Here is a quote from a story that A Coyote at the Dog Show linked to the other day.
"Giegengack may have a personal 50-year perspective on global warming, but the time range he prefers to consult is more on the geologists’ scale. The Earth has been warming, he says, for about 20,000 years. We’ve only been collecting data on that trend for about 200 years. “For most of Earth history,” he says, “the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has only rarely been cooler.” Those cooler periods have meant things like two miles of ice piled over much of what is now North America. Nothing to be nostalgic for."
Here is more:
“Sea level is rising,” Giegengack agrees, switching off the sound. But, he explains, it’s been rising ever since warming set in 18,000 years ago. The rate of rise has been pretty slow — only about 400 feet so far. And recently — meaning in the thousands of years — the rate has slowed even more. The Earth’s global ocean level is only going up 1.8 millimeters per year. That’s less than the thickness of one nickel. For the catastrophe of flooded cities and millions of refugees that Gore envisions, sea levels would have to rise about 20 feet."
Too bad the world listens to Oprah first and scientists second.
Posts
16 comments:
I'm really confused... in many ways... but...
Okay, PLEASE remember, I claim no party alliance and I waffle left and right... Ergo: Not a "moon-bat"... but I do consider myself a person of science and learning...
Despite the fact that the Earth is cyclical in it's major weather patterns, there is no doubt that air pollution is a bad thing.
If it isn't green house gasses (which everyone, including George W. Bush and our own Conservative prime minister says is an issue,) acid rain was an issue and as someone who spent a lot of time in older cemeteries (don't ask) and up North in Ontario's "cottage country", it was having an effect... one that COULD be seen... We all cut down a little, and now the lakes up there have frogs and turtles again... and limestone tombstones are not disintegrating as they were.
I *do* believe our pollution is affecting the planet... and I *don't* believe it's going to be as instantaneous as some are predicting... but it's still bad.
So, why are so many people still ranting against trying to clean up our act?
So far, the only REAL answers I've found are...
#1: People are "toeing a party line" because certain political parties poo-poo the idea it's an issue... despite both major parties in the US and all four in Canada agreeing it is an issue now.
#2: The "Why-Should-We-When-They-Don't" argument which is kinda silly... shouldn't "we" lead as an example?
#3: "It will devastate the economy" which is what they historically said about industrialization, automation, transistors, and the computer age.
#4: "It will cause me to chang MY life" which isn't likely in the short term... I remember hearing the same when plastic bags became more prevelant then paper or when cable and satellite TV became more popular... and when gas went to $0.40 per gallon... then $0.50... then $0.60... ad nauseum. Also, when scientists ALSO "scare mongered" about acid rain, air pollution, water pollution, etc., at the outset, industry and governments howled like wounded dogs at the moon... but changes were made, things got better, and "we" really didn't suffer too much. What about banning CFCs? PCP? Those were done with much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands... and what happened? Nothing... 'cept there's fewer birth defects in North America.
#5: "But it's all natural so there's nothing I can do!" again, except pollute less and make the local area better for our kids and grandkids.
The one MAJOR item I agree with Al Gore on is the "science" behind those who say there is NOTHING to this... who funds them?
I DO remember "big tobacco" telling me that I had nothing to worry about with my cigarettes... and they had LOADS of medical and scientific evidence to back that up... now I have Exxon and Mobile telling me that greenhouse gas is nothing to be concerned of... and yes, I'm sceptical.
Now, I know people right now are VERY passionate about this... but in the long run, realistically, shouldn't we TRY?
Canada's Prime Minister Harper put it best in my eyes... I paraphrase however... "We need to do something... but we need to do it right. If people want me to ban all cars in Canada, I'll do it... but do you really WANT me to do that?" which, in my eyes and in the long run is him saying, "Y'know, we will do something... but let's think of a way to do it right and as soon as possible."
It strikes me that instead of railing AGAINST cleaning up and trying to lessen ANY sort of pollution, we should work towards the goal of lessening it as, realistically, there's no "downside" to it in the long run.
I know, people over the last couple of days HATE me for my "moon-bat, lefty" ways... which I find kinda funny... 'cause many of my friends think I'm a "neo-con, right-wing, Nazi facist" on many topics.
...but like I said, I'm also a man who loves the country... and I do consider myself, albeit amateur, a scientist.
Thank you, Matthew. You saved me a lot of typing! I agree with most of what you have said, and I think you hit many of the important points.
No matter what spin one wants to put on it, why not live responsibly? We all can conserve resources and live with a bit less.
I continue to see the basic problem as one of government intervention and regulation at every turn. This not only makes the issues political, but it removes the responsibility from individuals and corporations. Many of government's "solutions" seem ineffective, or even counterproductive (e.g. ethanol).
The increased energy prices in the past few years have forced me to make some personal changes. I drive less. I keep my house about 5 degrees cooler, and I've found I'm comfortable with an additional layer of clothes. I share my home with two others. I've replaced light bulbs with fluorescents. I don't wander around stores, so I simply purchase less and make do with what I have. This all feels good!
I agree - there is no downside to conserving more and polluting less.
FWIW, the Center for Media and Democracy group appears to follow the spin in the US media from the public relations industry.
http://www.prwatch.org/
(follow on to earlier comment today)
The Giegengack piece is interesting; I wish a lot more of his stuff was available on-line, particularly his course materials.
Hi Matthew, thanks for visiting and for taking time for such a well-thought out comment.
For much of what is asked in the name of fighting global warming, there IS a downside. For example in Britain the government, in the name of that battle, is asking people to eat less dairy, less meat and fewer vegetables grown on the island out of season. Such a plan will devaste their farm economy. Who cares? Whod do you think keeps green spaces with plants, which use carbon dioxide to make oxygen and clear pollution from the air. I make a living because people eat meat and drink milk. My family maintains over three hundred acres of green, open land that would soon be covered with houses if we went out of business because cows belch.
I also find it hard to consider something said by a politician to a popular talk show hostess to be science.
I have no problem with reducing what we use. We live a fairly minimalistic life, dedicating most of our time to taking care of animals and growing things. No parties, fancy cars ostentation here.
As for setting an example for China and India, I don't see that as a viable option. China in particular is not going to end pollution because we give up our cars and our cows. They are already stepping in to to cheaply make anything we don't because we do have more stringent laws. They will simply make more of their cheap products and more pollution, and prosper while we starve.Don't misunederstand. It is not that I am in favor of pollution at any cost, or at all. It is just that when an issue becomes a pop culture phenomenon I want to hear more than what they are saying on CNN. there are two sides to every story and we are only hearing one of them.
NW, you walk the walk so I guess you get to talk. I have no problem with reducing what we use. Most of the stuff in my house, computers excepted, was made in another century. It has everything to do with growing up in an antique and book store and nothing to do with fighting pollution, but the manufacture of it did all its polluting a long time ago. as I said to Matthew, my point is that there are two sides to every story and thirty years ago the same politicians and talk show hosts were predicting another ice age because of carbon dioxide. it kind of hurts their credibility with me.
You know that I agree with the lack of credibility about talk show hosts and politicians. They speak the loudest and get the most media coverage, while dissenting voices like Giegengack get ignored.
Yes, you, too, walk the walk!
I'm not sure what I think about global warming. I've been following the blogs on Wunderground about this for a few years, and I've learned a great deal. There are many contributors there who present their arguments well and offer studies and graphs to back it up. I suspect that we won't know how much of the climate change is attributable to human activity for many decades.
Was the crack about fancy cars aimed at me???
Heavens NO! I would never do that to a friend as good as you are. I was thinking Hummers in the city and such. Your car is lovely and very small....not fancy at all, just cute. lol
Hey Threecollie... well, I don't have cable... haven't for a while... so CNN isn't my source for news... and I don't watch Oprah. (One day I'll tell you about my "run-in" with Oprah's people... it wasn't pretty.)
I am, however, a reader of Scientific American, New Scientist, Popular Science, and a host of aviation magazines... which have all had long, hard look at the situation... without Oprah and CNN.
I agree that TELLING people (or even asking them) to change a diet based on this is insane... BUT... how about a farm that has "greened" where they can and makes note of it? As an educated consumer, I do prefer products that I know are "ethical".
In my eyes, instead of saying "it can't be because it can't be because I have a select group that is in a minority that tell me so", why not look for happy mediums?
Sadly, I'm a smoker... and I know that it will kill me... and although, again, there are studies that say "Second Hand Smoke is Harmless", logic and science tell me that can't be... breating in dirty air, regardless of the origins of the "dirt" is bad... so I refuse to smoke near or even in the same rooms my kid is in... and have made it VERY clear that it is bad.
This action hasn't stopped my life... and hopefully, though I'm weak, it will preserve hers.
China, as yet, has not industrialized... and cannot without European or American assistance... therefore, pressure CAN be applied... and if you can get them on board, India would follow... again, why not try? Why say "WE CAN'T" because they might not? Why add to an issue?
In essence, I realise that things are not easy... and if it was up to me, I'd support baby's wearing plastic disposable diapers while smoking cigars in their Hummers... but realistically, why not try to make improvements?
You said there are two sides to every story and we are only hearing one of them... I disagree... there seems to be extremists on two sides... and as yet, no moderates... which, by nature, I am... Ergo: Can we not help by coming to a medium or MUST it be one way or the other?
Strikes me, NO ONE (on either side) is willing to even look.
No offence with some of my verbiage above... I am/was trying to illicit a little smile with the baby.
Sorry, in re-reading my comments, the "baby smoking a cigar" came off stupid... it was an attempt at levity, and I apologise.
My only issue is that the Earth is getting warmer... are WE completely to blame, I sincerely doubt it... are cows? No... Would eliminating cows help? No... 'cuz then they'd go after pigs... then chickens... then humans...
Can industry help? YES! Can auto-makers help? YES! Can oil and chemical companies help? YES!
Will they?
Not as long as the "extremists" call for either a complete crackdown on all emmisions (not smart) or ignore the situation completely (also not smart).
In my eyes, and maybe I'm naive, we really should do something... and it will have to be in our own backyard first.
Oh, and as a last note, I first heard about "climate change" and "greenhouse gasses" from Dr. David Suzuki... back when Al Gore's claim to fame was more based on "Tipper Stickers" on CDs... and Oprah still interviewed skinheads.
China and India...People there are just as eager for prosperity as we are, and they are not going to let go of the tools to obtain prosperity, including pollution-causing industries, unless they are made to, any more than our industries will. China, a nation which is being given a free pass in such efforts as the Kyoto protocol, is fast becoming one of the most egregious polluters in the world. If our nation must eschew technology in the name of preserving the climate then I think others should meet the same standards, emerging nations or not. If it is going to be done, then do it globally.
As to green farming, or partly green farming. Here in the USA, on this little dairy farm, farming at all, in light of the regulations we deal with every day, is already so incredibly difficult that I just don't need it made any harder. Right now I am sitting at this computer typing with frozen fingers. The pollution powers-that-be want to do away with outdoor wood furnaces in the name of global warming. Without ours I would be sitting here shivering to the tune of foreign oil. The people who want to tell us what to do need to get their heads together and decide what will work. Firing off in every direction destroys credibility too. The political activists need to turn off their agendas. We need to be careful about listening to anything that comes from the United Nations, a group which has Nigeria on its human rights council. There are agendas there too and many of them are against so called developed nations.
And I don’t watch TV either. I just read the news.
Hee hee! My fingers are frozen too... welcome to Winter!
Well, I guess all I was trying to say is that there are avenues that DON'T involve us wandering around in hemp clothing, looking for our bicycle while freezing in the dark.
I still believe this...
...and I worry, in a rush to be right, people might neglect trying... to our detriment... however bad that may be. (Be it simply nasty air or "the worst case scenario".)
To date, aside from a VERY select few, I have yet to hear a voice of reason... only the extremists and their "facts"... and neither side is compelling me with their ranting... other than that of REAL science... which does say, "Y'know what, it DOES look like something's going on... but it's not as bad as it could be... and we should try to do something."
Right now, I love the R&D guys at Dornier... working on Hydrogen aircraft engines...
I guess if you feel it's all "bunk" because... then I can't change your mind... and I'm not really trying to...
...but...
I do put it to you... what's the harm in TRYING within our limits? Would it REALLY be that bad? Are you 100% sure that asking auto-makers to help would traumatize everything? Would setting stricter emmision controls on factories and energy plants really do us dirt? Would convincing city planners and councils to try and get rid of gridlock on the streets be that rotten?
...those are the WORST offenders, from what I've read.
Again, I put it to you... shouldn't we go after the worst offenders... or do nothing?
If I was in your place, I'd ask anyone who gave me the "stats" for cow methane and told me that I was killing their planet, "What kind of car do you drive? Do you use plastic bags for anything? What do you do to your hair? How many bags of garbage do you throw out?"
Even the staunchest environmentalist has an achilles heel. Find it, play on it, let them know you ARE on their side, find the places that CAN be changed.
...but hey, that's me... and I'm a whacky moderate.
_____________
In seriousness, if we utterly disagree, then so be it... and I am still a friend, I hope... and we just have one area that we don't see eye-to-eye on.
I don't think that we are quite on oppposite sides of the discussion...and of course you are still a friend and I hope I can say the same.
Dialog on any subject like this is valuable. Even if we don't change each other's minds we force each other to clarify our thinking, which brings valuable ideas to the table.
Keep warm up there!
Hey Threecollie... OF COURSE we're still on good terms! I love a good and civil discussion! It helps me learn and hone my own information...
...and yeah, we're keeping warm... loads of cuddling Sue, kiddello, puppies and kittens!
Threecollie, the last line in your blog said, "Too bad the world listens to Oprah first and scientists second." I agree with that, and here is an interesting article on the subject: www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Okay Matthew, it works for me. My family is the most argumentative I have ever met. lol
NW, that is an interesting article...so far I have only had time to skim, but I will read it in more detail later.
Hey Numberwise... did you see where the author of that article works and who he works for? To be frank, had he written anything else, I'd be frightened... and he'd be fired.
Also, I notice they don't display a "Registered Canadian Charity" number... meaning donations to them must not be legally tax deducatble.
Something about this article stinks... and I'm shocked that, again, Canada's leading environmental scientist and ecologist, Dr. David Suzuki, is not cited.
Hmmm...
http://www.desmogblog.com/are-the-estonians-funding-the-nrsp
...and this frightens me...
http://tinyurl.com/ywjrgh
"Smoking is good for me!" :)
Post a Comment