While promoting my book Where We Stand, (www.wherewestand.net) which takes an optimistic view of the environmental health of our planet, I am always asked "What about China?" In fact, the book is about past trends and the history of environmental research, activism and regulation, and how these have led to major improvements in our environment, and I do not discuss China at all, since the China question is about the future, not the past. But as someone recently remarked, how can we ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the planetary environment, when we try to look at future trends? In fact we cannot ignore China at all.
A great deal of study is going on related to the effects of the enormous rate of economic and industrial expansion that is the reality of modern China. I will not present much of this here, but will suggest checking out the China Watch section of the World Watch Institute, http://www.worldwatch.org/, an excellent source of data on our environment.
I recently gave a talk to some students, and one of them told me that she had heard that the Chinese were experiencing shorter lifespans due to high pollution levels. Actually the economic expansion in China has led to increased lifespan, since the famines, and hardships that used to plague the country have been eliminated by the boom. People are living better, eating better, and getting better medical care.
However, the high pollution level in Peking and other industrial cities could threaten all of that. China's factories are worse than those of the US or Western Europe ever were, when it comes to emissions of toxic chemicals such as lead, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants. If anything the situation resembles that of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union during the Communist period. We also have been made aware of the lack of control of manufacturing and export practices that led to the importation and later recall of toys made in China containing dangerous materials such as lead.
Is the Chinese government doing anything about this? Have they learned anything from past history of Europe and other societies that have undergone rapid industrialization at the expense of the ecology and the health of the citizens? The answer is yes. As documented in a recent report from China Watch , http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5370,
the Chinese EPA is trying hard to address these problems. However, the reports states "While China has so far developed a variety of economic-related environmental regulations, enforcement and implementation remain poor." The Chinese are still relying on central control, and, as was the case in the Soviet Union, fines for violating environmental regulations are often not costly enough to provide any incentive for factories and utilities to clean up their acts.
My own view, based on similar history in Eastern Europe, is that China will have great difficulty keeping runaway pollution in check, until the political system makes a much greater turn toward democracy. In my book, I discuss my hypothesis that democracy is good for public health and the environment. Without going into detail on my evidence for this here, the idea is based on the fairly simple fact that given the choice, (and the vote) most people will elect not to be poisoned by the air they breathe or the water their children drink.
China is trying its best to face its environmental challenge, which it must do if it wants to take full advantage of its remarkable progress in generating well being for its people. But until real democracy begins to flourish in China, its best might just not be good enough. And that is also a real problem for the rest of us.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 100
Yes, China has one party rule but the factions within that party are very real and compete to advance their agendas.
One of the exciting things about the environmental movement in China is that it's one of the few ways Chinese citizens can participate in civic life. The rules change and are enforced in arbitrary ways, but environmental degradation is an issue that cuts across all strata of Chinese. When I'm in an optimistic mood, I see environmentalism as a force for positive change and increasing democratization in China.
I for one, hate to disparage the level of interest, of my fellow citizens, as it pertains to the political dialog of our country.
I resent the notion some people promote when they say things like "most people couldn't tell you who the president is, much less what he's doing."
Your statement, that I've highlighted above, DOES NOT require an INFORMED ELECTORATE, to make a "choice."
In fact, the current "debate" on global warming demonstrates quite clearly, the "vast majority of people" are more than willing to simply accept the word of the "experts" when they tell us, "global warming is a man made problem."
As anyone with even a passing knowledge of human motivation/behavior will tell you, it is probably a tossup as to which particular "motivation" will "sell" better --- sex or fear.
I don't think using sex is going to "sell" global warming as a man made product, but it is readily apparent FEAR certainly will sell it, and sell it in a very big way.
Having said that, the ideas you've stated above are in fact, valid. The USA model, demonstrates it to be true, as well as the EU model, and even the Japanese model.
When the luxury of selling fear, coincides with the money to assuage that fear, freedom insures the money will be spent in an effort to dissipate that fear.
Such activity in NO WAY validates such fear.
Your post is fascinating, because that is exactly what happened in Eastern Europe. The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia was led by Greens, and environmentalism was a major force for change thoughout the communist world. I agree that this is also a hopeful force in China. All of your comments about SEPA and the Chinese govt are true, and also reflect what had happened in Russia, where central authority was never able to overcome the local interests of party officials and plant managers. Thanks for the great input
In your book, you mention the impact of wind and weather on the spread of pollution into other areas. What are the policies and controls in places adjacent to China? (Sorry, I'm woefully ignorant about that part of the world). They too, are impacted by China's negligence, and delay in responding to this issue.
Im always glad to see your posts, and when you say that my points are valid, it is truly a thrill. I also tend to agree with your dislike of the fear approach, as I have stated often. On the other hand, if we could figure out a way to sell environmentalism with sex, count me in.
First thanks for the compliments. As to your question, it is a great one, and sorry to say I dont know the answer. It might be too early to really know, although a strong case has been made that forecasted increases in CO2 and other gases could have a substantial effect on global warming. As for the wind carrying toxic pollutants across borders, that has happened in Europe, and in the US (across state lines) but I just dont know about China and Asia. Can anyone out there answer? Chris? Steve? Sam?
In a way, China's political system is more conducive than democracy for dealing with its environmental problems. In the US, for example, we argue and argue and never really seem to get anything done (e.g., Congress). Meanwhile, China can make a decision on how they want things to be and it happens. Sure, enforcement is difficult because of the cultural acceptance of corrupted provincial rule, but then enforcement in the US isn't always that great either.
The big problem with China relative to the environment is that they just weren't putting much priority on it. They, like us in the last century, were focused on economic development without worrying too much about environmental impact. I was in Beijing in 2000 and the air was horrendous (and it was December and frigid, so should have been a lot clearer). They've tried to do something about it lately, mostly because they don't want to look bad for the Olympics next year, but there are many cultural changes that will be necessary in order to accomplish their goals.
Some of the interactions we've had with SEPA and the regional governments have been promising, but as Lisa notes above, the local "arrangements" often mean there is a difference between the "official" rules, and the actual rules.
Also, there are HUGE problems with rivers - I can't remember the details but China's development could really screw up the Mekong River Delta, among others.
I imagine that seeing the big picture is difficult if your focus is narrowed to survival and getting enough food daily to feed your family or provide a roof over their heads. You tend not to care HOW it's done, so long as it IS done. An economic boom that improves the overall life of a citizen by providing the necessities of life would also allow for said citizen to pay attention to the quality of life. A full stomach makes it much easier to see the larger picture of the over-all environment.
Certainly intelligence doesn't belong exclusively to the Western world, nor does fear. I would think anyone would have the right to fear for the future of their family, friends and especially their children, seeing pollutants from their window, drinking it in their water or seeing the results in their crops or livestock. But once that fear/concern is recognized, as it seems to be in China, these intelligent people are trying to improve things as best they can. As Sy says, "its best might just not be good enough." Probably having a government equally concerned would enable that to happen more efficiently. It concerns us all because the world is really a small place and what happens in one area is going to effect us in our area. Our concern, our speaking out in countries where that is more accepted will in turn, move our governments to bring pressure, economic and otherwise to bear government to government. While China may not pay as close attention to a groundswell of their citizen's concerns, they do tend to pay attention to profit and governments that can influence that bottom line.
I also read today that Midwest farmers are growing record crops of corn to use for fuel alternatives but they are pouring on the fertilizers to get the yield and that is draining right into the Mississippi river causing harm to the ocean life in the Gulf. Again, I don't think this is an answer to our problems but just exchanging one problem for another.
I agree that the political system and how it evolves or not in China will be critical to this question.
To take a dark humor slant on the topic, it's nice to know that in the foreseeable future be won't be the biggest polluters on the planet. Then watch us yell and holler.
Bravo!
Sy, thanks again for hosting a terrifically informative discussion.
Just because people fear global warming, doesn't make it "our fault" global warming is occuring, much less that we can "do" something about it.
China has been slow to learn the lessons we in the US, as well as those in Europe, have already learned. I see signs of change, including more leadership and enforcement by SEPA and the central government over the regions, but there is a long way to go. I think having the Olympics in Beijing next year has made them more aware (having some atheletes refuse to train there and possibly not participate because of the horrendous air quality is a bit of a wake up call). The recent anti-China backlash related to lead paint in children's toys should also wake up a few people. We hope.
As for air pollution Yellow Dust is a terrible problem here in Korea. Fine particles of sand are picked up in the Gobi desert and, because of deforestation, can go as far as the US. There have been days when I have looked out the window and it's looked like golden yellow fog. Breathing it can make you sick for days.
jJack, I do appreciate your civility, but this is less about global warming than other environmental issues. You need to expand you hopizons, man, people will think you are a fanatic (lol).
David, Sylvia, and others have questioned my hypothesis that democracy will make things better. Of course this is just an idea taken from the experience of Eastern Europe, and there is plenty of evidence that could contradict the hypothesis. China is not the Soviet Union, they have gone a long way towards rejection of the rigidity of communist economic policy. It will be interesting to see how things develop. I do believe that as Americans we need to do whatever we can to encourage the proper behavior from the immense Chinese economy. The uproar over leaded paint in Chinese toys I consider to be a positive and useful reaction, since as David and other have pointed out, this will make an impression on their pocketbooks.
Your point about environmentalism and democracy is well taken. I would expand it to say that centralization, such as we experience in our own energy infrastructure, is essentially anti-environmental and anti-democratic. The new paradigm for energy that is emerging in the West is distributed, democratic and environmental.
My mind went off on a tangent, and I see that Christine and I traveled the same offshoot for at least a few moments. That western independence/individualism thing.
I have to admit that whenever I read about acting globally or being a good global neighbor, my hackles rise. Yes, what we do affects others. That's always been the case. But no one likes to be told what to do by outsiders, even those with wonderful ideas.
Is it okay to try to force China into someone else's plans for them, even for their own good? The US doesn't like being told what to do (Kyoto comes to mind). A man working in his own yard doesn't like advice from the neighbors or restrictions from his neighborhood association.
I know, "But for the good of the planet," is the response. Yet global good doesn't always beat individual freedom.
A tangent, as I said. Not the thrust of the article, which was intriguing. Thanks, Sy, and all those who contributed.
It is ???? It looks to me to be a straight forward global warming piece. What other "environmental issues" are you addressing ???
Hell, I didn't even know there WERE "other" environmental issues EXCEPT for global warming.
That is a very good point. I dont think there is much value in lecturing to the Chinese. A better strategy is to work through trade agreements, and of course, just not buying products that are unsafe or substandard.
jJack
I am going to assume you are serious. Water pollution with toxic chemicals, Air pollution, toxic waste from plants, everything that was happening in the US and Europe for the past 50 years, and that led to the EPA, and eventually cleaning things up. I know, you are pulling my leg right?
Actually, looking throught the article and the posts, the only one who even mentioned global warming is you. You green meanie!
As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes
Evidence of China's change of course can be seen in decisions such as:
China plans $265 billion renewables spending
CHONGMING ISLAND, China - The world's first major eco-city designed from the ground up to minimize environmental impact may soon take shape on this island near Shanghai. That is, if developers don't hijack the plan.
As word spreads of the Dongtan Eco-City and its whisper-quiet streets and canals, where battery-powered buses will transport residents, the whiff of money is in the air, and developers already talk of building a Disney theme park to raise property values.
Dongtan is still just a vision. Groundbreaking won't occur until next year. On the drawing boards, though, it's a showcase of low-impact living. Each resident will live within a seven-minute walk of the buses and solar-powered water taxis that will pulse silently through the city.
Such an eco-city would be a novelty in what's arguably the most polluted major country in the world, a place where rivers run fetid and skies often darken from smog. China's leaders endorse Dongtan as the nation's first major sustainable urban project.
The plan calls for a city crisscrossed by canals. Windmills will jut skyward, whirring softly. Large shaded areas will cool buildings, letting residents open windows. Gardens may sprout from rooftops.
The dream goes far beyond simply cutting energy usage and recycling sewage. Plans call for urban "food factories," where organic vegetables can be grown with hydroponic techniques, employing liquid from the city's waste stream. Rice husks will power biomass generators for electricity, while human waste will be treated as a resource, recycled into biogas energy.
Greenery will be everywhere. A broad variety of native vegetation will be introduced to line canals and streets - and even rooftops - bringing an array of butterflies, insect and bird life into the city.
zowie *chuckle*
On the other hand, the damage caused by environmental disasters is also creating a lot of social instability. The pollution affects poor farmers, city dwellers, everyone. It has very real social costs, and as Pan Yue, the head of SEPA (China's EPA) put it, "China's economic miracle will end soon" if they can't get it under control.
I'm not quite sure what your "zowie" reference is about.
Anyone that believes otherwise, doesn't understand communism.
Also, if you think the system in today's China is "communism," well, it's not. It's an authoritarian state with an uneasy mixture of state-owned enterprises and turbo-capitalism of a type that "free market" folks should envy, given that there is very little restricting its practice in many instances. What does restrict business is a lack of a consistent rule of law and the way that personal power often trumps the nascent legal system that does exist.
I don't know what you actually think but so far what you've said here is pretty simplistic and suggests to me that you don't know very much about these topics.
Look, they run their people over with TANKS, okay ???
And if you think they aren't communists, simply because they've allowed a wee bit of capitalism to flourish, you're naive.
So, uh, yeah. Call me an expert. I'm definitely an expert compared to you.
you stink of hubris
China is, in fact, quite a complex system of interrelated governments (central, provinicial, local) whose cultural and political histories often contradict each other. SEPA (like our EPA) may not be all-powerful, but it has at least begun to realize the enormous environmental impact their economic expansion has produced. Much like what the US went through decades ago (and perhaps still goes through), there is a grand inertia that is hard to overcome. But as you say, they have at least started to recognize that they in fact do need to reverse the trend in environmental degradation soon or they will bring themselves down, and the rest of the world with them.
In the US, the grass roots have led the way in taking this issue seriously. It will be of interest to us all on whether similar movements in China are driven top down or bottom up.
I certainly agree that China has a massive polution problem, but the USA actually has caused a massive amount of that by closing our production plants in our DEMOCRACY so we could ship them to a country with basically slave labor! Our wonderful democracy overegulated, overtaxed, and overlawed our citizens out of their jobs.
US purchasing of China made goods is fueling a massive amount of the pollution over there! You can't have fair free trade when one country has massive regulations on industry, and one doesn't! It is a model for economic disaster as we are now seeing in the USA. Only the wealthy here benefit from such trade in the long run.
Our wonderful democracy actually encourages polution in other countries! Because they can produce cheap goods, and lots of pollution due to little regulation!
Great article and containing some good news as well!
But it in no way keeps lobbyists with unlimited cash from undermining that desire, as we saw with the lead paint toy debacle.
Hey, jJack, you know I love you man, but give it a rest. Lisa is making some really fine points, based on a knowledge base that we should all envy. I know I do.
based on a knowledge base that we should all envy
How do we even know it's true ??? What's to stop me from saying I've been to China ??? Hell, I know mandarin AND cantonese *ROFL*
Is she willing to put her "credentials" to the test and PROVE them ???
Are her points "fine" because you believer her "story," or because you happen to agree with her ???
This, from your own comment above Sy---
It might be too early to really know, although a strong case has been made that forecasted increases in CO2 and other gases could have a substantial effect on global warming.
And from Queenie, are you suggesting this has no impact on global warming??
I have heard that particulate pollution from China reaches the west coast of the US.
and this---
but China's air pollution does cross borders just as the pollution from steel mills of Ohio and Pennsylvania crossed into New York and New England.
Aren't the emissions from steel mills DIRECTLY related to global warming??
or what about this???
Hence the massive pollution, since much of this is being done with reliance on coal-based energy or from the same comment Add to that the exponential growth of their oil utilization
When you burn coal, or oil, doesn't that affect global warming???
Of course there are "other" environmental issues, but pray tell, what has been in the news the past few weeks ???
BALI-- and what are they talking about at BALI-- or I should say, what is the press reporting about what they are talking about at BALI, and why is the USA considered the "bad guy" because we didn't sign kyoto ???
answer to all of that is GLOBAL WARMING.
Sure, I'll give it a rest, and why not-- you are all true believers in the faith based science of global warming, and any other "pollution" you seem "evil."
If you want to see just how GULLIBLE the greenie meanies of the world actually are, have a look at Penn and Teller duping them into signing a petition to ban WATER *ROFL*
It shows where an environmental demonstration was held a petition was passed around to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Hundreds of these WELL INFORMED LIBERAL GREEN PEACERS promptly signed the petition, this evil chemical was told to members of the demonstration that is was all pervasive, used in nuclear reactors, could be found in lakes and rivers, was actually found in our kitchens now, needless to say the crowd was outraged and lined up to sign the petition calling for the banning of this evil substance also known as WATER ! ! ! ! !
Mindless sheeple that will sign anything if it sounds like a chemical.
There are some LUNATICS that want to ban CHLORINE even though it's part of the periodic table of elements.
Fear brother fear, and follow the money honey, researchers will say ANYTHING to get more government dollars.
Besides, Sy's article isn't about global warming. It is typical of some people that when they can't argue a topic based on their knowledge or on the evidence or on a rudimentary ability to think straight, they retreat to well-worn rants about things that are tangentially related, at best.
Well, I would disagree that global warming is tangentially related to the environmental problems that China poses, and I don't think you actually mean that it is. jJack equates global warming to communism, because he thinks that environmental groups (the new communists) are trying to redistribute wealth from the U.S. to developing countries. He doesn't seem to understand that that is exactly what has been happening as a result of "laissez faire, 'free-market' capitalism". He misses the fact that multinational corporate centralization is far more similar to old-style Soviet communism than anything coming out of the environmental movement. sy's main thesis in this article, that democracy and environmentalism go hand-in-hand, is exactly right IMO. I generalized his thesis above to state that all forms of centralization tend to be anti-democratic and anti-environmental. Energy production is an excellent example of this - you can compare centralized, top-down, energy structures to widespread, distributed energy structures, and the totalitarian vs. democratic processes are clearly seen.
Brilliant post, (as usual). The funny thing is that I think jJack and friends are really pretty close to agreeing, they just dont know it yet. In the long run, I think it will be interesting to see how things play out. The most important thing we can do is communicate, nothing is more deadly than silence.
Well said. Communication is also one of those democratic phenomena.
Oh, and Steve B., as usual, I really, really, really appreciate you putting thoughts in my head, and NOW--- you also seem ready to state categorically what is NOT in my head.
You're a buddy, you're a pal, you're a mind reader. *rolling my eyes*
A "Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference," is getting serious consideration and would affect the economy of the USA in ways we can almost guarantee would be detrimental to our status as the lone super power.
Othmar Schwank said at least "$10-$40 billion dollars per year" could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the "polluters pay principle."
The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to "contribute significantly more to this global fund," Schwank explained. He also added, "It is very essential to tax coal."
The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.
"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources," said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
Is the USA ready to give up its sovereign status to these fools ???
One can only hope the answer is NO ! ! ! !
Actually, you speak for yourself: "If you've been following any of the stuff about global warming over the last few days, you might be surprised to know how the faith based science of global warming, has replaced communism as the best means to redistribute wealth around the world."
jJ: "...the faith based science of global warming is all about the redistribution of wealth..."
Yeah, your direct quote is directly above.
Faith based science. Sounds like an oxymoron to me. But please, present one scientific organization that disputes IPCC. If you can't do that, then explain how you arrive at your charge of "faith based science". What is your evidence? What in hell does it mean?
jJ: ""Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference"
Inhofe? Inhofe. The hoaxster. Thanks for the clarification.
Even if this article is accurate, why would you object to the "polluters pay principle"?
Even so, it is well documented that fixing the climate problem, if done right, can be profitable instead of costly. The real risk for the U.S. is that other countries develop, deploy and export renewable technologies - the U.S. has fallen behind.
jJ: "Is the USA ready to give up its sovereign status to these fools ???"
I repeat: jJ "...doesn't seem to understand that that is exactly what has been happening as a result of "laissez faire, 'free-market' capitalism". He misses the fact that multinational corporate centralization is far more similar to old-style Soviet communism than anything coming out of the environmental movement."
How about scientists that are current, or former members of the IPCC ????
BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."
The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions."
"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday.
"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables," the scientists wrote.
"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," the open letter added.
The scientists' letter continued: "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions."
"The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts," the letter added.
The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. SOURCE
And as for my claim that the faith based science of global warming is little more than a redistribution of wealth scheme---- I already sourced that just above, however, since you irrationally object to the source, I'll offer another for the same facts.
"Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference"
Inofoe or whatever his stupid name is-- was simply repeating the same thing found in the press, and was simply the place I found it.
If you don't know about the letter 100 scientists wrote, then you really don't know as much as you think you know about the subject, now do you?? If you didn't know a global carbon tax was being discussed in Bali, then you don't really know as much about the subject you think you do, now do you?
why would you object to the "polluters pay principle"?
That should seem obvious, why would I think the USA should pay for something I don't even believe is man made ???? Sure it would be "profitable" for the developing countries, while it sticks the USA in the ass.
doesn't seem to understand that that is exactly what has been happening as a result of "laissez faire, 'free-market' capitalism".
Is this something you can prove with sources cited, as I have done ??? Sources that include press accounts, rather than merely blogs or pro adherents to the faith based of global warming??? Have such ideas been peer reviewed, and accepted widely, as widely as the faith based science of global warming???
Nearly every civilization has been built on the back of global warming, as it occurs and reoccurs throughout history, even long before mankind arrived on the scene.
We now are about 20,000 years into the most recent of the 100,000-year warming and cooling cycles. This one peaked about 10,000 years ago, and has since been cooling. These cycles are coincident with the earth's elliptical orbit around the Sun. As the orbit moves closest around the sun, there is an associated increase and then decrease of solar radiation hitting the earth.
Remarkably since then, each subsequent surge of greenhouse gases has also been coincident with a period of global warming, and also surprisingly, with the rise and decline of each of our major civilization.
In 1000 B.C. a 200 to 300-year surge of greenhouse gasses was coincident with the rise and decline of the Babylonian civilization. Five hundred years later in the next warming period, the Greek civilization rose and declined, and four hundred years after that, the Roman civilization became dominant and then declined. The rise of each civilization has been coincident with a warming period, perhaps because warming periods are conducive to longer growing seasons, and a much increased availability of food.
The Dark Ages followed over the next 1,000 years, during which no surges of carbon dioxide or warming periods were observed. However in 1000 A.D. the Medieval period was initiated by another great surge of greenhouse gasses, coincident with a period of global warming, (much warmer than now). During this period, the great cathedrals were built, and the arts flourished. But this period also was so warm that the ice and snow melted in Greenland, and for 200 years, the Danes farmed Greenland until it froze over again. (There are no reports of rising seas inundating sea ports during this period).
The next surge of Greenhouse gases occurred around 1500 A.D. coincident with the Renaissance in another warming period. Finally, the current 20th century warming period (five hundred years later), has been coincident both with the latest surge of greenhouse gasses, and also a sustained 100 year rise in solar radiation. Every surge of greenhouse gasses has been vastly greater than the amounts currently being generated by burning fossil fuels.
It is clear that all the great incremental advances in the human condition were made during these sequential periods of global warming.
Innovation is also primarily a process of integration, in which earlier incremental thoughts and discoveries, are creatively combined into new important tools of learning, communication, great art, music and the creation of innovative products, processes and services. Archimedes, Gallileo, Guttenberg, Watt, Edison, Newton, Bohr, Mendeleef and Einstein are some of the great names enshrined in history. Remarkably, in this most recent warming period, about 90 percent of all scientific knowledge has been generated during just the last 30 years.
The primary forcing agent appears to be the periodic rise and fall of several independent and interactive solar radiation cycles, since the rate at which solar energy hits the earth every second is about 1,000 times greater than all concurrent world consumption of energy by humans.
Faith based science of global warming definition:
To believe what the adherents of this cult believe, you must accept by a leap of faith, their predictions are correct, as there is no way to observe their predictions, and no way to demonstrate their predictions by trial and error. Their set of beliefs are the equivalent to the bible, in that nothing validates such beliefs, other than the fact some people believe them.
To wit:
From the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology.
Researchers found that many of the computer models used to predict global warming can't even predict the past. Instead of forecasting the actual small temperature rises in the troposphere, an atmospheric layer 1 to 6 miles above the Earth's surface, these computer models anticipated a sharp warming trend over the past 30 years.
The 22 models the researchers looked at are the very ones the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used to make its fright-filled predictions of imminent global warming disaster. SOURCE
It doesn't count unless you answer Steve's question exactly as conditionalized.
;-)
Is there really a consensus among scientists concerning global warming?
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977209671&nav=Namespace
Thanks
Dan
But please, present one scientific organization that disputes IPCC
My answer to his direct question??? the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology.
As you can see, I named "one institution" that doesn't believe in this global warming crapola being man made. I also listed 100 scientists, many of them current or former members of the IPCC that disagreed as well.
You people are a freakin' riot *ROFL*
Is there really a consensus among scientists concerning global warming?
Obviously the answer is no-- the link you provided above proves it, and that "poll" was only a sampling of the TOTAL NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS, as it was only 500 of the thousands out there.
Sounds like a Journal, jJ, not an organization, but I'll check it out. Congratulations. You found a hundred or so scientists who disagree with the 2400 other IPCC scientists. I'll also check that out. Of course, you know that there were many scientists on the other side, who claimed that the IPCC reports didn't state the case strongly enough, given the evidence.
Now, I'll check out the letter with 100 signatures. In the meantime, you can check out the following (not that I think for one second that you will):
Just Who Takes Global Warming Seriously, Anyway?
Joint science academies' statement on growth and responsibility: sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection
And that is your "one institution' that doesn't believe in this global warming crapola being man made."
Climate myths: Many leading scientists question climate change
I'm afraid you failed, however, to produce one scientific organization that disputes IPCC. BTW, I was happy to see Sir John Houghton as one of the presenters of climate information on the Royal Meteorological Society's website. Sir Houghton, one of the original climatologists sounding the alarm about global warming, has been quite instrumental in convincing a growing number of American evangelicals that climate change is a serious problem, and that it is a moral duty to address it.
I produced exactly what you requested, you're just too much of a BABY to admit it, you freakin' loser.
it might be advisable for you to actually study the The Royal Meteorological Society's Climate Science Page.
I did dildo breath
Just Who Takes Global Warming Seriously, Anyway?
only IDIOTS like you, moron
No one claims there aren't skeptics.
LIAR--- "the debate is over" is the favorite phrase of dildos like you
Scum bags like you that DEMAND "proof" and then REJECT that proof when offered are PATHETIC, and I will no longer even acknowledge your presence anywhere on gather.
You're slime, and you've just proven you have NO ETHICS whatsoever.
The Chinese economy appears to be nothing like as large as we have grown accustomed to thinking. Indeed, according to the new World Bank calculations using the often controversial Purchasing Power Parity measurement, or PPP, China's production is a whopping 40 percent less than previously assumed.
The one reality these new wealth statistics help illustrate best is the harshness of life at the greasy bottom of society's totem pole. The new PPP data suggest that there are three times more poor people in China than previously thought. If the numbers are to be believed, this means 300 million poor instead of about 100 million.
Calculations of PPP rest on thorough surveys of prices for commonly consumed goods and services. Reliable data of this sort have simply been unavailable in China. For its own purposes, for decades the country was essentially closed to much of the outside world, and since then, although China is improving rapidly in this regard, publicly available statistics are frequently subject to political manipulation or are simply otherwise unreliable.
Don't tell me they aren't commies.
You resort to personal attacks. It figures, because that's all you have left.
jJ: "I produced exactly what you requested, you're just too much of a BABY to admit it, you freakin' loser....you...DEMAND "proof" and then REJECT that proof when offered...."
You call that proof? ROFLMAO!!! What you produced was a link to an investment magazine that claimed to quote an article from the Royal Meteorological Society - AN UNSOURCED ARTICLE. That magazine article doesn't link to that story, doesn't provide an article title or author name.
What I requested was the name of a scientific organization that disputes IPCC reports on global warming. The Royal Meteorological Society does not do that. No wonder you're blowing your stack.
Regarding The Royal Meteorological Society's Climate Science Page, anyone can review it and see that it doesn't support your position.
In its rush to recreate the industrial revolution that made the West rich, China has absorbed most of the major industries that once made the West dirty. China has become the world's factory, but also its smokestack. China's worsening environment has also upended the geopolitics of global warming. It produces and exports so many goods once made in the West that many wealthy countries can boast of declining carbon emissions, even while the world's overall emissions are rising quickly, not falling.
There are few signs, however, that Chinese officials have real regrets about becoming the world's hub of heavy industry. Investment in new plants and equipment for steel, aluminum and cement has risen sharply even as central planners warn that the sector will get less state support. China's steel exports to the European Union are expected to double this year from the record set in 2006.
Residents on the west side of Handan live in a miasma of dust and smoke that environmental authorities acknowledge contains numerous carcinogens. Belching and thundering, the coking, iron and steel works at Hangang cover four square miles and resemble a working museum of the industrial age. Its oldest coal-powered furnace, with its corroded, protruding shoots and shafts, might have belonged to Andrew Carnegie.
Shimmering yellow and raging red, Hangang's flare stacks burn off waste gases and inflame the night sky. A fleet of diesel locomotives hauling coal shake the farmhouses and apartment buildings that hug the plant's outer walls. For Handan's 8.5 million residents, and especially the tens of thousands who live in the plant's immediate shadow, the complex is a noisome, noxious, money-spinning, job-creating leviathan.
Tian Lianxu said she and other villagers learned to cope with Hangang's emissions. People do not eat outdoors, she said, to avoid having black brickettes flake their rice. If her children cannot fall asleep at night, she stuffs their ears with cotton.
Some people in Mengwu have died young, she said, often of heart disease or cancer. She has no evidence to connect their deaths to the steel mill, but says she has few doubts herself. "Hangang knocks 10 years off people's lives," she said. "We all want to live longer."
Airborne concentrations of benzopyrene, a byproduct of coking that some studies have linked to lung cancer, were far above the Chinese average and just below the level measured in two of the country's most polluted industrial areas, Lanzhou and Taiyuan, the study said. Lanzhou, it said, has concentrations of benzopyrene more than 100 times the levels measured in London.
China has 77 large steel mills like Hangang, and hundreds of smaller rivals. Despite a government-mandated efficiency drive, steel will use 11 percent more power this year than last, fully one-tenth of the country's total energy supply, according to the China Iron and Steel Association.
Along with aluminum and cement, steel is the biggest reason China added 90 gigawatts of power generation capacity this year, the third year in a row in which it will increase its power output by more than the total capacity of Britain. About 85 percent of those new power plants burn coal.
Chen Kexin, an economist with China's Ministry of Commerce, said weak environmental laws and still inexpensive power, even more than low labor costs, had given Chinese steel makers leeway to undercut prices elsewhere. "The shortfall of environmental protection is one of the main reasons why our exports are cheaper," Chen said. "This is hardly an 'edge' that we should be proud of."
A separate study for the European Parliament examined the transfer of steel production to China from Germany. It found that China's less efficient steel mills, and its greater reliance on coal, meant that it emitted three times as much carbon dioxide per ton of steel as German steel producers. Pollution has not only shifted to China, in other words, but intensified even faster than the country's rapidly expanding output.
READ THE FULL PAPER AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF what kind of SCUMBAG the bachman is, for discounting the REALITY that exists, by suggesting the investor's magazine LIES--- and promotes FALSE stories.
I wonder how the filthy piece of fecal matter will now attempt to discredit THE ACTUAL PAPER, how will he attempt to DENY THE SOURCE, even as it stares him in the face????
Like I said, people that are WRONG WRONG WRONG, ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS, try to smear and denigrate the source, rather than focusing on the FACTS PRESENTED.
He could have found this paper himself, IF HE WANTED TO, but he didn't, as he is content to spew his own preconceived notions about the faith based science of global warming, as being infallible truth.
The 22 climate models used in this study are the same models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), which recently shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.
"The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations, and more realistic modeling efforts," said Dr. Fred Singer from the University of Virginia. "Nonetheless, the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution."
"The question was, what would the models 'forecast' for upper air climate change over the past 25 years and how would that forecast compare to reality?" said John Christy. "To answer that we needed climate model results that matched the actual surface temperature changes during that same time. If the models got the surface trend right but the tropospheric trend wrong, then we could pinpoint a potential problem in the models.
"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past?
"It seems that the answer is no."
All of the quotes I provided from the earlier article are IN THIS PAPER ! ! ! ! !
Also, here is a press release from the author's themselves.
I wonder if he'll now just attack the authors, or attack the "stupid universities" the authors are associated with-- one being the University of Alabama. I can hear it now---
"everyone knows there's nothing but hicks and hillbillies in alabama."
Personal insults. What a desparate person you are. I'll read the article. However, a single article doesn't meet the requirement I set for you. Name one scientific organization that disputes IPCC. The Royal Meteorological Society doesn't dispute IPCC. A single article does not speak for that organization. But I guess you simply do not know that.
jJ: "Also, here is a press release from the author's themselves."
And here's position statements of major scientific organizations the world over, not that you'll read them:
Just Who Takes Global Warming Seriously, Anyway?
Joint science academies' statement on growth and responsibility: sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection
You still haven't produced one single scientific organization that disputes IPCC. But cheer up, dude. Don't take it so personally. You can't produce one because none exists.
The Royal Meteorological Society accepted this paper for publication. What that proves is that science takes into consideration the skeptical position, unlike you, who ONLY considers the skepical position.
I'll respond to the article tomorrow. Seriously, dude, you need to do something about that temper of yours.
"You still haven't produced one single scientific organization that disputes IPCC."
How about hundreds of climateologists? Will that do?
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977209671&nav=Namespace
Many of your posts are interesting and informative. While I realize that your trademark foul language is not really meant to be insulting, but to add some color to your online persona, I dont think it really is very useful in serious discussion, as this thread was meant to be. Some folks reading this, might actually think you are serious when you call Steve all those (admittedly funny, but not very pleasant) names. Said readers of course, could end up with a very bad impression of you, and might not actually bother to read either your quotes or your sources.
So, I strongly suggest you clean up the act, at least while commenting on one of my threads. Nuff said.
Let's hope so, because I am COMPLETELY serious. He's a loser of the first order.
Said readers of course, could end up with a very bad impression of you, and might not actually bother to read either your quotes or your sources.
That's their small-minded problem, not mine.
I strongly suggest you clean up the act, at least while commenting on one of my threads.
Then I suggest you become a small minded censor, and delete my comments on whatever whim suits your needs.
Of course, "open minded" and "objective" people wouldn't feel compelled to do so.
You know, you did this one other time Sy old buddy-- on another thread.
You take ME and ME ONLY to task for "uncivilized" behavior, while you give the other scumbags indulging in the same behavior a pass, and don't even bother to chastise them for their arrogant attitudes toward me.
You're a hypocrite, Sy, and I can smell your hubris from here.
They build a new coal plant every tn days I think it is. Worldwide we have more coal that atmosphere left to breathe. That's not pretty or an improvement of any sort in my view.
Exxonsecrets.org
Heartland? ROFLMAO!!! Why can't you produce just one reputable scientific organization that disputes IPCC? Is that really asking too much?
Yep. Excellent links.
jJ (to sy): "Let's hope so, because I am COMPLETELY serious. He's a loser of the first order."
Interesting interchange.
You truly do not have any integrity or honor whatsoever, you're fecal matter stacked high enough to pose as a human being.
Let's repost Sy's ENTIRE comment to prove just how repulsive your corrupt soul is......
jJack
Many of your posts are interesting and informative. While I realize that your trademark foul language is not really meant to be insulting, but to add some color to your online persona, I dont think it really is very useful in serious discussion, as this thread was meant to be. Some folks reading this, might actually think you are serious when you call Steve all those (admittedly funny, but not very pleasant) names. Said readers of course, could end up with a very bad impression of you, and might not actually bother to read either your quotes or your sources.
So, I strongly suggest you clean up the act, at least while commenting on one of my threads. Nuff said.
and my comment in return---( which starts by properly quoting Sy, instead of the corrupt manner in which the slime bachman does it)
Some folks reading this, might actually think you are serious when you call Steve all those (admittedly funny, but not very pleasant) names
Let's hope so, because I am COMPLETELY serious. He's a loser of the first order.
-----------------------------------------------
the bachman is corruption incarnate...
How did I misrepresent your comment? sy tried to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're verbal tantrum did not represent serious insults toward yours truly. You responded that your insults towards me were entirely serious. Is that not what you meant? Or are your insults "...COMPLETELY serious"?
Of course, when sy comments on your hostility, you turn it on him. Your words: "You take ME and ME ONLY to task for "uncivilized" behavior, while you give the other scumbags indulging in the same behavior a pass, and don't even bother to chastise them for their arrogant attitudes toward me.//You're a hypocrite, Sy, and I can smell your hubris from here."
So where is the misrepresentation?
Also, perhaps you can point out where I have personally insulted you, since you complain that sy only criticizes you for personal attacks.
And jJ, I do not believe in censorship in any form, have never deleted anyone's post, nor will I. If you prefer to present your arguments (some of which are interesting) in the context of, shall we say immature (to be kind) language, that is your right. I dont know how old you are, but I do know that Steve, Mark, Ken, and myself are well past the age of food fights. Anyway, feel free to carry on. Any way you choose.
Meanwhile, Mark raises a very interesting point about China at Bali, that I had not heard. This is in fact, very disturbing. I did not mean to be too rosy about China. I think they are swaying in the breeze, going in all directions at once. I still am pessimistic about China overall , until there is a real political revolution.
This isn't what anyone is saying. We're saying too much of a good thing=bad news and it does. We know that because we measure it. The last place one would expect to find a scrubber on anything is China. Ours leave a lot to be desired too. Regulation is what is required, not politically neutered monitoring, which is what we have now. When cars replace the bicycles in China things will only worsen.
Do you think it's too late to slow global warming?
The options available for responding are: Yes, No, or I don't know