Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Adventure is worthwhile - Aesop

Lots of Gas
by Lee

Tony Blair is going kookoo for global warming.

The threat posed by climate change may be greater than previously thought, and global warming is advancing at an unsustainable rate, Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a report published Monday.

The government-commissioned report collates evidence presented at a conference on climate change hosted by Britain’s Meteorological Office last year. It says scientists now have ``greater clarity and reduced uncertainty’’ about the impacts of climate change.

In a foreword, Blair said it was clear that ``the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought.’’

``It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialization and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable,’’ he wrote.

Over the next century, global warming is expected to raise ocean levels, intensify storms, spread disease to new areas and shift climate zones, possibly making farmlands drier and deserts wetter.

Wow!  The world is about to come to an end!  We really need to follow Britain’s lead and do something about this impending menace!

He was unable to overcome the Bush administration’s antipathy to the Kyoto climate-change accord rejected by the U.S. government on the grounds it would damage the economy. British ministers also have acknowledged that Britain is unlikely to meet its own target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2010.

Why, it’s almost like Britain isn’t willing to roll back its standard of living by 100 years just to meet emissions targets.  Funny how that works, isn’t it.

Posted by Lee on 01/30/06 at 01:32 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 01/30/06 at 02:51 PM from United States

When asked by my boss’ lefty kids about what I thought about global warming, I responded with a shrug of my shoulders. If you look at the historic record (based on geologic data) the earth has been much warmer than we are at now. Not 100 years ago. Thousands of years ago.

Now, if global temperatures suddenly spiked by a significant amount in a year, then there is cause for worry. Until then, I welcome the warmer weather.

Besides, I think it is beyond hubris for humans to think we are having this enormous impact upon the planet. We can barely predict what the weather will be tomorrow, much less ten years from now.

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 03:10 PM from United States

Everybody who is anybody already knows the sky is falling. Panic is so 90’s. Suicide is the new black. It’s all suicide now, baby!

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 03:10 PM from United States

It’s almost as if you have no respect for science.

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 03:14 PM from United States

It’s almost as if you have no respect for science.

There’s quite a few that wouldn’t deign to attach the word “science” to the highly questionable conclusions which are behind the current furvor over “global warming”.

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 03:18 PM from United States

What’s not science is the notion that we are the sole cause and that we have a chance of stopping it. The earth does stuff. Deal with it.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/30/06 at 03:23 PM from United States

and global warming is advancing at an unsustainable rate, Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a report published Monday.

This, of course, being said during one of the coldest winters on European record. The irony is moderately amusing.

Just remember that all of this is over just one or two degrees of temperature over the last century or so (and we know what kind of advanced weather tracking systems they had back then).

And they fail to explain why northern Canada and Siberia being able to actually grow food instead of glaciers is such a horrendous idea…

Posted by dakrat on 01/30/06 at 03:28 PM from United States

global warming is advancing at an unsustainable rate, Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a report published Monday.

Isn’t that kind of like saying temperatures will fall if we can’t sustain them?

Maybe one day we will be able to perfect the industrial process to produce pure pollution with no commercial by-product.  Thus enabling us to “sustain” global warming.

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 03:32 PM from United States

His words imply he wants to sustain the rate at which the atmosphere is warming. So I guess that means he’s in favor of it getting hotter.

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 04:31 PM from United States

Funny stuff isn’t it.  I wrote about this a few weeks ago after the WSJ put out an article showing that 13 of the 15 EU countries, as well as Canada, are going to miss their marks on emmission reduction .  In fact, out of everyone, the US is doing quite well to just stay where we are.  Read it here.

Posted by Miguelito on 01/30/06 at 05:19 PM from United States

I love that China is exempt as a “developing nation” from the Kyoto accords.. yet they’re a superpower.  How the hell can you be both?

Those that don’t think that part of Kyoto’s goal was to screw over the US need to open their eyes.

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 01/30/06 at 06:23 PM from Canada

Lee: While it is true that they aren’t likely to meet the 20% reduction, they have, over 12 years, cut emissions 15% and grown their economy 30%. That’s not bad at all.

Drumwaster: “And they fail to explain why northern Canada and Siberia being able to actually grow food instead of glaciers is such a horrendous idea…”

There is no way you’re actually serious. Just not possible. Just because the permafrost melts doesn’t mean you can now start planting row crops… soil isn’t exactly plentiful. Melted permafrost is basically bog-like. Then you have buildings that are falling apart because the ice they were built on is now melting (but hey, it just means more jobs for the construction industry!) Besides, you think it is actually beneficial thing to decimate the Inuit way of life? Pushing the polar bear or reindeer to the point of extinction? Adding an additional 14% more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? Making north oil fields supply routes inaccessible overland due to the inability to have a stable ice highway (ah, you guys didn’t want that oil anyway, right? :-))?

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 07:56 PM from United States

The only problem is nowadays, global warming is the same as ID. If you take the opposite stand, i.e., defend ID or disprove global warming, you are branded as a fool and an idiot, and no one listens to you.

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 08:13 PM from United States

Pushing the polar bear or reindeer to the point of extinction?

Polar bears in Lincoln Park Zoo don’t have a problem. After all, the wild bears’ primary diet is garbage now. They’ll adapt.

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 08:17 PM from United States

Gripeboy, suicide? I’d rather fuck for the forest.

Not safe for work

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 08:22 PM from United States

Actually, it was much worse 100 years ago.

See, Britain burned coal as the main source of energy. So they had the “Winter without Sun” because the amount of smoke from the coal completely blocked it out.

Now, just for those counting, CO2 isn’t that big of a deal.

Carbon exists in our atmosphere at about 750Gt total mass. The amount stored in the ocean, 40,000Gt. The amount that circulates between the atmosphere and the ocean and land flora is 150 or so GT. The amount produced by people? 5.5-7Gt. The amount of Fossil Fuels availible to burn over the next 100 years: 1,000 Gt.

The amount water absorbs sunlight has a “Greenhouse Absorbtion Rate” of 1. So does the Water Vapor. There is 12,750Gt of water vapor in the atmosphere.

So- if we burnt all the oil, oil related, anything petroleum today, in this instant, this very fricken second, and it all went into the air, the total increase in atmosphiric load would be to 1,750Gt total.

Or just over double the total amount of absorbable IR potential.

That would increase the total availible amount of temperature increase provided by CO2, if you DON’T consider any other form of heating, like the sun heating the oceans, or heating the land, or any other greenhouse gas, if the ONLY two factors were CO2 and Water Vapor, and we burned every freaking chunk of petroleum, right now, in a way that maximized CO2 output, the total affect would be a 7% increase total. If we did everything we could, and no other factors were added.

Since “Greenhouse” gas attributes a total of 60 degrees to our temperature, 4.2 degrees would be the maximum we could kick out.

Since the climate has been swinging over 4 degrees all on its friggen own for the past 2 thousand years or so, I don’t think the big hurrah of us burning everything can make much affect, especially if doled out in tiny little protions for the next 200 years.

Oh well, not that anybody is listening.

Josh

Posted by mikeguas on 01/31/06 at 12:51 AM from United States

Oh well, not that anybody is listening.

Good post. I find it strange that those who don’t want to mess with the environment want to control the weather. There was a mini ice age 200+ years ago, and a warm period 1000 years ago. An average is nothing more than the middle of extremes, and to always want and expect, and try to force average weather would be one of the worst things we could do to the planet. It’s extremes that harden life. Extremes are going to happen eventually. Don’t stand in the way of nature and lessen the strength of plants and animals to tolerate these extremes.

The sun which is responsible of 90+% of our weather has been having lots of sun spots lately, and there were very few back during the mini ice age. At least that’s according to historical record. I think the sun as a force in our climate should be studied more, and even though it is being studied, it isn’t worth the media’s daily attention, because the sun isn’t corporate owned and controlled. The sun affects our climate more than Exxon ever will, with the exception that the sun doesn’t get drunk and drive a ship full of fuel into the coast. That guy was an asshole.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 01:36 AM from United States

Although it wasn’t the coast, and he was in bed at the time.  And he did likely take a fall, because it likely would never have happened had Exxon spent the money to fix the radar/sonar system on the ship that was broken for a year.  But he was an asshole and he was drinking during the day, and he was the captain.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 10:09 AM from United States

What’s not science is the notion that we are the sole cause and that we have a chance of stopping it. The earth does stuff. Deal with it.

Global Warming is the BEST example of politically correct “Science” I have encountered.  Most professional scientists I know politely nod in agreement when chicken little figures are thrown out and such.  They don’t seem to understand that adopting the proposed solutions will cause many to lose jobs and the US to literally squander our economy to the third world.  It’s a totalitarian/communist dream-come-true.

There is no way you’re actually serious. Just not possible. Just because the permafrost melts doesn’t mean you can now start planting row crops… soil isn’t exactly plentiful. Melted permafrost is basically bog-like. Then you have buildings that are falling apart because the ice they were built on is now melting (but hey, it just means more jobs for the construction industry!) Besides, you think it is actually beneficial thing to decimate the Inuit way of life? Pushing the polar bear or reindeer to the point of extinction? Adding an additional 14% more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? Making north oil fields supply routes inaccessible overland due to the inability to have a stable ice highway (ah, you guys didn’t want that oil anyway, right? :-))?

Chicken little rum amok, IMO....
How do you KNOW that you cannot farm a warmed tundra?  Where do you get the 14% CO2 figures?  Maxed out 10-sigma models of global warming data that completely ignores the natural variation in global temperature, I would bet.  How many indigenous cultures and species have been wiped out by normal climatological change in the last 50,000 years? 

The only problem is nowadays, global warming is the same as ID. If you take the opposite stand, i.e., defend ID or disprove global warming, you are branded as a fool and an idiot, and no one listens to you.

I would like to discuss the similarities between evolution and global warming, in the sense that both are the polically correct answers to specific questions, IMO.  Disagreeing with either puts you in the religious wacko category for the former, or the “blatant capitalist bent on global destruction” for the latter.  As I have stated before, I agree that evolution has a lot more proveable science behind it and is a valid theory on how current life came to be.  Global warming, OTOH, is simply part of the religion and mythology of Gaia.

Since the climate has been swinging over 4 degrees all on its friggen own for the past 2 thousand years or so, I don’t think the big hurrah of us burning everything can make much affect, especially if doled out in tiny little protions for the next 200 years.

Oh well, not that anybody is listening.

Perfect reason to doubt the global warming hysteria.  That, and the fact that I don’t want to lose my job......

Dave D.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/31/06 at 10:29 AM from United States

Besides, you think it is actually beneficial thing to decimate the Inuit way of life?

Hey, they adapted the last time the poles froze over, several thousand years ago.

If I find Seattle too cold and wet for my tastes, I can move elsewhere. If they suddenly find the wastes of northern Canada too unpleasant to live in (and warmer waters would mean MORE types of whales to hunt, not less).

As for the permafrost (permanently frozen land) suddenly becoming tundra and bogs, I would point out that rice is grown in similar situations (although a bit warmer). How do you know until you’ve tried?

Then you have buildings that are falling apart because the ice they were built on is now melting

That’s like whining about having to put up with the lapping of water when you live on a boat! Who’s goddam fault is it that they were building on something that both CAN and HAS melted in the past?

Why not ignore all the data that says that Canada has already been like that several times in the past? Pay no attention to the historical record that said that they were growing grapes in England 2,000 years ago (in the time of the Roman Empire). Utterly disregard the fossil seeds of palm trees atop the Alps.

We should keep the planet at EXACTLY the same (somewhat colder than average) temperature that it was when we wrote the scale defined by frozen and boiling water, no matter what it does to our society, right?

The only problem is nowadays, global warming is the same as ID. If you take the opposite stand, i.e., defend ID or disprove global warming, you are branded as a fool and an idiot, and no one listens to you.

And for much the same reasons…

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 10:37 AM from United States

Just because the permafrost melts doesn’t mean you can now start planting row crops… soil isn’t exactly plentiful. Melted permafrost is basically bog-like. Then you have buildings that are falling apart because the ice they were built on is now melting (but hey, it just means more jobs for the construction industry!)

......

Making north oil fields supply routes inaccessible overland due to the inability to have a stable ice highway

So.... What’s it like at the CURRENT permafrost boundary?  In case you didn’t know, there is a region of Canada and northern Asia that melts and refreezes every year right now.  Aside from some new construction, what’s the big deal if it moves north a few miles?

Besides, you think it is actually beneficial thing to decimate the Inuit way of life?

A lot of the Inuit, when given the choice, will readily abandon their traditional way of life and embrace a more modern existence.  Shouldn’t it be their choice?

Pushing the polar bear or reindeer to the point of extinction? Adding an additional 14% more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

Pure unadulterated hubris.  Millions of species have gone extinct due to climate changes over the past 2 billion years.  Why the hell are the reindeer and polar bears so important?

Posted by Nethicus on 01/31/06 at 10:52 AM from United States

pbjosh--

Thanks for saying it.  Saves me from typing it.

If we want to stop greenhouse warming, we need to stop water evaporation.  So let’s put a big hefty bag over the oceans.

There’s one thing that’s clear-- the Earth is getting warmer.  Is this a bad thing?  Well, we were in a “mini-ice age” until about 1850 or so.  So we got glaciers, frozen Hudson river, all that good stuff.  The Little Ice Age wasn’t much fun, because crops didn’t flourish as well as they did in the Medieval Optiumum.  What happened?  More people died from starvation and disease.

I’ve got news for you liberals.  When you leave an ice age, that means the planet is getting warmer.  So this heating trend is simply a trend that started before 1850 and has continued to the present day.

I saw the Fox Documentary “The Heat is On” and Robert Kennedy and Laurie David flew around Glacier National Park in a helicopter and bemoaned the loss of the glaciers.  In the meantime, availble plant biomass is going up due to an increase in food (CO2) available, which means there’s a corresponding increase in agricultural yield.  So they’d rather see people starving than lose some pretty glaciers.  In the meantime, Kennedy flies back to his home and prevents Windmills from being built to spoil his view.  And Laurie David goes back to her home on the beach and then destroys precious protected wetlands to build an outdoor viewing area so people can watch Larry David in Megascreen glory.

Asshats.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 11:02 AM from United States

If the greenies would phrase their argument in the context of what humans want and humans need, they might win more support. Instead, they piss and moan about the plants and animals which does nothing but expose their anti-human agenda.

Nothing can escape the truth that the earth’s climate has and will change, leaving us with no choice but to deal with it. Unless, of course, Karl Rove opens up access to his secret Weather Control System.

Hug your children lest they grow up to be moonbats.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 11:14 AM from United States

Hug your children lest they grow up to be moonbats.

I don’t get much more active as a parent than when my kids bring home elementary-level moonbat science. 

My favorite personal experies is when I contronted my 9th grade science teacher with precession of the celestial poles due to gyrations in the Earth’s orbit.  The teacher told me it couldn’t happen and that the north star will always be the north celestial pole.  I remember bringing in my BASIC astronomy hobbyist book and showing it to her.  Never looked at teachers the same again, and my kids feel the same way (hopefully/usually!).

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 11:21 AM from United States

My kids are still pre-K but when they get older, I hope they give their teachers hell in an academic sense.

Posted by Nethicus on 01/31/06 at 11:32 AM from United States

The co-valedictorian of the graduating class of 2000 at the school I attended for grad school scared me.  I was hanging out at her place with a friend of mine who was ex-army.  We were watching a Memorial Day program and he was getting emotional.  She said, I kid you not, “So what are we remembering on Memorial Day?”

He said, “We remember those who gave their lives in service of the country.”

She said, “Well, I’m a teacher, and I serve the country.  Does that mean they’ll remember me?”

I wish I was kidding.  Co-valedictorian folks.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 08:03 PM from United States

Drumwaster-

Your in Seattle?

I am in Bellingham and am driving down to Bothell tonight. Nasty, messy, crappy weather. Talks about living in Phenoix took up a good portion of the day.

Sean G-

I normally love your posts, you bring up good points generally and add to the arguement.

But on the issues of the Inuit way of life doesn’t really touch on actually history. Not even a hundred years ago they dealt with weather about the same, if you listen to the elders. I happened to be born and lived in Alaska most of my life, and they have stories of winters warmer than now. And how they coped.

Your claims and worries seem rather silly to me. And would to them. They liked it.

Oh, and my little brother is up on the Slope right now. Want a temperature check? It is FUCKING COLD. And will be for a while. He likes to call me when it gets below -90 with wind chill. No, the ice roads will be there for a while.

Shoot, the Middle ages had a period of warmth far higher than now, even higher than the claims of the IPCC, yet all those animals lived, or else they wouldn’t be around now.

Later all!

Josh

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/31/06 at 08:42 PM from United States

Posted by pbjosh on 01/31/06 at 06:03 PM

Drumwaster-

Your in Seattle?

I am in Bellingham and am driving down to Bothell tonight. Nasty, messy, crappy weather. Talks about living in Phenoix took up a good portion of the day.

No, actually, I’m in Southern California, about two hours from both LA & San Diego. But I was stationed out on Whidbey Island for about two years. Just over a decade ago.

Pheonix is bitching about going 103 days without measurable rain. Wimps… I think we had just over 200 days without it out here last spring/summer/early fall.

Next entry: Cartoons for Allah

Previous entry: Limited Limited Government

<< Back to main