Glaciers

[bwrts]

Thinking about this movie...If mr Gore was really serious he would make this a free movie and also promote this to all the schools with free showings and ultimately, not make his money back.

The big wheel of human consumption is still being turned....no matter what mr Gore has to say.

 

My understanding of Gore's use of profits from the movie is to use that money to train others globally to deliver the slideshow on which it is based and to foster more widespread delivery of the global message.

 

I'm wondering if you have any ill-informed, cynical, or self-righteous comments to make about that fact, bwrts?

Thanks.

It should still be free. Like perhaps on PBS.

 

Edit:

I am not a supporter of the BUSH policy. I am merely playing devil's advocate and stating known facts. I know of no proof that shows climatic global warming is indeed sped up by our human endeavors; in comparison to the Permian period or Eocene epoch. NOT to say that what we do contributes, but seriously, consider that Eastern WA used to be a lush jungle with Ginko trees, etc. Last time I checked in modern human existance this was not the case. Sure mr Gore has valid points to make, but if he truly believes in his message I would think he would make it more assessible to ALL people and not take the "buy your movie ticket to see my message" or "buy my dvd" approach to deliver his Inconvenient Truth message.

 

Studies have been occurring on this matter for decades with published books...mr Gore is not the "inventor of this internet", he is very loud and I do think its great....just wish he would make it more assessible and FREE.

 

Edit2: tvashtarkatena ===> The gas bubbles.....Hmmm, I remember something about these in my oceanography and glaciology courses at WWU...

Do you have links to expand my knowledge or should I believe what you typed?

What about the trapped Methane bubbles? where did they come from?

 

And whomever said I listen to rove or murdoch, perhaps you should know I do not watch fox news nor have cable...so, I am unclear about why you assume I am a brainwashed American.

Edited November 3, 2006 by bwrts

[Alpine_Tom]

My feeling about it this is: it's pretty obvious that the climate is warming. We may not be able to prove conclusively with double-blind tests that human activity is responsible, but to take the position that we can keep on driving our Hummers to Starbucks with the windows down and the air conditioning on full blast until someone can prove to Rush Limbaugh's satisfaction that human activity is at fault is just recklessly stupid. But mostly, it's shortsighted and selfish, which is really the issue. If it was about making someone else (Palestinians maybe, or South Africans) change what they're doing, we'd be behind it 100%. But if you're asking *ME* to turn down the thermostat or take the stairs instead of the escalator, well, hell, I don't want to, so I'll just say I don't need to.

I work in a two-story building, and the stairs are right next to the elevator. I'm regularly surprised at how many people take the elevator, even though it's slower.

 

If Gore was going to distribute his movie free, how would he do it? Movie theaters aren't going to let him use their premises at no charge just because he's not making any money. If it was put it on PBS free, it'd get a 2% share, and the conservatives would complain that it just proves what a liberal bastion PBS is, which arguing that they need to show some Phillip-Morris infomercials for balance.

And, imagine the controversy if they tried to show it in public schools! Next thing you know, you'll be wanting to teach evolution!

Edited November 3, 2006 by Alpine_Tom

[tvashtarkatena]

I know of no proof that shows climatic global warming is indeed sped up by our human endeavors; in comparison to the Permian period or Eocene epoch. NOT to say that what we do contributes, but seriously, consider that Eastern WA used to be a lush jungle with Ginko trees, etc.

Edit2: tvashtarkatena ===> The gas bubbles.....Hmmm, I remember something about these in my oceanography and glaciology courses at WWU...

Do you have links to expand my knowledge or should I believe what you typed?

What about the trapped Methane bubbles? where did they come from?

The type of fossil trees found near vantage are all hardwoods that grow just fine at our latitudes. It was wetter back then in that area because the Cascades weren't there to block moisture coming in from the ocean at that time. In addition, E Wa wasn't in the same spot on the earth as it is now due to tectonic movement.

 

There are no methane bubbles in the icecaps. There are air bubbles that contain varying PPM of greenhouse gases, of which methane is one.

 

Methane is produced by rotting plant material in swamps or animal lower colons. Rice patties are man-made swamps. Cows, also man-made, fart a lot. If the permafrost continues to melt, much more methane will be released from rotting tundra, accelerating the current warming trend. Then we won't just be farting, we'll be shitting our pants.

 

As for links, you can Google as well as I can. Sciam.com is a good, accessible source for science articles on the subject, as are many other science publications. You won't have to look far...the information is all over the place.

Edited November 3, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

the scarey thing about the warming debate is "what's the alternative?" as much of the world that has for long laid in the long shadow of the wealthy US and its greedy over-consumption begins to feel the same diabetes-induced joy, how can they be talked out of it even as we struggle to cut back? seems like a big train-wreck coming at us greek-fate-tragedy style...not an argument against trying to do SOMETHING of course, but how exactly is this thing going to turn out well? the human tendency to just drink one more beer and wish for the best is extreme....and i so hate heat.

 

though i did hear it oughta make the russians happy - something about all those resources in siberia comign onto the market (except if that whole 'day after tomorrow' thing happens)

[tvashtarkatena]

Here's a tedius article about what can be done to hault global warming. It is doable:

 

http://fire.pppl.gov/energy_socolow_081304.pdf

[Couloir]

Have the policies proposed by the Bush Administration hurt the environment? Perhaps. But the industrialized world (at various speeds) has been going at a fever pitch for decades. We've driven cars since the early 1900's and many industries around the world have greatly polluted the environment. Arguably, to the contribution of greenhouse gases that promote global warming.

 

I'm not a defender of Bush and I disagree with many of his policies, but I think anyone that puts their blinding hatred of him and his relatively short 6 years in office, do a great disservice to the getting anywhere on the issue.

 

If you want to get anywhere and get people on your side, you can't start off the discussion with "Bush is an idiot! now listen to what I have to say." You're alienating a good portion of your audience. Like it or not, there are a lot of influential people that, if you think about it, could support your cause.

 

Instead of ripping on everyone that is different from you, or doesn't completely embrase your ethos, try and bring them on board. Give them good reasons to change their ways. Hell, make it financially worth their while.

 

The point is as long as the vast majority isn't going in one direction, nothing is going to change. The country needs to change as a whole. And that isn't going to happen with Bush in office, and it certainly isn't going to change when he's out of office.

[Couloir]

...try and bring them on board. Give them good reasons to change their ways. Hell, make it financially worth their while.

Here's a tedius article about what can be done to hault global warming. It is doable:

http://fire.pppl.gov/energy_socolow_081304.pdf

 

Case in point.

[dylan_taylor]

It is happening quite quickly on the valle blanche:

[JayB]

There's quite a bit of room for discussion between doing nothing on one hand, and pretending that we can return to some kind of pre-industrial paleo-eden on the other.

I agree, but our current administration seems to lean a lot more heavily to the "do nothing" view than "paleo-eden". If you are a true economic scientist, AND you believe that our CO2 emissions are causing global warming, then you would agree with the following:

 

(1) Global warming will cost us money in the form of lost land, lost farm productivity, displacements of population centers, etc.

 

(2) Reducing CO2 emissions costs money. Spending money to reduce CO2 is partially offset by cost savings from decreased energy costs and health benefits (to the extent that toxics are reduced).

 

(3) There is some optimum amount of money that we should be spending on CO2 reductions to maximize our long term economic welfare.

 

If you believe those three statements, then it comes down to: A) who spends the money, and B) what is the right amount to "invest" in CO2 reduction. The problem of course is the old "tragedy of the commons". Everyone would benefit from CO2 reduction, but they would benefit MORE if it was someone else who spent the money. That's why we have the concept of a treaty like Kyoto.

 

I partially agree with some of what you've written there, but one needs to be careful here. If someone had been able to accurately forecast the amount of goods that we'd need to move across the country in 1945 in the mid 18th century, the most likely solution would to have been converting the entire eastern seaboard to pasturage to feed and breed all of the horses that would be needed to move the goods overland in wagons. The advent of new technologies and effective demand, as opposed to predicted future demand, worked together - however imperfectly, and resulted in a much more efficient solution to this problem. Government played an important and constructive role in the construction of intercontinental railroads, but thankfully they didn't impose an 18th century solution on an a 20th century problem.

 

If we accept that we can't predict the future perfectly, I think it makes sense to focus investments on things that will benefit humanity no matter what happens in the future.

 

Increasing the output from a given input of energy in some form or another falls into this category, so it's hard to imagine a future in which we've made massive improvements in energy efficiency will hurt us. If it turns out that we can design electric cars or hybrids or whatever that result in energy savings that are greater than the extra costs associated with producing them, that will be part of this pattern. Ditto for alternative energies, etc.

 

If we find ourselves in a situation where the demand for oil consistently outstrips the available supply, this will probably prove to be a far more powerful incentive for increasing fuel efficiency, and the development of alternative engergy sources than any amount of government spending, much less idle chanting of "Hey Hey! Ho Ho!" slogans could ever produce.

 

I am personally not the least bit worried about global warming, and I think that once the long-awaited energy crunch begins to materialize in even a minor way, this will largely take care of itself. I think that I'd personally relegate 95% of the money that anyone is tempted to spend on this to improvements in public health, sustainable agricultural output, education, etc and spend whatevers left over on global warming.

[catbirdseat]

When I consider that I will be dead before the worst effects of global warming are felt, why should I worry? Well I do care about having a good place for my children to live.

 

So, Jay, you think that Global Warming is not a worry because CO2 emissions will decrease as gas prices rise? What if we switched to electric cars whos batteries are charged by power plants which are fueled by our cheap and abundant coal reserves?

[tvashtarkatena]

"Bush is an idiot!"

But...Bush IS an idiot.

 

We all know that Bush didn't invent the internal combustion engine or the coal fired boiler. No shit.

 

He completely deserves our 'dissapproval' because, in six LONG years in office, not only did he fail to show one iota of leadership in addressing the world's most pressing environmental threat, he actively worked to undo the solutions brought forth by other nations. In short, he sold us all out in favor of his corporate base in the energy sector.

 

For this an many, many other spectacular foreign and domestic policy failures, outrageous lies, and willful disregard for the constitution he swore to defend, he should go down in history as one of our worst presidents.

[tvashtarkatena]

I think that once the long-awaited energy crunch begins to materialize in even a minor way, this will largely take care of itself.

 

This is the most misguided argument I've heard so far. Coal fired power plants currently represent the largest source of greenhouse gases. The earth currently has enough coal to last well over 2 centuries; plenty long enough time to completely fuck our climate, even at the current rate of warming. Unless we actively decide otherwise through public policy, we will switch from gas to coal. Case in point: the 'Green' party in Germany was successful in getting the goverment to shut down its nuke plants. Guess what's going to replace them? Coal. Of the hundreds of new power plants China's building, most are coal. It's pretty obvious to the casual free market economist that running out of oil will likely exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions rather than decrease them.

 

Determining large scale direction for society wide infrastructure is what public policy is for. That's how we got railroads, phones, water, and power. The libertarian argument that somehow things will just work out is either based on an imagined history that never was or just pure fantasy.

[JayB]

It this was all happening in a void, maybe people would just stoke up the coal plants and call it good, but given the present level of concern about CO2 emissions, it seems like a given to me that at some point the collective schitzophrenia that seems to have overcome the green movement will abate somewhat, and people will come to recognize nuclear power as the lesser of the two evils. I'd say that conservation is the single most cost effective way to reduce CO2 emissions, followed shortly thereafter by investments in making nuclear power both less costly and safer. Alternative energy sources are an important but distant third IMO.

 

Coal will never go away, but I expect to see a significant shift in the public's thinking about nuclear power as concern about CO2 emissions trends higher.

[JayB]

When I consider that I will be dead before the worst effects of global warming are felt, why should I worry? Well I do care about having a good place for my children to live.

 

So, Jay, you think that Global Warming is not a worry because CO2 emissions will decrease as gas prices rise? What if we switched to electric cars whos batteries are charged by power plants which are fueled by our cheap and abundant coal reserves?

 

See above for the second point, and as far as the first point is concerned - for all we know, your children's children's children may very well have bigger fish to fry. Whenever the Romans who lived at the apex of their civilization were worrying about the future, I suspect that the Ostrogoths and Visigoths never figured highly in their collective imaginations. I personally think that we ourselves have bigger fish to fry, and solutions in hand for a number of them right now like AIDS, Malaria, unclean drinking water, education, trade barriers, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

[tvashtarkatena]

nice sentimental argument, if only two stark realities weren't stepping all over it.

 

1) Nukes are the most expensive form of power plant. Being the savvy business types they are, China's not going to build them, nor will many other countries...including ours, if you ask me.

 

2) China could care less about the environment...the country is a disaster in that regard. Unless there is a global effort to cut CO2 emissions with an enforcement mechanism (economic sanctions, etc.) for non-compliance, they'll burn coal...without all the fancy scrubbers.

[Dechristo]

but, but...everybody thought this was so righteous and cool...

[catbirdseat]

... people will come to recognize nuclear power as the lesser of the two evils. I'd say that conservation is the single most cost effective way to reduce CO2 emissions, followed shortly thereafter by investments in making nuclear power both less costly and safer.

Coal will never

Here, I must agree with you. I've always thought that nuclear fission has been the cleanest energy source we have. Zero CO2 emissions. We now know how to make perfectly safe reactors that cannot melt down under any circumstances. The fuel disposal issue still remains a problem, but I think it can be solved. We need to get Yucca Mountain licensed and start moving waste to that location.

[dmuja]

If we accept that we can't predict the future perfectly, . .

I am personally not the least bit worried about global warming, . . .

 

Well when the isothermic effects of "GW" finally do take hold in the world oceans and the oceanic currents stop and what we call "weather" as we know it ceases to be, we will then be able to predict the future fairly accurately and it will look something like this..

 

"FORECAST FOR THE UPCOMING PERIOD; VALID JAN THRU MAR 2023...

 

The stationary high pressure system that has parked itself over the eastern pacific will continue to produce extreme heat for the western 2/3'ds of the country with high temps for the next 3 months expected to diviate less than 2 degrees from 115 deg F. Lows are expected to remain in the mid 90's for that time period. Please check back in 3 months for the updated forecast.. Thank You"

Edited November 3, 2006 by dmuja

[JayB]

nice sentimental argument, if only two stark realities weren't stepping all over it.

 

1) Nukes are the most expensive form of power plant. Being the savvy business types they are, China's not going to build them, nor will many other countries...including ours, if you ask me.

 

2) China could care less about the environment...the country is a disaster in that regard. Unless there is a global effort to cut CO2 emissions with an enforcement mechanism (economic sanctions, etc.) for non-compliance, they'll burn coal...without all the fancy scrubbers.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

If these prognostications are true, and these are the only variables that will have any bearing on C02 emissions in the future - then we'll just have to learn to live with higher CO2 levels. Somehow I think that we'll manage, given the alternative.

 

Good luck with that enforcement mechanism you're pondering there, kemosabe. That, if anything, takes the cake as a sentimental import from the land of wishful thinking. If the collective impotence that's been revealed by the world's efforts to get a third rate country like Iran to give up it's nukes, good luck forcibly compelling China to toe the line on emissions, amigo.

[JayB]

If we accept that we can't predict the future perfectly, . .

I am personally not the least bit worried about global warming, . . .

 

Well when the isothermic effects of "GW" finally do take hold in the world oceans and the oceanic currents stop and what we call "weather" as we know it ceases to be, we will then be able to predict the future fairly accurately and it will look something like this..

 

"FORECAST FOR THE UPCOMING PERIOD; VALID JAN THRU MAR 2023...

 

The stationary high pressure system that has parked itself over the eastern pacific will continue to produce extreme heat for the western 2/3'ds of the country with high temps for the next 3 months expected to diviate less than 2 degrees from 115 deg F. Lows are expected to remain in the mid 90's for that time period. Please check back in 3 months for the updated forecast.. Thank You"

 

Yawn. Plug the maximum projected impact of full global accordance with Kyoto into those models and tell me how much that changes the forecast.

[tvashtarkatena]

Except one thing...China dies without it's export business and importation of energy. The world has a lot of leverage on that country.

 

Iran, in contrast, is much more self sufficient, and they've got oil.

 

Tonto.

[JayB]

Except one thing...China dies without it's export business and importation of energy. The world has a lot of leverage on that country.

 

Iran, in contrast, is much more self sufficient, and they've got oil.

 

Tonto.

 

Except that the part of the world that has the energy is not the part of the world that has either the will or the capacity to influence China in this way. Don't see Algeria telling China "Hey - we'd love to sell you this oil, and we appreciate the diplomatic cover for the genocide and all - but let's talk about those emissions first..." Ditto for all of the rest of Africa and the middle East, and I don't see Russia being all that interested in a showdown with China either.

 

All of this just goes to show that small practical measures shaped by consumer sentiment and effective demand will probably be more effective in curtailing CO2 emissions than some kind of transnational econo-climato Politburo.

[tivoli_mike]

nice sentimental argument, if only two stark realities weren't stepping all over it.

 

1) Nukes are the most expensive form of power plant. Being the savvy business types they are, China's not going to build them, nor will many other countries...including ours, if you ask me.

 

[Dechristo]

...small practical measures shaped by consumer sentiment and effective demand will probably be more effective in curtailing CO2 emissions than some kind of transnational econo-climato Politburo.

 

But, this is the issue I feel most comfortable in wringing my hands.

Don't leave me to ministrations to individual people... it's like, too real. and I may be faced with coming to terms with and accepting the inequities of the human experience. This won't fit with my thoroughly rationalized and social-group identity of choice categorization of what's right and wrong.

 

Dick!

[dmuja]

Yawn. Plug the maximum projected impact of full global accordance with Kyoto into those models and tell me how much that changes the forecast.

 

Do I think its important for the world to take action on reducing greenhouse emissions? Absolutley. Do I think a 5% reduction in those emissions would be effective in the short term? Not noticeably. In the long term however, it wouldve been an important first step and statement to make.

 

Still though, while much of the rest of the world is recognizing what we're up against, The US - one of the world's biggest generators of greenhouse gases – responsible for about 1/4 of the entire world’s anthroprogenic carbon dioxide emissions - only see's dollar signs and plays the "blame them" game.

 

Im an optimist though. I think we could still pull this one out - but that would still require FIRST a clear recognition of the problem.

 

As long as we still try to rationalize a "do nothing" approach, as long as we buy into this politacally motivated fantasy that there is a "global warming debate" - when in fact there really is no more debate about human enhanced global warming than there is about say, the factual basis for evolution - as long as this goes on without the leadership of the US, then that length of time will be a true factor in the equation of just how big the problem becomes. Denial and biased, over rationalization serves no one in the end and even the corporate conservatives will eventually feel the full effects of a world out of ballance.

 

Those fony arguments and distractions aught to be steamrolled-over, terminated with extreme prejudice, and those who have not drank the coolaid should just get on with the real work of making a fix. Unfortunately many people still get distracted by this shit "it wouldn't make a bit of difference" etc..

 

Yeah, had we ratified it in 92, had we then gone on from there, had we NOT tried to manipulate the science, the scientists, the facts, had we not been more worried about energy company profits, then the kind of world our grand kids would inherit, had we been a leader in the solution instead of an obstacle, then yes it would have (and still would) make a difference. So please and by all means, vote next week.

 

Sorry, didn't mean to right a campaign speech.

Edited November 3, 2006 by dmuja