I wonder how this will be spun.....

[Jim]

Unequivocal in the sense that a warming trend has been empirically confirmed, or that the model that stipulates that the said warming is solely the result of a higher atmospheric CO2 concentration has been proven?

 

I think that most of the people that you are writing off probably have a bit more nuanced take on the evidence that you give them credit for. Very few would look at a table of emperical data which documents the phenomenon and dismiss it out of hand. However, if they are displaying some of the critical thinking that you praise elsewhere, their thoughts will probably turn to the icecaps which covered a significant percentage of the land mass in the Northern hemisphere - at the very least - and conclude that their dissapearance was probably due to something other than the Clovis people's wasteful and self-indulgent lifestyle.

 

I personally don't think that people who want to know how much of the observed warming is due to increased C02 concentration due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and how much is due to natural cycles that we simply have no control over before taking drastic action are behaving irrationally at all.

 

Even once this information is known it would probably be a good idea to attempt to calculate the costs and the efficacy of making the changes required for maximal reductions in C02 emissions versus the benefits. If a massive cut in CO2 emissions will result in, at best, a net difference of 1 degree farenheit - but the costs would drive global economic growth below the levels of population growth - then the tradeoff might not be worth it - as the resultant poverty could very well lead to quite a bit more misery and environmental damage than the climate change itself would produce.

 

You and j_b ditched the cars and moved into the solar powered yurts yet?

 

Excellent! Well-stated!

 

This is the type of simpliton rehtoric that is used to dismiss science, along with the dismissive snide comment. Basically this dismissal can be boiled down to "it was hotter (or colder) in the past so no big deal." If you actually read any of the research, even the National Academy of Sciences panel put together by the Bush Administration, you'll have a fuller grasp of the basics.

 

Lobbing in the yert reference is great too - it infers that the only logical choices are full steam ahead and do nothing or some throwback to the commune era. It's a false analogy and a favorite of the conservative camp. It's as if somehow, through the power of benign neglect, everything will work out just fine. There are choices that can be made now, to both improve our energy situation, reduce our contribution to greenhouse gasses, invest in new technology, and prepare our economy for the next century. The oil crew of Bush and Cheney, however, have only seen the light at the end of their tunnel, and that leads straight into the pockets of the oil and gas industry.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

This is the type of simpliton rehtoric that is used to dismiss science,

 

Nice obfuscation and intentional dismissal of JayB's point.

 

I see a lot of non-sequitors by pseudo-scientists who connect scientific data with prescriptive public policy decisions and hysterical doomsday posturing. The data that supports global warming says nothing about the actual effect of raising cafe standards by x MPG, for example.

 

along with the dismissive snide comment.

 

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

 

 

Lobbing in the yert reference is great too - it infers that the only logical choices are full steam ahead and do nothing or some throwback to the commune era.

 

It points out the hypocrisy of eco-nuts who pay lip service to "thinking globally, acting locally", but in actuality live lifestyles that consume just as much of the earth's resources as those whom they denigrate. It's always easier to point the finger at others, and mandate that *they* make costly, drastic lifestyle changes.

 

[Jim]

Without getting drawn down the side comment rathole here's a couple of main points. The folks that dismiss the science probably haven't read it, don't understand how peer review science works, and really don't care.

 

It's like Micael Criton - a novelist - being interviewed as an expert on the news regarding the global warming issue. And that somehow, folks who suffle paper in their cubicle are somehow on parr to critcize authors published in journals or in reports from the National Academy. What a joke.

 

The second is that there is no us - them in this discussion. It's a consideration about future generations and what we leave them. We sit on about 3% of the world's energy resources and consume about 40% of the energy produced in the world. So we're going to become energy independent? It will never happen without a massive change and without any foresight it's unlikely to happen soon. We can do much better than what we're doing now.

 

Have at it. Tell me about your take on the latest climate models. This should be rich.

[Bill_Simpkins]

Unequivocal in the sense that a warming trend has been empirically confirmed, or that the model that stipulates that the said warming is solely the result of a higher atmospheric CO2 concentration has been proven?

 

I think that most of the people that you are writing off probably have a bit more nuanced take on the evidence that you give them credit for. Very few would look at a table of emperical data which documents the phenomenon and dismiss it out of hand. However, if they are displaying some of the critical thinking that you praise elsewhere, their thoughts will probably turn to the icecaps which covered a significant percentage of the land mass in the Northern hemisphere - at the very least - and conclude that their dissapearance was probably due to something other than the Clovis people's wasteful and self-indulgent lifestyle.

 

I personally don't think that people who want to know how much of the observed warming is due to increased C02 concentration due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and how much is due to natural cycles that we simply have no control over before taking drastic action are behaving irrationally at all.

 

Even once this information is known it would probably be a good idea to attempt to calculate the costs and the efficacy of making the changes required for maximal reductions in C02 emissions versus the benefits. If a massive cut in CO2 emissions will result in, at best, a net difference of 1 degree farenheit - but the costs would drive global economic growth below the levels of population growth - then the tradeoff might not be worth it - as the resultant poverty could very well lead to quite a bit more misery and environmental damage than the climate change itself would produce.

 

You and j_b ditched the cars and moved into the solar powered yurts yet?

 

Excellent! Well-stated!

 

This is the type of simpliton rehtoric that is used to dismiss science, along with the dismissive snide comment. Basically this dismissal can be boiled down to "it was hotter (or colder) in the past so no big deal." If you actually read any of the research, even the National Academy of Sciences panel put together by the Bush Administration, you'll have a fuller grasp of the basics.

 

Lobbing in the yert reference is great too - it infers that the only logical choices are full steam ahead and do nothing or some throwback to the commune era. It's a false analogy and a favorite of the conservative camp. It's as if somehow, through the power of benign neglect, everything will work out just fine. There are choices that can be made now, to both improve our energy situation, reduce our contribution to greenhouse gasses, invest in new technology, and prepare our economy for the next century. The oil crew of Bush and Cheney, however, have only seen the light at the end of their tunnel, and that leads straight into the pockets of the oil and gas industry.

 

I agree with you mostly, I have however begun to CONSIDER the motives for Darth Cheney's and Bush's oil "endeavors". Their is a much larger risk for the US than maybe even the environment.

The oil reserves are getting lower, the large reserves left will require better technology then what we have now to extract the oil efficiently, without losing money or simply just taking more energy to get the stuff out than what we get from it.

This leads to an interesting and gloomy possibility:

The last country with oil, may rule the world.

With the rate that it would take to replace our fossil fuel relibility (transportation, plastics etc.....), there may be no way to replace these dependencies before we run out of oil. If we could replace our fossil fuel dependency fast, that would be great!

If our cars are useless, if our farm equipment is useless, if our military can't function, what do you think China/ Korea or like countries would do next if they still had oil supplies for their military?

The US would be a miserable place. We may be now at the MERCY of the oil suppying countries.

I think the environment is #1 priority, however, I've been getting worried about the oil shortage and what could happen to us if we don't secure the last of it. The consequences could be even more tragic .

Yes it would suck living in a human inflicted wasteland, but the immediate consequences of a possible US occupation would be horrific.

It may truly be a war for the last drop of oil, going on right now.

But wait! Environmentalism can help this too. The more fuel we save and conserve, the more fuel we'll have left fr later. I don't see why the repubicans are so uptight about energy efficiency, except for possibly pocket books.

Maybe Darth Cheney and Bush are taking advantage of the upcoming situation by possibly hold governments hostage with privatly owned oil in the future.

Just brainstorming. Please don't ream on me, just sorting things through.

As far as global warming, it seems we got ourselves into a bit of a mess. What's sad is that we as a race ARE capable of overcoming such problems, but we have become too divided, lazy and afraid.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The oil reserves are getting lower,

 

True. Back in the 80's I recall estimates that we had enough oil reserves in the world for about 100 years. I don't recall what rate of growth that assumed for usage, and don't know how much difference today's estimates are from then. But the reserves are finite.

 

As reserves are consumed, and oil becomes more scarce, it will become more and more expensive, and there will be pressure to find cheaper fuel sources. This pressure will drive technology, and we will find a solution. If that solution results in lower CO2 emissions, then the whole problem will sort itself out.

 

I recall that the estimates for temperature change in the original posting were something like "1 degree in 100 years" at current levels and "as much as 10 degrees in 100 years" at unchecked levels. Who is to say we will have enough accessible reserves to burn fossil fuels for 100 years?

[Dru]

Reserves are for all intents and purposes infinite

[bunglehead]

A MILLION Points to Dru for one of the ONLY people

I've seen use "Intents and purposes" correctly.

A opposed to "Intensive purposes" or "Intents of purposes"

[Fairweather]

Hey Jim! You still gonna hop on that big 747 and fly off to climb in Spain this summer? I believe the fuel consumption profile of a fully loaded 747-400 (3000mi flight w/ 1 T/O and 1 landing) is one liter per person - per 19km. I'll leave the math up to you, but suffice it to say; that's a whole shit-load of kerosene!

 

How dare you lecture here about excess.

[Jim]

Your memory is about as accurate as you faux outrage. The point that was being discussed was the validity of criticism of complex science issues by folks who can find the hole in the ground. If your question is what am I doing to try and make things better, well that's my job, I commute by bike to work, have a gas stingy car, and lobby my government to try and push for energy conservation and investment in new technology instead of drill and fill. So how about you? And it's Italy not Spain.

[Dru]

Hey Fairweather, DFA made a website just for you!

[JayB]

"The point that was being discussed was the validity of criticism of complex science issues by folks who can find the hole in the ground."

 

Surely this condescension must be based upon something more substantial than a degree in ecology, or the professional practice thereof.

 

[murraysovereign]

Hey Jim! You still gonna hop on that big 747 and fly off to climb in Spain this summer? I believe the fuel consumption profile of a fully loaded 747-400 (3000mi flight w/ 1 T/O and 1 landing) is one liter per person - per 19km. I'll leave the math up to you, but suffice it to say; that's a whole shit-load of kerosene!

 

How dare you lecture here about excess.

 

1L per 19km works out to a little over 45 miles per US gallon for a vehicle that travels at hundreds of miles per hour. That's a Hell of a lot less "excessive" than your average SUV at 55 mph.

[slothrop]

44.7 mi/gal for that 747 is pretty damn good. Assuming your truck (?) gets one-third that gas mileage, then Jim is still consuming less fuel than you if he drives a mere 2001 fewer miles per year than you using the same truck and still takes that 6000-mile trip to Italy. And assuming you don't fly down to California to pray at the Temple of Reagan.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Hey Jim! You still gonna hop on that big 747 and fly off to climb in Spain this summer? I believe the fuel consumption profile of a fully loaded 747-400 (3000mi flight w/ 1 T/O and 1 landing) is one liter per person - per 19km. I'll leave the math up to you, but suffice it to say; that's a whole shit-load of kerosene!

 

How dare you lecture here about excess.

 

1L per 19km works out to a little over 45 miles per US gallon for a vehicle that travels at hundreds of miles per hour. That's a Hell of a lot less "excessive" than your average SUV at 55 mph.

 

The distance from Seattle to Rome is 5674 miles, or 11348 miles round-trip. The average American drives around 12000 miles a year, so in one single trip, you are consuming the same amount of gasoline as one person does between roughly 4 and 12 months (depending on your car's mileage).

[Luna]

I think the point was that folks with degrees in what -business administration - speculate on the flaws of models put together by experts with decades of experience in the field. It would be just as odd for me to question the engineering on the space shuttle. But it's all spray

[Fairweather]

The 3000 mile figure was for the model, not the actual distance to europe and back. And Murray, you dumbass, that figure is PER PASSENGER.

 

The fact remains, Jim; your trip is not one of necessity and a huge amount of fuel will be consumed to satisfy the demands of your 'hobby'. In fact, the exhaust will be pumped directly into the atmosphere at around 35,000 feet w/o the benefit of a catalytic converter, smog pump, charcoal filter, etc. (No difference in CO2 emission, I realize.) Don't let this rain on your little parade, though. All those other Americans don't really need their SUV's to the same degree that you do your trip.

[murraysovereign]

And Murray, you dumbass, that figure is PER PASSENGER.

 

No shit - where did I say otherwise? And the average SUV's mileage is also "per passenger", in case you've never noticed. So we're still comparing apples to apples. A fully loaded 747 gets better mileage per passenger and does a Hell of a lot more work, a Hell of a lot faster than your average SUV. Dumbass.

[Fairweather]

And Murray, you dumbass, that figure is PER PASSENGER.

 

No shit - where did I say otherwise? And the average SUV's mileage is also "per passenger", in case you've never noticed. So we're still comparing apples to apples. A fully loaded 747 gets better mileage per passenger and does a Hell of a lot more work, a Hell of a lot faster than your average SUV. Dumbass.

 

 

QUOTE:"1L per 19km works out to a little over 45 miles per US gallon for a vehicle that travels at hundreds of miles per hour. That's a Hell of a lot less "excessive" than your average SUV at 55 mph."

 

Maybe I'm not translating your 'Canadian' properly?

 

 

Also, assuming the SUV always carries a single occupant is not 'apples-to-apples'.

[AlpineK]

And Murray, you dumbass, that figure is PER PASSENGER.

 

He didn't say anything wrong Brian. What he said was that Jim was driving to europe in a vehicle that gets 45 mpg. Each pasenger on the flight is also.

 

In any case the things you do day in day out have a much greater bearing on your yearly consumption of stuff than what you do on vacation.

Edited April 30, 2005 by AlpineK

[Fairweather]

The SUV argument is a red herring, in any event. We're talking fuel consumed during the vacation time window, versus fuel normally consumed during the same time period while at home. I maintain this difference in increased consumption is so large, it renders the vacationeer a hypocrite.

[AlpineK]

There's a market in Chicago that just started up that trades the rights to emmit carbon. I believe they measure the rights in tons of carbon emmited per year, so I'd not judge Jim on one week ot of the year. In fact most business measures are at shortest per quarter.

 

Speaking of trading rights to emmit carbon my understanding that trading like this is a very effective way of dealing with environmental problems. I'm too lazy to search, but I believe the first time this model was used was for dealing with fluorocarbons. When trading first started a lot of environmental types thought that it wouldn't work and a more traditional set of regulations was the only solution, however the trading market proved to be a much simpler solution with less pain for all parties.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

In any case the things you do day in day out have a much greater bearing on your yearly consumption of stuff than what you do on vacation.

 

Nope. Do the math - that one trip will pollute the atmosphere and use resources at the rate of about 6 months of day-to-day living for the average American.

[foraker]

It's so nice to see we've managed to have an intelligent discussion about this without resorting to 'if you aren't walking or riding a horse and living in a yurt then you can't talk about energy policy at all.'

why is it we can have ever increasing energy efficiency requirements for appliances and aircraft and such but cars and trucks seem to be immune? follow the money i guess....

[JayB]

And I - for one - am certainly glad that no one has gone into the riff about how many people in a villiage in Bangladesh could be fed and housed using the resources consumed in a single European climbing vacation - and how this sort of selfish excess illustrates the wanton resource consumption and reckless disregard for the well-being of others and the climate that has been the major factor in generating the global hostility to the United States, not to mention the manner in which it lines the pockets of the repressive Middle Eastern regimes, who will in turn use the money to finance terrorist activities inspired by our behaviors. That would bring the discourse on this site to a new low - and it's a relief to find that no one has sunk to such depths.

 

FWIW - I hear that Ed Begley Jr. managed to convert self-righteous contempt for those who use no more resources than he does - but do not currently own or operate electric go carts in the place of automobiles - into an energy source potent enough to meet 33% of his total energy needs. If could follow his example and get a couple of selected posters to adopt this technology, we could easily light up half the West Coast, and the only emissions would be the ongoing torrent of disdain and condescension on threads pertaining to the environment and/or SUVs....

[Fairweather]

I think the point was that folks with degrees in what -business administration - speculate on the flaws of models put together by experts with decades of experience in the field. It would be just as odd for me to question the engineering on the space shuttle.

 

....or just as odd for you to question the model of capitalism? Or political science? What are your qualifications that allow you to 'speculate' therein?

 

Are you actually suggesting that unless one has a degree in a given discipline they should refrain from opining? Or perhaps you are simply casting aspersions on MBA's who are so obviously unqualified to comment on the world around them? I smell arrogance.