biggest mass murderer in history. (I have, myself, volunteered time at a hospital in Africa that treated malaria cases.)

    Green is the new red. And as the Black Book of Communism and Bryan Caplan’s Museum of Communism illustrate, the communists have exterminated tens of millions in the 20th Century alone, arguably hundreds of millions (Mao was really prolific).

    The vision environmentalists have is a government that invades our privacy to find out what we are consuming and exhaling, a state big enough to exterminate 90% of the population, or more, a state powerful enough to eliminate all private property and individual choice.

    On the whole, given how their previous alarms proved worthless, I’ll take my chances with Mad Max.

  9. Kimberly Wilder

    Jim,

    Was your post satire?

    😉

    You said:

    http://www.naymz.com/creative-writing-synonyms-for-said/ https://heystamford.com/writing/write-my-thesis-and-outline-for-me/8/ viagra nasal spray essay ideas https://www.nypre.com/programs/law-essay-writing-service/37/ research paper japanese internment cialis 2x20 mg https://calaverashumane.org/health/pharmacy-online-365-reviews/15/ critical thinking habitsВ source site watch cse thesis essay writing for money source site see enter site https://tasteofredding.org/7969-viagra-patent-expires-us/ go to link les avantages de viagra here viagra sublingual absorption https://nyusternldp.blogs.stern.nyu.edu/how-to-set-up-an-email-on-iphone-8/ empathic order in essay writing follow url essay writing service uk best ontario government homework help writing helps viagra side effects low blood pressure https://grad.cochise.edu/college/dedication-page-in-thesis/20/ custom essay service ltd click zoloft sexual side effects male Environmentalists are human haters who want to eliminate the human race. AND

    That’s because environmentalists would rather have people die of horrid diseases. Not for any gain, just because environmentalists want to see people suffer and die.

    Our of all my environmentalist friends – and I have a lot, since I was in the Green Party previously – I only knew one who preferred lizards over people.

    Otherwise, I believe that environmentalists are in it to protect the earth for children and for future generations of people.

  10. Susan Hogarth

    But, I still think that the situation on the ground is that government actually supports and props up corporations.

    ABSOLUTELY it does. And why? Because they do the same for it.

    So, asking government to regulate corporate pollution, is just a way to force it so that all the rich and powerful be held accountable.

    Yes, but examine your premises.

    You point out that the government is controlled by and for corporations to a large extent.

    And I agree!

    And then you want to ‘ask’ government – which is another word for thing-run-by-corps – to *control* corporations.

    Not likely! We’re talking foxes and henhouses here.

    What I think is that the best way to weaken government support for corporations is to just *weaken government*. Government is a tool; a coercive tool. Imagining that the relatively powerless can use it to control those who already hold and wield it with ease is a bit utopian, in my book.

    I do hope to run into you sometime ‘in the flesh’, Kimberly. I think the conversation would be incredibly stimulating.

  11. Steve

    No, I’ll admit I don’t have any formal scientific background or real interest in acquiring one. But I’d like to think I’m a pretty logical thinker, so scientific theory which can be debunked by walking outside is probably not one on which we should base government policy.

    A few years ago when we had a string of mild winters global warming seemed pretty plausible. Now after a series of harsh winters, I’ve reevaluated. And a brief survey of history backs up my limited observations. Climate patterns have always fluctuated. And in fact, those times of warming, such as the “little climate optimum” in Europe during the Middle Ages have corresponded with times of great human social and economic progress while times of cooling such as the “little ice age.” generally correspond with regression.

  12. Susan Hogarth

    Kimberly,

    I just came across this amazing quote (L Mises) and thought of this exchange we’ve been having:

    “Nobody every recommended a dictatorship aiming at ends other than those he himself approved. He who advocates dictatorship always advocates the unrestricted rule of his own will.”

    You say: If those of us who care about the environment act as individuals only, we don’t stand a chance against those bigger entities.

    But I think it’s exactly the opposite – *only* by acting ‘as individuals’ (that is, non-coercively) do we stand a chance. If we accept coercion as a means of change (and when you speak of using the government to stop people from doing things that you don’t like or that you fear you mean coercion – because, at the very least, you’ve forced me to help pay for that government action) then we become part of the problem. In fact, we -become- the problem.

    Gandhi knew this.

  13. paulie cannoli

    Considering that my state has just undergone a brutal winter that approached last year’s record cold and followed an unseasonably cool spring and summer of ‘08. I’ll go with “not very.”

    I would invite all Greens and others concerned about “a Mad Max world of starvation, wars, and environmental die-off” to join us in Iowa. We have plentiful food supplies, low rates of violent crime, and yes, freezing cold.

    You are confusing weather with climate.

  14. paulie cannoli

    The earth has been warming up then cooling down by itself long before man and will continue long after mankind is gone. To think that mankind is the cause of this is the height of arrogance.

    So is thinking that we can’t be the cause of climate destabilization. Relative small changes in the complex dynamic environmental balance can cause overcompensating reactions, which can cause other overcompensating reactions in turn, etc.


    Even if mankind were able to stop releasing any CO2 into the atmosphere, we still face a mad max future of starvation, wars and environmental die-off on a scale we have not seen before because of over population.

    See Julian Simon on this point.

  15. paulie cannoli

    Isnt that a rigged discussion? It the 1970s it was Global Cooling. In the early 2000s it was Global Warming. When both were found to be wanting, it changed to “Climate Change”

    Isnt that a rigged game, Climate Change? The mean temperature would have to stay approximately even indefinetly in order for there not to be “Climate Change”. Furthermore, the Earth goes through cooling and warming trends (see Ice Age) and Weather Patterns.

    Climate destabilization does not necessarily mean cooling or warming. In fact, the mean temperature can remain the same, but the extremes can become more extreme and more frequent; that is also a form of destabilization.

    The fact that the mean changes over time does not prove or disprove the theory of destabilization.


    Lastly, even if Climate Change were real (and I dont think it is), and a true threat (Assuming it were real, I dont think it would be a true threat)

    I think there does appear to be climate destabilization, and it can clearly be a threat.


    –why does it neccesitate government action?

    I don’t believe it does. As with other government actions – the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, etc. – it can only make things worse.

    I don’t trust the biggest polluter in the country (and quite probably in the world) to solve our environmental problems.

  16. paulie cannoli

    Just because science is confused, and then figures things out does not mean it is rigged. It just means it is learning.

    Correct.


    First of all, I do not think we have to “prove” that it was a result of man’s wrongs, to realize that if ice is melting in the polar regions, which could raise sea level and wipe out whole, populated coastlines, if there is a way to address it we should.

    Some ice is clearly melting in the polar regions. Is more ice being formed elsewhere in the polar regions, or more water evaporating elsewhere, to keep this flooding from happening? I’m not sure we really know all the answers here.


    So, for me, seeing thousand-year-old glaciers melting is enough to want some government scientists to think about if there is something to do to stop the glaciers from melting (while, hopefully, other government folks are informing the public not to build on the coastline.)

    Quite the opposite. Government is subsidizing rebuilding in disaster areas through national flood insurance and other programs.

    Government seems to me to be the wrong go-to method for solving environmental problems, given its own horrible environmental record and extremely poor record of solving problems generally.


    Well, I see that you are very Libertarian/Conservative about the role of government.

    Libertarian =/= conservative. Conservatives clearly believe in big government when it comes to social/”moral” issues, the drug war, migration control, foreign policy, law enforcement and the military. They often pay lip service to smaller government in the economic sphere, but in practice politicians who call themselves conservative usually just substitute “borrow and spend” for “tax and spend.”

    Even the Constitution Party types of conservatives are not libertarian when it comes to social issues, especially at the state and local level.


    And, I can understand that approach, and do apply it to some level and some areas.

    I apply it consistently, because government never grows just to do the things you want. When you empower it, you empower it to do all sorts of things, including those you don’t want.


    Yeah, the government is not always very effective, and, yeah, the government does things in a very expensive way.

    A lot of times, not only does it not solve problems, it makes them worse and creates new ones.


    But, I believe that some things – like our planet warming – are on a big enough scale that each human being, or even a human family, would not have the resources to address the problem themselves. It would be like Don Quixote fighting a windmill. So, sometimes, we need the complexity of a larger entity to tackle the problem.

    I agree. There are lots of voluntarily organized organizations – both non-profit and for-profit – that could help solve environmental problems.


    Now, that entity could be a non-profit corporation, a religious group, a corporation, or a government.

    I don’t think it should be government for the reasons I have outlined. I also don’t like corporations, which get their corporate charter from the government and are thus fruit of a poison tree. I prefer businesses which are not corporations as well as non-profits.


    In the instance of global warming, the corporation won’t want to help (because it’s bottom line is year-to-year and this problem happens over time).

    However, there are many business ventures that don’t become profitable for several years, but eventually do. How do you account for that?


    Most religious groups won’t see it as central to their mission (though, some are and are actually doing part of the work, the education to slow things down). A few non-profits recognize the problem and are addressing it.

    Good. So we can agree that religious and non-profit organizations can be part of the solution.


    But, they probably don’t have the power and clout to correct and address international corporate empires where need be.

    They would have more clout if government was not propping up corporations.

    Privatize Business
    by Michael Cloud

    “Business interference in government is the main cause of today’s economic meltdown and recession,” argue liberals.

    “Government intervention in business is the primary reason for the mess,” say conservatives.

    They’re each half right.

    There are 2 root causes of the meltdown and recession: business meddling in government AND government meddling in business.

    Why did America establish the Separation of Church and State? To prevent religion from corrupting and dominating government – AND to keep government from corrupting and dominating religion.

    For the same reasons, champions of small government advocate the Separation of Business and State. To prevent business from corrupting and dominating government – AND to keep government from corrupting and dominating business.

    We can take one simple step in this direction: Privatize Business.
    Get businesses’ hands off government. Get government’s hands off business.

    All governments: federal, state, and local. And their agencies.

    END and LEGALLY FORBID all government subsidies to business.

    OUTLAW all government loans to business.

    FORBID all government loan guarantees to business.

    OUTLAW all government insurance guarantees to business.

    FORBID all government liabilities for business.

    OUTLAW all special tax benefits to favored or privileged businesses. ALL special exemptions, deductions, deferrals or other tax advantages must given to all businesses. No business is more equal than other businesses.

    LEGALLY FORBID all special government benefits to relocate or attract foreign or out-of-state business.

    AND give back 100% of these tax dollars to taxpayers. Every year.

    Privatize business.

    Private enterprise.

    Private risks and private choices.

    Private assets and private liabilities.

    Private profits and private losses.

    Private insurance and private risk.

    Private businesses are responsive to and accountable to their customers.

    In a private enterprise system, businesses reap what they sow.

    Good private businesses attract more customers and investors. They make profits.

    Bad private businesses repel customers and investors. They incur losses.

    In a private enterprise system, good business practices pay off. And reckless and irresponsible business practices cost their users dearly.

    When we privatize business, innocent taxpayers will never be forced to pay for the risky and unwise business decisions of others.

    When we privatize business, unsuccessful companies will suffer the consequences of their actions – but they will NOT be able to impose their costs and consequences on successful companies.

    Private enterprise is a system that encourages and rewards business virtue.

    Privatize business.


    So, the government is probably the best bet to have the resources to study such a global situation, and the resources to transmit education to people and corporations about why their behavior should and must change.

    Not given its track record.


    I see your premise that “government should/could stay out of this situation” as a basic flaw in conservative thinking.

    I don’t think it is an element of conservative thinking, although they apply it in some areas, as do progressives in other areas.


    In fact, government has so much power, that in situations like this, when you look at it closer, government is acting, they are acting precisely in ways that are worsening the problem.

    Precisely. Thus, we should do whatever we can to lessen the power of government.


    And, the stance that they should be “laissez-faire” by not educating the public, for instance, is bogus.

    I can’t agree. Government generally does far more harm than good. Thus, on all issues, the less government, does the better.

    Personally, I think that if it did nothing at all and ceased to be, that would be best of all, but I’m willing to work with anyone who agrees with making it smaller on any given issue, even though most of them want to make it larger on some other issue(s).


    Because, in fact, at present, the government is seriously influencing things so that the public gets mis-educated.

    Exactly! So, why act to strengthen it?


    Why is government action needed?

    Well, if you don’t want the government to do carbon caps, and public education, etc., because you think that is too off-target and imposing on folks, just be more simple and less intrusive.

    That is indeed a better approach.


    Part of the reason we have global warming is from the pollution and carbon use of the military, the bombs, the flights to Afghanstan and Iraq. So, maybe people who like government non-interference should simply start telling the government to stop running their own engine on high for all these years.

    Excellent point. I added emphasis.

  17. paulie cannoli

    I still think that the situation on the ground is that government actually supports and props up corporations. So, asking government to regulate corporate pollution, is just a way to force it so that all the rich and powerful be held accountable.

    A better solution is to get government to stop propping up corporations.


    Each of us, personally, cannot stop global warming. There has to be something to stop (wasteful) rich people and corporations from spiraling out of control with pollution and wasting resources. If those of us who care about the environment act as individuals only, we don’t stand a chance against those bigger entities.

    I agree.

    Bigger entities tend to help each other. Big government, big corporations, big media, etc…

    All these top-down hierarchies work hand in hand.

    We should help organize leaderless resistance from the bottom up.

    Do everything possible to take power away from top-down hierarchies, not by empowering other top-down hierarchies to fight them (thus only strengthening that which you are fighting).


    If I see that the corporations are smothering me by spewing smoke into the air, one way to stop them is to vote to demand my government stop the pollution (which pollution comes into my air-space.)

    That may be one way. But I don’t think it is the best way. There is much to be done by removing government from propping up corporations, shielding them from liability, etc., and by removing government from polluting.


    I can vote by electing people who believe the government should say NO to corporate pollution.

    Good idea. If they believe in saying no to government pollution as well, all the better!


    Or, I can vote in some places by putting an initiative/referendum on the ballot.

    Good idea. More power to the people, less to the politicians.


    Then, I am freely using my voice inside a democratic government, to force the government to save me, instead of allowing government to ignore or contribute to the problem.

    Unfortunately, government is the wrong agency to turn to for salvation.

  18. Trent Hill

    “So, for me, seeing thousand-year-old glaciers melting is enough to want some government scientists to think about if there is something to do to stop the glaciers from melting ”

    Why? What if this is the planet’s natural course? Glaciers have been melting and reforming for many millions of years.

  19. Trent Hill

    “But, I still think that the situation on the ground is that government actually supports and props up corporations. So, asking government to regulate corporate pollution, is just a way to force it so that all the rich and powerful be held accountable.”

    This takes a great leap of logic I think. You clearly indict corporations because of their collusion with, and substantial support from, the government–but then call for government to become even more involved with corporations? The answer is to REMOVe governmental support for corporations.

  20. Trent Hill

    “Just because science is confused, and then figures things out does not mean it is rigged. It just means it is learning.”

    This doesnt really answer my question. What path could our overall weather pattern take that would not qualify as “Climate Change”?
    Furthermore, if the “Climate Change” is not man-made–why on earth would you want to stop it? I assumed you environmentalists were for ALL environments, not just the one you are currently acclamated to. The surface temperature of the earth, and the weather that accompanies it, has gone through wild and ranging changes over the past couple of million years–why shouldnt we allow it to continue? Why do I sound like the environmentalist here and the Global-warming types sound like they want to control the environment?

  21. Ross Levin

    Trent – Frank Lutz, employed by Republicans, actually came up with the term “climate change” in order to make it sound less threatening. It is not a term that was created to make the language more malleable.

  22. Trent Hill

    “The fact that the mean changes over time does not prove or disprove the theory of destabilization.”

    Right–because nothing can disprove destabilization. It’s like asking a scientist to “prove God doesnt exist”.

  23. paulie cannoli

    This doesnt really answer my question. What path could our overall weather pattern take that would not qualify as “Climate Change”?

    Climate destabilization may be a better way to describe the issue than climate change. Climate always changes, but when it does so drastically, that constitutes destabilization.

    Climate remaining relative stable, and changing slowly, would mean lack of destabilization.

    Higher highs, lower lows, more powerful storms, more frequent and more extreme extremes, wilder swings – that’s destabilization.

  24. Trent Hill

    Ross,

    I know the origin of the term–but I think it is an unfair one for skeptics. “Climate Change” cannot be disproven because OF COURSE the climate is changing, at all times. And of COURSE the weather is going to get more or less extreme, that’s how these cycles work.

  25. paulie cannoli

    Furthermore, if the “Climate Change” is not man-made–why on earth would you want to stop it?

    Well, if a comet that was large enough to wipe out life on earth was aiming at a direct hit, it would certainly cause climate change. If I could stop it, I would, and I don’t think it makes me less of an environmentalist.

  26. Trent Hill

    “Not true at all.”

    Ohk. Explain one way in which weather patterns could realistically reflect a “stable” weather pattern (as if that were a good thing. Climate/weather change has happened since the beginning of time).

  27. Trent Hill

    “Climate always changes, but when it does so drastically, that constitutes destabilization. ”

    How do you figure? El Nino changed the world climate dramatically, by several degrees, and caused Hurricanes to become more frequent. Was that an example of destabilization? No–it was a natural weather pattern.

  28. paulie cannoli

    And of COURSE the weather is going to get more or less extreme, that’s how these cycles work.

    If it becomes noticeably more extreme than it has been in hundreds, thousands, or millions of years, that is certainly something to notice, and wonder what we can or should do something about.

    However, I agree that “we” does not have to be (and shouldn’t be) the government.

  29. Ross Levin

    You could prove that it’s not becoming destabilized/less stable, as opposed to what it seems like you’re suggesting, proving that it’s stable.

  30. paulie cannoli

    Ohk. Explain one way in which weather patterns could realistically reflect a “stable” weather pattern (as if that were a good thing. Climate/weather change has happened since the beginning of time).

    I believe I already have.

  31. Trent Hill

    “Climate remaining relative stable, and changing slowly, would mean lack of destabilization.

    Higher highs, lower lows, more powerful storms, more frequent and more extreme extremes, wilder swings – that’s destabilization.”

    Climate has not historically changed slowly, it has experienced times of rapid change (see Ice Age or El Nino). This was a natural occurence, and one that is impossible to stop.

  32. Trent Hill

    “If it becomes noticeably more extreme than it has been in hundreds, thousands, or millions of years, that is certainly something to notice, and wonder what we can or should do something about. ”

    And how on earth would we know that? We can barely figure out how to track past weather patterns a few hundred years back–and we have NO capability to know weather patterns thousands or hundreds of thousands of years back.

  33. paulie cannoli

    How do you figure? El Nino changed the world climate dramatically, by several degrees, and caused Hurricanes to become more frequent. Was that an example of destabilization? No–it was a natural weather pattern.

    Some destabilization is indeed natural, but destabilization happens to lesser and greater extents, as well as more localized as well as more universal ones.

  34. paulie cannoli

    And how on earth would we know that? We can barely figure out how to track past weather patterns a few hundred years back–and we have NO capability to know weather patterns thousands or hundreds of thousands of years back.

    There are a variety of ways of checking changes in climate in the past from archeological, geological, and other records.

  35. Trent Hill

    “You could prove that it’s not becoming destabilized/less stable, as opposed to what it seems like you’re suggesting, proving that it’s stable.”

    No, that’d simply be construed as a new type of destabilization. If we had 20 hurricanes per season for 10 seasons and that was a cause for concern, and then we had 18, 16, 14, and 12 for the next couple of seasons (which coincides with pre-climate change numbers) that would ALSO be destabilizing. It is literally impossible because no one knows what “stable” is. You cant even categorically say what the optimum environmental situation is. You dont know if stable is 12 hurricane per season, 15, or 35–because human history hasnt been recording those things for more than about 200 years–suppose we’re in the upswing of a cycle that lasts several hundred thousand?

  36. Trent Hill

    I think environmentlists are arrogant to assume they know what is the optimum climate, and what is the best suited climate. They want to restrain the planet in order to preserve the climate they like best.

  37. Trent Hill

    “Some destabilization is indeed natural, but destabilization happens to lesser and greater extents, as well as more localized as well as more universal ones.”

    Right–but there is no way of knowing or calculating what is the most efficient level of “destabilization”–which climate is “stable”–and therefore we can make no assumptions or calculations about whether we are even IN a destrabilized environment.

  38. paulie cannoli

    Climate has not historically changed slowly, it has experienced times of rapid change (see Ice Age or El Nino).

    It’s true that there have been times of rapid change.

    It’s also true that humans are a part of nature.

    In recent centuries, and especially in recent decades, humans have developed more powerful ways of impacting our surroundings.

    It’s certainly possible that some of these have destabilized the climate and triggered a rapid change event which is gathering steam.

    It’s also possible that some of these human actions have countered what would have otherwise been a natural event; for example, man made global warming may be putting off an ice age which would otherwise already be starting, or vice versa.

  39. Trent Hill

    “There are a variety of ways of checking changes in climate in the past from archeological, geological, and other records.”

    Not to the point of determining yearly mean temperatures, recording the intesity of storms or seismic events, etc. Besides–even if you did know all of those things–at which point was the environment “stable”, it is an ever-changing cycle of weather patterns.

  40. Trent Hill

    “We don’t assume we know the optical climate. We just don’t want a sudden shift in the climate.”

    So you dont know which climate is optimal, but you dont want a sudden shift in climate? What if the sudden shift is better for the environment? What if the sudden shift is the natural movement of the weather pattern? Are you environmentalists going to try to rollback the effects of nature and restrain earth’s climate? To what end?

  41. paulie cannoli

    Right–but there is no way of knowing or calculating what is the most efficient level of “destabilization”

    Well, a certain level of destabilization would automatically make the planet uninhabitable. A somewhat lower level would leave it inhabitable for some species, but not humans.

    There are other levels below that.

  42. Trent Hill

    “It’s certainly possible that some of these have destabilized the climate and triggered a rapid change event which is gathering steam.

    It’s also possible that some of these human actions have countered what would have otherwise been a natural event; for example, man made global warming may be putting off an ice age which would otherwise already be starting, or vice versa.”

    This is certainly a possibility. But government action wont solve it, as you well know Paulie, only the free market would–if indeed it needed to be changed.

  43. Trent Hill

    “Well, a certain level of destabilization would automatically make the planet uninhabitable. A somewhat lower level would leave it inhabitable for some species, but not humans.

    There are other levels below that.”

    Humans have lived throughout the Ice Ages, warming periods, and other more “destabilized” periods. If indeed such a period of “rapid destabilization” is coming–that could make
    Earth uninhabitable for us–we are not well served by trying to put a seat belt on Mother Earth, we could not dream of restraining the galactic forces at work there.

  44. Trent Hill

    Again I ask–why do I sound like the environmentalist? I want to let the environment do what it has always done–and you Greens want to wrap it up in regulations and try to combat it’s natural progress.

  45. paulie cannoli

    Again I ask–why do I sound like the environmentalist? I want to let the environment do what it has always done

    Humans have not always been able to impact the environment to nearly the same extent as now.

    It is worthwhile to study whether this impact may be causing greater levels of destabilization that could be harmful, since sufficient destabilization could end all human and/or all non-human life on earth. At lower levels, sufficient destabilization may cause massive economic damage.

    This is certainly a possibility. But government action wont solve it, as you well know Paulie, only the free market would–if indeed it needed to be changed.

    I’ve already made the same argument, although by “market” here I would include non-profit cooperative means as well.

  46. Trent Hill

    Ross,

    Kimberly and others said it didnt matter whether it was man’s fault or not–so im approaching the arguement from the perspective that it is NOT man’s doing.

    If you’d like to claim it is, we can discuss that issue too. How do you know it isnt the Earth’s natural progress? By what metric do you measure human involvement? To what degree has man effected Earth’s climate? Could the climate have already been changing? If so, to what degree did man’s involvement alter this already-changing climate? All of this begs the question–is man ultimately responsible for the so-called changes?

    There have been many naturally-occuring Climate Changes, so you’ll have to prove that it is man’s fault. Was the Oxygen Catastrophe our fault too? What about the Snowball Earth? What about the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum? What about the Dansgaard–Oeschger event?

  47. Trent Hill

    “I’ve already made the same argument, although by “market” here I would include non-profit cooperative means as well.”

    You know good and well that the “market” encompasses non-profits, too.

  48. Kimberly Wilder

    Okay. I want to reveal my most silly logic, connected to my own formula of intuition.

    Environmental activists noted that global warming is a problem, and that governments must take action.

    Then, Al Gore, went around trying to distract from government’s responsibility. Al Gore suggested that individuals should fix the problem themselves by changing lightbulbs and bicycling.

    If Al Gore is trying to distract from government’s responsibility. Then, it should probably be government’s responsibility.

    (Which, I guess, brings us back to the Obama, Rush Limbaugh, why is the President distracting us conspiracy theory.)

    Peace,
    Kimberly

  49. paulie cannoli

    Kimberly,

    I’m afraid you lost me on that one.

    I have the vague sense that it’s humor, and jokes should never have to be explained, so I suppose I’ll have to stay lost.

  50. Jim Davidson

    No, it isn’t satire, Kimberly. I’ve met lots of environmentalists who believe that humanity is a disease that has to cure itself by wiping out 90% of the people on the planet. They use terms like “sustainability” to justify slaughtering however many people don’t agree with them.

    Yes, I believe the EPA administrator Ruckelshaus is the greatest mass murderer in the history of the world. He banned DDT at a time when it was being used effectively to control malaria. Since then, tens of millions have died from malaria.

    You don’t dispute these things. You simply say that your friends prefer people to lizards. And I don’t believe you.

    You also don’t dispute that the liars at NASA have been lying about global warming “facts.” So you demand immediate government intervention to steal private property and restrict the use of private property in the name of an emergency you assure us is real and immediate which simply isn’t.

    It is entirely conceivable that you think that slaughtering 90% of the human race is good for the children of those who remain. I have no problem with your intentions, I have concerns about your means.

    If you have the government steal, coerce, or kill, then you are using evil means. And the means being evil, the ends become evil.

  51. Kimberly Wilder

    Dear Mr. Davidson:

    ew!!!

    Your leaps of logic and foul assertions are just disgusting.

    ew!!!

    Probably not worth responding to. Kind of like a stinky tar baby.

  52. Steven R Linnabary

    I seem to recall that NASA had reported that the average temperature on Mars was also warming. That tells me that maybe the sun is warming?

    I doubt that Mars is warming because of two SUV’s now on the planet.

    PEACE

  53. Michael H. Wilson

    Whether or not you accept global warming as an issue Greens and Libs should both be supporting opening the urban transportation market to competition. By the way most American cities have made it difficult to own a private for hire transit business, if not against the law.

    Wide spread use of door to door jitney service, which is now illegal in many cities as a form of transit, would reduce a number of problems.

    This simple action would do much to reduce Greenhouse gases. Some estimates put the reduction at 50% or more. It would slow the growth of the suburbs, reduce traffic congestion, provide low income people with better access to job, goods and services, reduce welfare, and thus taxes and many of the social problems that go with poverty.

    And without doing the research tonight, painting the roofs white and using a lighter color for roads, that is use concrete instead of asphalt in the worlds 100 largest cities we can reduce greenhouses significantly. As I recall in the neighborhood of 400 gigatons a year. How about if we just got the governments to paint their roofs white? There are a number of things we can do without going to a carbon tax, or a cap and trade neither of which will solve the problem, just put it off for another day.

  54. Jim Davidson

    Steven, @62, there are definitely warming issues relating to the Sun. The Maunder Minimum was a long period of many decades with few sunspots and it resulted in a very cold period on Earth. It did not, of course, have anything to do with human activities.

    Mrs. Wilder @60 Of course you don’t want to answer my concerns. You are a butcher determined to slaughter 90% of your neighbors, right? I appreciate you admitting that everything I’ve written here is exactly correct. That makes it much easier for me to count coup.

    Rocky – thanks for that classic. I miss George.

  55. Jim Davidson

    @63 Michael, you are right about these ideas as far as making things more pleasant in Summer. I don’t think white roofs would make the green house gas numbers change.

    Personally, I think the enviro-wackos tipped their hand when they began attacking “carbon dioxide emissions” as pollution. Every animal, including every human being, exhales carbon dioxide. We provide this stuff free of charge to the plants on Earth that use it in making sugar and releasing oxygen (free of charge) for us to breathe.

    Environmentalists like Mrs. Wilder clearly hate humanity for supporting plant life in this way. I have a thought. Perhaps she’d like to stop breathing for the benefit of the world. You know, for the children.

    Stop breathing, Kimberly. Will no one think of the children?!

  56. Michael H. Wilson

    Okay all here’s the news article I was referencing earlier. Granted there is a lot of debate on the issue.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/10/local/me-roofs10

    “Globally, roofs account for 25% of the surface of most cities, and pavement accounts for about 35%. If all were switched to reflective material in 100 major urban areas, it would offset 44 metric gigatons of greenhouse gases, which have been trapping heat in the atmosphere and altering the climate on a potentially dangerous scale.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *