Global Warming in the Senate

I am sure if all politicians would just shut up, there would be a major reduction in greenhouse gases.

Now that Inhofe has lost the chair of the environment and public works committee, I'm sure there will be (a reduction in greenhouse gases).

Something which really aggravates me is the use of linear scales for plotting geophysical phenomena by climatic scare mongers. This is a convenient gimick which exagerates reality.

For your reference:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/xx163572n640g77w/

"The linear scale is often used for frequency distributions of precipitation data. The statistical approach for these distributions is briefly discussed and compared with results obtained using a logarithmic scale. The latter permits a frequency analysis and resolution in partial collectives, which furnishes a more precise climatological description and understanding of precipitation frequency. Fifty years of Asheville, North Carolina, precipitation records (yearly, monthly, daily, six-hourly, hourly amount) serve as a sample."

Well, joe, I wonder if the IPCC reports also aggravates you. Even Bush acknowledged "global climate change" in his sotu speech.

It looks like Sen. Boxer is going to aggressively pursue policy changes. I don't know if Bush will veto bills coming out of congress. If he does, it will not reflect well on republicans in congress for 2008. Any thoughts?

I agree, it's going to take much more than politicians and lobbyists to reverse this thing! It's going to take a huge GLOBAL grassroots movement.

Ed. It's going to take all of it.

Mitch. They're really vocal, but I don't think there are alot of them. Gather did a survey a few weeks ago. About 80% or responders thought global warming is caused by humans. Even so, it also amazes me that 30% of the American electorate still supports Bush. Go figure.

How so, Mitch?

True words. I guess that refers to fools.

No matter what anyone does it is going to happen, it was prophised to happen in the bible for the end times. Only thing to stop it is if the whole world repents of it's sinful ways and turns to God and asks forgiveness.

Jennine: "Only thing to stop it is if the whole world repents of it's sinful ways and turns to God and asks forgiveness."

I don't think we're talking about anything different. There is no disagreement. If one repents and asks forgiveness, then one is bound to change his/her ways. Man would do very well to approach life and creation with humility and wonder, rather than the arrogant and selfish ways he has done so up until the present day.

Cindy: "What about construction and the demolition of green spaces?"

You're right! Sprawl is a tremendous problem, multiplying the number of miles driven by "commuters." Portland, OR has done the best job in the U.S. by setting limits to how much the city can grow. This is how European cities have handled this situation. There are clear boundaries where the city stops and the countryside begins. More municipalities should adopt these zoning policies, but developers are against them. I think we could eventually develop ourselves into extinction.

Global climate change has been occurring for millions of years. It's all part of our evolving earth.

Global warming will occur with or without human action or inaction. We may be able to affect the rate -- but only by about 1%. In other words, instead of average temperature rising by 10 degrees over the next 100 years -- as some predict -- it would rise by 9.9 degrees.

It's prudent to develop and deploy alternative energy sources. But let's do it for the right reasons. These include minimizing depndences on foreign energy sources, stabilization of the cost of energy, economic stimuation and more jobs.

Let's not be hypocritical by preaching energy conservation while we drive to a hearing alone in a big SUV, or demand a private 757, or prohibit windmill farms in our back yards, or by giving corporate welfare to the richest companies on earth while they're inhibiting our ability to use alternative energy sources.

How about that -- I took shots at politicians in both parties. Easy targets, aren't they?

Marilee: "...we should behave responsibly so that the earth can remain habitable for future generations."

Exactly!

Dan: "Global warming will occur with or without human action or inaction. We may be able to affect the rate -- but only by about 1%."

Well, that's not what the IPCC Report says.

Dan: "...let's do it for the right reasons. These include minimizing depndences on foreign energy sources, stabilization of the cost of energy, economic stimuation and more jobs."

Those are valid reasons in addition to reducing greenhouse gases.

Dan: "Let's not be hypocritical...."

I'm not. I can't speak for anyone else. My icon is the Honda Insight I drive (62.2mpg). I've changed all light bulbs to fluorescent bulbs, and all appliances to energy star appliances. I pay a premium for renewable energy. This can be done through many utilities

http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/locator/index.htm

or through Sterling Planet

http://www.sterlingplanet.com/

I write my senators and representative regularly. They are probably sick of hearing from me. My money is where my mouth is - and I have no dog in this fight. My wife and I, having considered "population explosion" a serious threat in and of itself, decided to not have children. Somehow, I have cared deeply about this for a long time. I don't know how others do not. So..., hypocritical? I think not.

I hope congress acts quickly and definitively on reducing greenhouse gases.

Steve ... I never said that all who proclaim to be concerned with the ecology are hypocrits. I applaud your activity and decisions. I think that if you read my comments, you'll know to whom I refer when I speak of hypocrits. Even if you ask I won't say that I was speaking of Nancy Pelosi, Robert Kennedy and George Bush.

By the way, it's great that you have the financial wherewithall (is that really a word?) to afford a hybrid vehicle, and to change out all of your lights and appliances. Unfortunately, most people need to deal with the "here and now". And if that means spending $10,000 less on a Hyndai Elantra that gets 30 mpg instead of your 62 mpg, then so be it.

Dan: "...it's great that you have the financial wherewithall...."

Don't assume these decisions have not been a sacrifice for me. They have been. Is sacrifice really such a taboo topic or expectation?

If you can afford these things even with the sacrifice then you are much better off financially than most of the country.

If those of my economic status and higher made the same kinds of decisions I make, and were willing to sacrifice for the potential benefit of other people's children (I have none), then fossil fuel industries would go the way of the dinosaur. Renewable energy industries and technologies would easily have become mass produced, and therefore even more affordable by those of more limited means than myself. I have been able to afford to do the things I have done because they have been a priority.

It takes more than that. It takes somebody willing to take the risk and invest in mass production of things like corn-ethanol, and spend money on researching and then developing alternate energy sources.

If the oil companies would have a little foresight rather than protecing their "turf", then their already obscene profits could go even higher.

I don't disagree with that. Many corporations have called for federal policies to cap carbon emissions, and Democrats are poised (we'll see...) to shift subsidies and tax breaks from oil/coal companies to renewables. I think the point on which I disagree (and so do scientists) is that because warming will inevitably occur over the next century, we are unable to do anything to prevent catastrophic warming over the next few centuries. Even the 2001 IPCC Report stated that human activity played a substantial role in warming global avg. temps. The decisions we make today will affect future generations for centuries to come. Individuals cannot do anything significant alone. It will take a massive effort, the kind of which is not feasible without a policy framework.

Steve,

That we have global warming there is no doubt. That man contributes to that warming is also true. That man can or is contributing to a degree and in a manner which can be curtailed without total economic collapse of the world economy is very much at question. I'm convinced that the idea we can control it is based on man's collective ego, not reality! There are many things over which we have no control such as volcanic action, sun spot activity and forest fires. I believe that preparedness for the climatic changes will be paramount!

James: "That man can or is contributing to a degree and in a manner which can be curtailed without total economic collapse of the world economy is very much at question."

And what about the economics of not addressing it? I don't necessarily buy that addressing global warming will lead to economic collapse, given the potential for sustainable energy technologies and infrastructures to create jobs and investment opportunities. You seem to be swallowing the old, tired political dichotomy: economy vs. environment. Actually, in the long term, there will be no economic health without environmental health - and the "long term" is not so distant any more.

"I'm convinced that the idea we can control it is based on man's collective ego, not reality!"

This is a matter of your opinion, and you have a right to it. But the best science disagrees with you, and so do I. Also, having spent a 30 year career in mental health, I would disagree that this is a matter of man's ego. Instead, I would say that the unfortunate and arbitrary assumption that the economy is a prior value to nature and biology - now that is a product of man's ego.

"I believe that preparedness for the climatic changes will be paramount!"

A stitch in time saves nine. I will never understand the propensity of the American psyche to "adapt" rather than "prevent." Astounding!!!

Steve B.,

I understand what you are saying and please don't think I'm saying to ignore totally the entire problem. But I've seen politics trump science before and know it can again. I've also read numerous articles depicting the other causes of global warming so I know there is more than one view on this matter. If I choose to pick a side at this point, and be come an evangelist for that opinion, then I cease to learn and I'm not ready to do that! I read with much interest the differing views offered as my mind is not made up.

I do recognize that we've literally millions of people to feed, clothe, transport in some instances, and provide medical care. And if you discontinue the use of fertilizers and other things used in the raising of food you cannot successfully feed this world. If that's putting economics ahead of environmentalism, so be it. In My area of the country it is impossible for one to maintain a decent job if he has no transportation. That's reality and where I must live! We've let our population grow out of control and we are going to have to play catch up. And that can't happen until more people accept the idea that there is a problem!

In many areas I think along the same lines as you but in this particular area I'm still reserving the right to keep my min open pending better information than I've received. Please don't ask me to close it!

James: "I'm still reserving the right to keep my min open pending better information than I've received. Please don't ask me to close it!"

I asking you to open your mind to the very real possibility of shifting our economy to hydrogen. I think you are putting environment and economy is opposition to each other, and I don't. I don't know if you are familiar with Amory Lovins. He is one of the foremost energy authorities in the nation. If not, this video might be of some interest. Just don't have a closed mind to ways that we can work our way out of the mess we've created. I think it was Einstein, who said (paraphrase) you cannot solve a problem on the same level on which it was created.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/1/0719/59319

Steve,

Obviously I didn't make myself clear! I'm 100% in favor of moving to hydrogen as fast as technology can get there. I'd favor a 10 year maximum program to get us off Mideast oil like the Kennedy initiative to put a man on the moon! This would include investing heavily in hydrogen technology. We've got to come up with a more lasting form of energy over the long haul or our future civilization is kaput!

Meanwhile, lets use any and all technologies available to us as the continued use of Mideast oil is about as environmentally damaging as can be when we fight wars to keep it!

Does that make my position any more clear to you?

Thanks!

Yes, James. That is much more clear, and I agree.

"I'd favor a 10 year maximum program to get us off Mideast oil like the Kennedy initiative to put a man on the moon!"

Well, then you are much more ambitious than I have been (the most optimistic plans I have seen are 25% of our power from renewables by 2025), though I would sign up with your plan - immediately! In this case, then, I would just say that building alot of new nuclear and clean coal plants in the intervening ten years, I think, would be a diversion. Better just to get to work on a hydrogen economy, and in the intervening years buy green energy where you can and hybrids.

Green energy:

http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/locator/index.htm

or

http://www.sterlingplanet.com/