# Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted



## Big Don (Jan 3, 2009)

*Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted 
*

 Ambler
The Huffington Post 
 																		 Posted January  3, 2009 									| 11:36 AM (EST)
EXCERPT:


You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore. 
  Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. _It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind._

What is wrong with the statement?  A brief list:
  1. First, the expression "climate change" itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots -- and even revolutions, including the French Revolution -- were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished).
  So, no one needs to say the words "climate" and "change" in the same breath -- it is assumed, by anyone with any level of knowledge, that climate changes. That is the redundancy to which I alluded. The lie is the suggestion that climate has ever been stable.
END EXCERPT
From an unabashedly liberal website, no less.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 3, 2009)

Big Don said:


> *Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted*
> 
> *<snip!>*
> 
> ...


 


From an author with a degree, not in meteorology, not in physics, not in cosmology, not in climatology, but in _*history*_. One who apparently earns his living partly by writing, but chiefly as a _musician_, of all things.

The only substantive reason for supporting his viewpoint is that it apparently agrees with yours.




Of course, this couldn't simply be evidence of a lack of liberal bias, since we're all aware-from your constant, insistent, strident and maniacal posting on the subject-that there's no such thing as "unbiased _liberal _media." I mean, a liberal blogpage running an alternative point of view-albeit an unsubstantiated and unqualified one-on anything, is as unlikely as a black man being elected President, right?

_feh_


----------



## Big Don (Jan 3, 2009)

elder999 said:


> From an author with a degree, not in meteorology, not in physics, not in cosmology, not in climatology, but in _*history*_. The only real reason for supporting his viewpoint is that it apparently agrees with yours.


Gee, Al Gore, the most visible pusher of the world is coming to and end and it's all your fault viewpoint has a degree in GOVERNMENT. But, his opinion is obviously more important because he agrees with you...

BTW, Harland Sanders (the Colonel) had no degree in culinary arts, nor business and yet, the chain he founded sells a whole lot of chicken dinners... 
Bill Gates has no college degree and a whole bunch of computers use his software...
Your insistence that someone must have a degree in something to know anything about it is ridiculous at best.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 3, 2009)

Gentlemen, behave please.  Our tables are for holding books, not serving as objects to be hit with shoes.  Thank you.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 3, 2009)

your no fun


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 3, 2009)

I'm dealing with a bot attack...it makes me less Krucheffy


----------



## elder999 (Jan 4, 2009)

double post, sorry.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 4, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Gee, Al Gore, the most visible pusher of the world is coming to and end and it's all your fault viewpoint has a degree in GOVERNMENT. But, his opinion is obviously more important because he agrees with you...


 
On the one hand, you make a valid point. On the other hand, you make an _invalid_ assumption. While you're quite right about Mr. Gore-_and_ degrees in general as far as opinions or ability go, you're wrong about my position-I don't agree with a great many of Mr. Gore's exaggerations. In any case, Mr. Ambler, the author of your article, is entitled to his opinions and conclusions, but they're no more _scientific_ than Mr. Gore's. More importantly, they're largely _semantic_ and _historic_. Mr. Ambler's position rests upon the valid point that the "climate" has "changed" in the past, and was probably going to again anyway, and completely ignores the fact that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is the highest it's been in at least *350,000* years, and probably the last 420,000-600,000 years. 

In any case, the issue-and it *is* an issue- has been so politicized, marginalized, obfuscated and outright _ignored_ by the Bush regime that their actions have often bordered on criminal: reports edited or supressed, scientists silenced, "alternate viewpoints" over emphasized. All to what end? _So we can continue to pollute the environment as though we're not a part of it, and the sources of that pollution can continue to be sources of profit._ So we can continue to behave like a world of unattended infants, in unchanged diapers, smearing our crib and fingerpainting the walls with our own feces.





Big Don said:


> BTW, Harland Sanders (the Colonel) had no degree in culinary arts, nor business and yet, the chain he founded sells a whole lot of chicken dinners...


 
With a recipe passed down in his family from uneducated _slaves_. Don't suppose they needed a college degree, either. Yeah, he had some business success, and at least he didn't call his business _Sambo's_ or _Coon's Chicken Inn_, and, while I don't know them, I probably wouldn't have agreed with his viewpoint on integration-if the discussion were about *that*, I'd point out that the man dropped out of school in 7th grade, which wasn't that uncommon back in the beginning of the 20th century. In any case, you're argument that because an uneducated man succeeded running a business selling chicken that was _finger lickin' good_ back in 1939, one needn't have a scientific background to have a scientific position, or, at least rely upon scientific facts, rather than a distortion of historical data, is somewhat specious.

Mr. Ambler's argument is largely semantic and historic. Semantically, he says that "climate change" is redundant, because that's what climate does: _change_. Of course, there's nothing in the definition of the word that demonstrates that climate changes the way we're talking:



			
				the very excellent Merriam Webster's English Language Technical Manual said:
			
		

> cli·mate
> 
> Pronunciation: \&#712;kl&#299;-m&#601;t\ Function: _noun_ Etymology: Middle English _climat,_ from Middle French, from Late Latin _climat-, clima,_ from Greek _klimat-, klima_ inclination, latitude, climate, from _klinein_ to lean &#8212; more at lean Date: 14th century
> 
> ...


 
His other argument is historic: that the climate has changed in the past and will change again-that we've had little ice ages, and warmings throughout recorded history. It ignores that the carbon burden on the atmosphere is unprecedented in recorded history-that it is, in fact, higher than it's been in nearly half a million years, and it's a little like saying that because volcanos and lightning have started forest fires in the past, all current forest fires are expected phenomenon that are caused by volcanos and lightning-it isn't even that it's _not necessarily_ true-*it's just not true.*

But hey, he's entitled to his _opinion_ and to express it, and you're entitled to believe it, no matter how incorrectly informed or just plain uninformed it is.




Big Don said:


> Bill Gates has no college degree and a whole bunch of computers use his software...
> Your insistence that someone must have a degree in something to know anything about it is ridiculous at best.


 
Bill Gates belongs to a very exclusive club: he got a 1600 on his SATs, and at least went to Harvard for two years-more importantly, he spent most of his high school years, summer camp days, and college years playing with computers-his knowledge was informed by real experience.

Like Al Gore, who _graduated_ from Harvard with a degree in government, but at least took a course in climatology to demonstrate a more serious interest.

Mr. Ambler's real experience with the fields that would give him appropriate knowledge on which to base an opinion seems to be that, like the rest of us, he's been caught outside in the rain once or twice. :lol:

You're right, though, Don-I'm often guilty of being a snob in this regard. Edison had no college degree. Of course, he made a telephone to talk to the dead, too.....:lol:


----------



## Ray (Jan 4, 2009)

Truth is independant of degrees and man-made honors.  Saying someone is correct because they have a degree is an affront to logic.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 4, 2009)

Ray said:


> Truth is independant of degrees and man-made honors. Saying someone is correct because they have a degree is an affront to logic.


 

I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, I haven't said that-or said that anyone is correct.Of course, saying someone is right because their position supports yours is also an affront to logic. On the other hand, we have threads that argue about matters of law, and the positions of _lawyers_, police and other officers of the law have more value. We have had threads about medical matters, and the positions of doctors, nurses, and the experience of patients who confronted the same issues, were the ones that had more value. It's always worth pointing out the eductation and experience that informs the postition of a cited source. It's worth pointing out that in this matter, I, just like Don, am just some guy: neither a climatologist, nor a meteorologist-though I will support my position on these matters with facts and the positions of  qualified scientists supported by those facts. _*Qualified scientists*_, not just guys that look out the window and say, _Oh, look, it's snowing. So much for "climate change."_ :lfao:


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 4, 2009)

Is it a strawman argument when you avoid the issue by focusing on the speaker?


----------



## Big Don (Jan 4, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Is it a strawman argument when you avoid the issue by focusing on the speaker?


If not it is certainly boorish.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 4, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Is it a strawman argument when you avoid the issue by focusing on the speaker?


 
I'm not avoiding the issue or focusing on the speaker. I'm just pointing out that his argument is flawed, his position uninformed, and his take on things specious and unsupported by scientific fact-except for the part about "climate changing in the past." If you'd like me to focus more on the issue of the evidence of global warming-and I'll call it that, and avoid the political equivocation of "climate change"-I'd be happy to do so, but that's not what this thread is really about. It was about the _speaker's_ position being published on a "liberal webpage." Initially, all I did, in my rather -_censored_*ky* way is point out that the "speaker" really didn't offer anything in the way of substantive argument against "climate change," and that there was nothing unusual about the so-called "liberal media" offering a forum for an alternative point of view.



Big Don said:


> If not it is certainly boorish.


 
Oooh, *guilty*, _big boy._ I'm a snob and a boor. Elitist to the core. Don't post nonsense, and I'll trouble you no more..:lfao:

You don't really want me to focus on the issue, do you? :wink:


----------



## arnisador (Jan 4, 2009)

A degree doesn't make you correct, but a relevant degree certainly qualifies one's opinion. You're at least restricting your attention to those who have demonstrated an interest in a matter and undergone a process to certify their learning in that area. Degrees don't matter, just knowledge? Well, people keep saying rank doesn't matter in the martial arts, only ability, but look at how much attention goes into rank. And all things being equal, I'd defer to a 4th degree black belt in TKD on the interpretation of one of their forms than to someone who assures me he knows them very well.

Checking credentials isn't an infallible method, but it isn't bad 'statistical reasoning'. The real problem is that the experts disagree not only what _is_ known but on what _can _be known at this juncture.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 4, 2009)

arnisador said:


> The real problem is that the experts disagree not only what _is_ known but on what _can _be known at this juncture.


 
This is partially correct, and the source of the argument. When Mr. Gore says that "ths science is in," he's mostly right-but some of the science continues, and he ihimself is guilty of a variety of exagerrations and outright falsehoods; when Mr. Ambler says he was lying by saying that "the science is in" though, it's an obfuscation-it's not quite correct, and it's not at all supported by the rest of *his* arguments. Part of the source of the entire argument is the politicization of this issue-the science that *is* in is dismissed, covered up or equivocated in ways that are less than scientific. In any case, there are some basic *known facts* that _indicate_ a fairly dire outcome.

Oh, and BTW, I haven't seen _An Inconvenient Truth_, because I didn't need to, and because I think AL Gore is a wooden nit-and one prone to hyperbole as well.....


----------



## arnisador (Jan 4, 2009)

Whatever one thinks of Mr. Gore or the subject, _An Inconvenient Truth_ was a well-down movie.

I'm no expert, but I have a basic belief in the resilience of an earth-sized system.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 4, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I'm no expert, but I have a basic belief in the resilience of an earth-sized system.


 

This, for me, is one of the biggest problems with discussions about global warming. The issue has never been one of the earth's survival, or its capability to support life, or its life's capability to adapt to changes, or its habitability.

The fundamental issue is one of _*our*_ survival-of whether the earth will continue to support _*our*_ lives, or whether or not _we_ can adapt to cahnges, and whether or not the earth will remain habitable for _*us*_. Like it or not, though, the earth's environment is going through and will continue to go through radical changes-and how much of that change is due to our own actions, and how much we can do about it, is at the root of the discussion. In the end, though, the real problem is whether or not it is "okay" to continue to befoul our home in the fashion we have been-global warming being man-made or not. The real issue is whether or not we can blithely continue to spew garbage into the air, and into the ocean, continue disregarding the effect we have on the other creatures we share the planet with,continue disregarding the myriad adverse effects our behavior has on our environment, all in the name of profit and progress.

I mean, even if global warming is a complete canard-and it's *not*-I think it's pretty idiotic to take or support  a position that basically says it's okay to continue spewing CO2 and other pollutants into our atmosphere.....


----------



## arnisador (Jan 4, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I mean, even if global warming is a complete canard-and it's *not*-I think it's pretty idiotic to take or support  a position that basically says it's okay to continue spewing CO2 and other pollutants into our atmosphere.....



I think you just came out against breathing.

Of course I'm not for pollution as a good choice, but the costs of maintaining 6 billion people on the planet are what they are. Mass farming is part of the problem...but people must be fed. Are we to tell developing nations not to develop because the West has already used up all the environmental credits the earth has to offer? If keeping the current standard of living means some people lose their NC beach house, well, I'm not overly worried about that. Now, destroying the ozone layer..._that _worries me. But if we're talking about not the end of the human race but an economic choice in how much we're willing to tolerate to overpopulate the planet...eh. Aren't you fighting the will to survive and thrive here? Or, put in a colder way: Is there a right number of people to be inhabiting this planet? If global warming destroys farm productivity and some people elect not to have kids because they fear it'd be hard to feed them, and the population drops over time to 5 billion...so what?

Filling the atmosphere with radioactive particles would be bad in the "Ghostbusters" sense. Melting some icebergs and losing some coast...well, anybody remember Pangea? It's the way of things. I'm not overly excited.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 4, 2009)

I'll have moved by then.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 4, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I think you just came out against breathing.


 
:lfao: touche, but _au contraire_...our (the animal kingdom's) respiration is balanced by the plant world's respiration. The output of CO2 from hydrocarbon combustion is not, and it  continues to increase. There are studies and advances being made in this area, though-it's possible that in the near future this _*excess*_ CO2 will be counteracted by using plant life or plant-life like processes.




arnisador said:


> But if we're talking about not the end of the human race but an economic choice in how much we're willing to tolerate to overpopulate the planet...eh. Aren't you fighting the will to survive and thrive here? Or, put in a colder way: Is there a right number of people to be inhabiting this planet? If global warming destroys farm productivity and some people elect not to have kids because they fear it'd be hard to feed them, and the population drops over time to 5 billion...so what?
> 
> Filling the atmosphere with radioactive particles would be bad in the "Ghostbusters" sense. Melting some icebergs and losing some coast...well, anybody remember Pangea? It's the way of things. I'm not overly excited.


 
Not entirely disagreeing with your viewpoint, but the sad fact is that our capitalist system, and its investment in the burning of hydrocarbons, have supressed the development of alternative means of supporting development. Put another way (and one that demonstrates why I supported Bush's not signing the Kyoto protocol): don't you think it's *wrong* that China puts a new coal-burning power plant online _every week_, and without even the fundamental pollution controls that are now mandatory for such plants in the U.S.? DOn't you think that minimizing that pollution and continuing to develop more clean ways to utilize that energy source should be a focus, rather than something that's just paid lip-service to?

Melting icebergs and lost coast may just be the way of things, but there's more to it than just that....


----------



## arnisador (Jan 4, 2009)

Yes, I do think the pollution out of China being unchecked is bad both environmentally and climatologically, and in addition makes it harder for the "good guys" (is that us?) to compete. I do wish we could get worldwide standards--not necessarily Kyoto--on this and any number of similar things. But I'd hate to tell Zimbabwe it couldn't build a dirty industrial plant despite the crushing poverty and humanitarian crisis there, because it's bad for the earth and hence humans.

I agree about the flora-limited fauna, and that was a good system before industrial processes threw things out of whack. Standards would be good...but at what cost could we achieve them? It's going to take the major players helping build green factories in other places, I'd think.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 4, 2009)

Big Don said:


> *Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted *
> 
> You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.
> Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. _It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind._
> .


 

 Of course, if we're to remain on topic, the real issue is glurge like this being trumpeted as any kind of truth.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 4, 2009)

I don't think there's serious doubt that human activity is significantly affecting the planet. How big the effect is and how serious the ramifications will be--those are at issue. The direction of the vector is "in" but not the magnitude.


----------



## Ramirez (Jan 4, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Is it a strawman argument when you avoid the issue by focusing on the speaker?



 A civil engineer tells you a bridge is unsafe to drive over...a masters in history tells you the bridge is safe...whose word are you going to trust when making a decision to drive over the bridge?

 We depend on expertise all the time.  I'll give Mr. Cuffee's opinion on scientific matters more weight than most other poster's.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 4, 2009)

Ramirez said:


> A civil engineer tells you a bridge is unsafe to drive over...a masters in history tells you the bridge is safe...whose word are you going to trust when making a decision to drive over the bridge?
> 
> We depend on expertise all the time. I'll give Mr. Cuffee's opinion on scientific matters more weight than most other poster's.


 

While I'm grateful for your support, Mark, I'll add that this isn't my field at all-I'm only a _sometimes *somewhat*_ more educated bystander on this matter.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 4, 2009)

Ramirez said:


> A civil engineer tells you a bridge is unsafe to drive over...a masters in history tells you the bridge is safe...whose word are you going to trust when making a decision to drive over the bridge?



Elder made a valid point about qualifications, in which he questioned the credentials of the author of this book.

From Huffington Post:



> Harold Ambler is the co-author of the forthcoming (March 2009) _Ever True: The History of Brown Crew_. He is also working on a book about the climate wars -- _Apology Accepted_. He is the owner of talkingabouttheweather.com and lives in Austin, Texas.


From talkingabouttheweather.com, Harold Ambler writes:



> I have been interested in weather since I was a very young boy. If computer science had been more fun for me I might have gone into meteorology, but instead I went into publishing and music. Nonetheless, as I finish a book on the history of rowing, I have spent a goodly amount of time studying weather and climate &#8212; in preparation for my next writing project.


 

Me personally, I've spent a goodly amount of time on lots of things which does not make me an expert in any of them.


----------



## Ray (Jan 4, 2009)

Ramirez said:


> A civil engineer tells you a bridge is unsafe to drive over...a masters in history tells you the bridge is safe...whose word are you going to trust when making a decision to drive over the bridge?
> 
> We depend on expertise all the time. I'll give Mr. Cuffee's opinion on scientific matters more weight than most other poster's.


It's easy to defer to someone who has a degree or exhibits Charisma or has expertise.  The important thing is to gather the evidence, weigh it and make a decision.  A civil engineer tells you a bridge is unsafe...a doctor tells you you need to have your left leg amputated...you may want a 2nd opinion before spending a million dollars to put in a new bridge...you may want a 2nd opinion before severing your leg.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 4, 2009)

Ray said:


> The important thing is to gather the evidence, weigh it and make a decision.


 
Sadly, all the real _evidence_ points to important, _expensive_ decisions, and real _sacrifice_. What the other side of the discussion has done, in an effort to avoid *expense and sacrifice*, avoiding those decisions and maintaining their profit margins, is put forth arguments that ignore, dismiss or marginalize what evidence there is, use the government-in the form of the current regime-to supress the findings of the scientific community, and politicize what should be a wholly scientific issue.


Sort of like the a room full of doctors telling you that your leg has gangrene, and _should_ be amputated-and a lawyer standing there saying that all the evidence isn't in, and he has a doctor in the next room who had a patient survive gangrene without amputating his pinky. There's seven doctors telling you one thing, a lawyer with some sort of doctor with some sort of anecdote, _the room smells of your rotting leg and you can see the gangrene for yourself, not to mention that it just doesn't hurt anymore(_which the doctors have explained to you as being more evidence that the leg should come off, not that it's getting better), and maybe you should listen to the lawyer, and follow the advice of his unseen doctor.....:lfao:



			
				Gordon Nore said:
			
		

> From talkingabouttheweather.com, Harold Ambler writes:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...


 
Quite so. I'm an expert sailor-consequently, I know a thing or two about the weather. Doesn't mean I know anything about global warming, climate change, or even the weather in the Southern Ocean, which I've never sailed.....doesn't make me an expert on "weather," as much as it might make me an expert on _wind_, either....:lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2009)

I think the hard part of this argument for me and a lot of other people is that it ceased to become a scientific argument and has morphed into a political one.  This is very concerning for me because I'd hate to see "solutions" trumpeted that are nothing more then tools to accomplish very different purposes.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 4, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> I think the hard part of this argument for me and a lot of other people is that it ceased to become a scientific argument and has morphed into a political one. This is very concerning for me because I'd hate to see "solutions" trumpeted that are nothing more then tools to accomplish very different purposes.


 
That's a good point, and one worth examining, but I have to point out that most of the politicization has come from the side of the argument that has said that there is no solution needed, because there is no problem. For example Rick Piltz, a government scientist for 14 years, resigned in March, 2005 over concerns that scientific documents were being amended for political reasons. Evidence released by Piltz was reported in the _NY Times_ on June 8, 2005. Philip Cooney, the White House official accused of editing the reports, resigned June 10, 2005.



> _from Rick Piltz's resignation memo_
> The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is the vehicle through which U.S. Government agencies coordinate their support for research on climate change and associated issues of global environmental change. From 1995 until my March 2, 2005 resignation, I served in responsible positions such as Associate Director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Office (its name until 2002) and Senior Associate in the CCSP Office. Since it was first established as the U.S. Global Change Research Program under the Global Change Research Act of 1990, this program has supported thousands of scientists who have developed an extraordinary body of scientific research, observations, and assessments, dealing with issues of fundamental scientific and societal significance. The program currently has 13 participating federal agencies and an annual budget of about $2 billion.
> 
> Global climate change is a problem with great potential consequences for society. This administration has acted to impede honest communication of the state of climate science and the implications for society of global climate change. Politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program in its relationship to the research community, to program managers, to policymakers, and to the public interest. The White House so successfully politicized the science program that I decided it was necessary to terminate my relationship with it.



The full text of this statement can be found here.

Of course, we are in danger of the pendulum swinging the other way, and following the wrong solutions, or knee-jerk ones.....

And where is Mr. _Phelps_? I mean, _Big Don _in all this? (cue theme from _Mission:Impossible_) :lfao:


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 4, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> I think the hard part of this argument for me and a lot of other people is that it ceased to become a scientific argument and has morphed into a political one.  This is very concerning for me because I'd hate to see "solutions" trumpeted that are nothing more then tools to accomplish very different purposes.



maunakumu,

I was looking for an "applause" smiley thingy, but couldn't find one, so this will have to suffice.
:highfive:

I ran across this quote while reading an old copy of Time in the chiropractor's office. Huffington is commenting specifically about the media, but I think argument applies to discourse in general:



			
				[SIZE=2 said:
			
		

> Arianna Huffington[/SIZE],Time: July 3, 2008]The problem with the media is not that they're veering to the left or to the right but that they have an addiction to presenting two sides to every issue, even when the truth lies on one side or the other. I'd much rather we make our preferences and points of view transparent than pretend we don't have them.



I think that's where the global climate change discussion is stuck. Whether one believes recent climate change as a human creation that threatens us or not, the discussion itself is complicated beyond the scientific understanding of many (maybe, most) people. So we hear these stories, and then we tune into our preferred media and media personalities to tell us what we think about it.

So, if one like Rush's take on most issues, that person feels obliged to accept Rush's take on climate change. And vice versa. The discussion has gone far afield of an actual grown-up scientific discussion. People talk about whether or not they _*believe in*_ global climate change in very much the same way they talk about whether they believe in Santa.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 4, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> So, if one like Rush's take on most issues, that person feels obliged to accept Rush's take on climate change. And vice versa. The discussion has gone far afield of an actual grown-up scientific discussion. People talk about whether or not they _*believe in*_ global climate change in very much the same way they talk about whether they believe in Santa.


 
Again, though, this is largely the current regime's doing. During the days of the Apollo missions, every school kid from grade 2 on up had a moderate laymen's understanding of the mechanics involved. Global warming would be no different with a proper public education from the scientific entities about it. Sadly, they've largely been silenced or co-opted by the government that is supposed to support their findings.

A group of 60 highly-respected senior scientists from the Union of Concerned Scientists accused the Bush administration of altering the facts to fit the views. A document signed by the group charges,_ "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, *the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions.*_" It goes on to say, _"This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government's own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice."_

According to USA Today, the signatures read like a who's-who of the scientific community with "20 Nobel Prize winners and 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science."White House Office of Science and Technology Policy chief John Marburger dismissed the document, calling it a "conspiracy report" because you just know how readily those crazy Nobel Prize winners buy into conspiracy theories and how poorly they reason.

The full report is available here .


and, yet another moronity in a like vein:

Bush places *limits* on science

The AP reported here in 2004 that government scientists must now be cleared by a Bush political appointee before they can lend their expertise to the World Health Organization (WHO), a change that a Democratic lawmaker said fits a pattern of politicizing science.

"I do not feel this is an appropriate or constructive thing to do," said Dr. D.A. Henderson, an epidemiologist who ran the Bush administration's Office of Public Health Preparedness and now acts as an official advisor to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. "In the scientific world, we have a generally open process. We deal with science as science. I am unaware of such clearance ever having been required before."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) saw this as yet another attempt by the Bush [mis]Administration to " [tighten] their controls over their professionals and their scientists ... to favor its right-wing constituents". Waxman wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson asking him to rescind this policy, but as expected Thompson rebuffed the request.

As a consequence of actions like these, we have had nearly 8 years of information from legitimate scientific organs like NASA being largely supressed or "reinterpreted" to agree with political positions. The noise from naybobs like Rush fills the vacuum left by a lack of legitimate information-along with propaganda statements directly from the administration itself.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 4, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> I think the hard part of this argument for me and a lot of other people is that it ceased to become a scientific argument and has morphed into a political one.



Well, science documents the phenomenon but making changes is a hugely economic (and engineering), hence political, issue. You can't just shut down the factories, stop using fossil-fuel-powered transportation, and send all the methane-producing cows home without having a significant impact on the economy and people's standards of living. Once people agree that global warming is real and decide it's dangerous, it's almost by definition a political issue, barring a magic solution by scientists (like discovering that saltwater can be used as a clean car fuel, straight out of the ocean).

But to the extent that the fact that it's politically intractable to address these problems (since it would call for some level of sacrifice/participation) means too many politicians are calling for "further studies" or questioning widely-accepted scientific results as a stalling tactic, I agree!

But, need I remind people of what I read in a NY Times book review today...over half of Americans believe evolution is wrong and some form of creation is correct. How can science compete? As my father-in-law wrote, there's science and then there's scientivism (the belief in science as savior--basically, that if I use the ostrich strategy against my problems then science will have fixed the problem by the time I pull my head out of the sand). I think that too many people are using that sort of wishful thinking: By the time it matters, it'll have been fixed by those brilliant _Men of Science_.

Mind you, I don't think the sky is falling, myself, but I recognize the behaviour patterns nonetheless.


----------



## Carol (Jan 4, 2009)

I'm bothered by the way this issue has gone.  In the mid-90s, when I got engaged, I was nervous about introducing my fiancee to my best friend from college who had moved out of state.  

She was very liberal and very "green".  She practiced a pagan religion, volunteered her time planting trees with activist groups, supported organizations like Earth First, etc.   My fiance was an atmospheric scientist on contract with the U.S. Department of Defense, Catholic, and very conservative.   I knew my BFF would bring up her environmental views and was bracing myself for potential fireworks.

To my surprise...and perhaps to their surprise as well...their points of view were astoundingly similar.   They both arrived at the same conclusion - environmental pollutants are a definite issue, and the best solutions (that we can expect to see in our lifetime) are solutions that bring the environment, industry, and people together.  

An example - the Penobscot river valley in Maine.  Traveling down the Penobscot is quite the sight.  The forests on each side are thick, brimming with wildlife.  The same industry that protects the river valley is the paper industry - the very same industry that blighted it in the 1800s and 1900s. The paper companies that own the forests surrounding the Penobscot now regrow and preserve the forests on each side of the Penobscot, and keep their forestry practices further away so all of nature (including us) can enjoy the river in its natural state.  

But, unfortunately, there appears to be a lot more energy spent on rhetoric than there are working for solutions such as this.  Couple that with young people showing a disinterest in science and engineering because of the degree of difficulty involved and the picture painted isn't a rosy one.  We can easily produce talent that can argue a point of view.  Producing talent that can actually find and implement solutions is yet another challenge.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 4, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> To my surprise...and perhaps to their surprise as well...their points of view were astoundingly similar.   They both arrived at the same conclusion - *environmental pollutants are a definite issue, and the best solutions (that we can expect to see in our lifetime) are solutions that bring the environment, industry, and people together.  *



I think this is the key.  The Earth's climate is too complex to be solely controlled by mankind's activities, either way.  However, our activities can definitely shape and magnify other factors, such as solar output, normal cycles of climate shift, ocean volumes, CO2 levels, and whatever else effects the climate.  

Recognizing that, we definitely can mitigate or shape what happens.  But we can't do it with lopsided approaches.  We can't do it from only the developed countries -- or by ignoring certain industries and activities.  Everyone needs to work together.  Unfortunately, I don't see this happening until things get pretty desperate and people around the world are scared out of their self-interest.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 4, 2009)

Definition of "too ****ing late":




jks9199 said:


> ..... things get pretty desperate and people around the world are scared out of their self-interest.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 5, 2009)

To tell the truth, I'm concerned about the Carbon Tax.  I'm concerned about the World Bank and the IMF collaborating with the Trilaterals and the CFR on this.  I'm concerned over the potential for elites to turn one region against another and to manipulate the good will of people for their own gain.  I see scientists putting information out in good faith and having that information being turned into billy clubs for those who have other agendas.  

Elder999 is right, this topic needs to be explored in more depth, but I disagree with him on his position regarding the political skewing by the so called non-believers.  There's a lot more being done and its a lot more subtle then that.


----------



## Carol (Jan 5, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> To tell the truth, I'm concerned about the Carbon Tax.  I'm concerned about the World Bank and the IMF collaborating with the Trilaterals and the CFR on this.  I'm concerned over the potential for elites to turn one region against another and to manipulate the good will of people for their own gain.  I see scientists putting information out in good faith and having that information being turned into billy clubs for those who have other agendas.
> 
> Elder999 is right, this topic needs to be explored in more depth, but I disagree with him on his position regarding the political skewing by the so called non-believers.  There's a lot more being done and its a lot more subtle then that.




I'm inclined to agree, and I think this has been building for awhile.  When the last leather tanneries in Massachusetts closed down in the 1980s, I'm sure that had a positive impact on our local environment, including the quality of our water.  But, the tanneries relocated oversease, mostly in China where environmental controls for the tanning of leather are even more lax.  Therefore, the pollution didn't go away...it just relocated, and it may have even become worse (due to softer regulations).

The Kyoto treaty had a seemingly worthy premise of global cooperation on air pollution but inside the treaty were non-scientific action items, such as stiffer restrictions on the United States and stiffer penalties for the United States should we be found in violation.    

And a current story from one of my other haunts  mentions this about doing business in China:

 "Banking (in China) is sophisticated, the cityscapes are amazing and they are driving American cars -- the big SUV and town car styles," said Nelson. "Business goes on 24-hours a day."

I've read other places that the successful Chinese has proudly adopted big cars as a status symbol.  They aren't going to be willing to give these cars up for a Prius any more than Americans are.  I'm not trying to bash China or to show them in a bad light but I see this as illustrative as to how region can be pitted against region, country against country.  Its going to get worse before it gets better, I'm afraid...


----------



## elder999 (Jan 5, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> To tell the truth, I'm concerned about the Carbon Tax. I'm concerned about the World Bank and the IMF collaborating with the Trilaterals and the CFR on this. I'm concerned over the potential for elites to turn one region against another and to manipulate the good will of people for their own gain. I see scientists putting information out in good faith and having that information being turned into billy clubs for those who have other agendas.
> 
> Elder999 is right, this topic needs to be explored in more depth, but I disagree with him on his position regarding the political skewing by the so called non-believers. There's a lot more being done and its a lot more subtle then that.


 
It's okay that you don't agree with me, but the Bush regime has a documented history of stifling and manipulating science to fit their politics.



> _"In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now," James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience. ... Hansen said_ *the administration wants to hear only scientific results that "fit predetermined, inflexible positions." Evidence that would raise concerns about the dangers of climate change is often dismissed as not being of sufficient interest to the public.*_ "This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster/"_


 
Seen here

While your concerns about a Carbon Tax aren't misplaced-nor are your other concerns-the fact remains that a great deal of today's debate-or, at least, the _politicization_ of the debate-on this matter is simply a product of the BuSh administration's efforts to cloud the issue.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> It's okay that you don't agree with me, but the Bush regime has a documented history of stifling and manipulating science to fit their politics.
> 
> Seen here
> 
> While your concerns about a Carbon Tax aren't misplaced-as well your other concerns-the fact remains that a great deal of today's debate-or, at least, the _politicization_ of the debate-on this matter is simply a product of the BuSh administration's efforts to cloud the issue.



I certainly agree with you on this matter.  They do have a documented history of trying to obfuscate information.  Yet all of this seems too obvious.  BuSh and his handlers played a losing hand when it comes to this information.  They blundered around, fired people, pissed others off and generally left a trail a mile wide that told everyone what they were doing.  There was no subtlety about what they were up to.  This, IMO, was political because I think the general consensus is that Global Warming is an issue and it is happening and NOW people who disagree get to be lumped into a pot of "troglodytes" like BuSh and his ilk who are basically "stupid" and "backward".

Of course, sometimes, interesting points are brought up that contradict the hypothesis that humans are behind climate change, but now the brush has been painted and anyone who disagrees will be colored BuSh.  So much for the opposition.

On the other side, lets look at the politicization of solutions.  The Carbon Tax is basically a tax on life.  Everything you do produces an amount of CO^2 in some way shape or form.  The Carbon Tax, based on how its applied and defined, could be used to determine who is allowed to prosper and who is not.  The Carbon Tax, like inflation, gives elite social managers a tool to redistribute wealth as they see fit across the entire globe.  

All of this talk about international agencies regulating the tax, managing the proceeds, and superceding a nation's sovereignty reek of the kind of ideas that will eventually lead to global totalitarianism.  

Meanwhile, solutions like reducing consumption, waste, and pollution are only marginally considered, especially on a large scale level.  The kind of solutions that would make the world a better place to live in (whether you believe global warming exists or not!) are not directly considered.  It's just assumed that they will fall under the umbrella of a Carbon Tax.

That's not a bet that I'm willing to take and I think we all need to understand that the debate is a lot more subtle then whether or not BuSh was an a-hole and intentionally covered up information.  Global Warming has turned into a pit of Machiavellian Madness.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 5, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> I'm inclined to agree, and I think this has been building for awhile.  When the last leather tanneries in Massachusetts closed down in the 1980s, I'm sure that had a positive impact on our local environment, including the quality of our water.  But, the tanneries relocated oversease, mostly in China where environmental controls for the tanning of leather are even more lax.  Therefore, the pollution didn't go away...it just relocated, and it may have even become worse (due to softer regulations).
> 
> The Kyoto treaty had a seemingly worthy premise of global cooperation on air pollution but inside the treaty were non-scientific action items, such as stiffer restrictions on the United States and stiffer penalties for the United States should we be found in violation.
> 
> ...



Great post.  The Carbon Tax and other protocols seem to only move pollution around.  It all depends on who is going to be regulated and what is going to be taxed.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Is it a strawman argument when you avoid the issue by focusing on the speaker?


 
Sort of like attacking Al Gore, instead of the science? :lfao:




Big Don said:


> If not it is certainly boorish.


 

Pot? Kettle? :lfao:


----------



## elder999 (Jan 5, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Great post. The Carbon Tax and other protocols seem to only move pollution around. It all depends on who is going to be regulated and what is going to be taxed.


 
And, in fact, this is exactly how coal burning utilities are handling restrictions on SO2 releases-by moving them around. They also wind up curtailing them, though.....


----------



## elder999 (Jan 5, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Meanwhile, solutions like reducing consumption, waste, and pollution are only marginally considered, especially on a large scale level. The kind of solutions that would make the world a better place to live in (whether you believe global warming exists or not!) are not directly considered..


 
Here ya go:



> "That's a big no. The president believes . . . that it should be the goal of policymakers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one." _- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary responding in May 2001 to whether Bush would ask Americans to curb their first-in-the-world energy consumption_​


----------



## Big Don (Jan 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Sort of like attacking Al Gore, instead of the science? :lfao:


 Except, attacking the science was what the column in the OP did, and you instantly attacked the author for being a historian rather than a climatologist. While ignoring the fact that the most well known proponent of Global Warming hysteria (AL GORE) has no scientific background either.





> Pot? Kettle? :lfao:


no, and eh, no. Being a condescending crap for brains know it all is boorish in the extreme, but, that couldn't be you, could it?


----------



## Ray (Jan 5, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> On the other side, lets look at the politicization of solutions. The Carbon Tax is basically a tax on life. Everything you do produces an amount of CO^2 in some way shape or form. The Carbon Tax, based on how its applied and defined, could be used to determine who is allowed to prosper and who is not. The Carbon Tax, like inflation, gives elite social managers a tool to redistribute wealth as they see fit across the entire globe.


I agree with you, if I read you right, the Carbon Tax is just another way for rich people to make more money -- and at my (our) expense.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Here ya go:


Yeah, that is a nice quote, picked and chosen with no context. Look at Al Gore's home vs George Bush's on energy consumption. For someone who preaches how we should all sacrifice for the environment, Gore's home sure uses a hell of a lot of resources and for someone who supposedly doesn't care a whit about the environment, Bush's house is sure a model of everything he (supposedly) is against.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 5, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Look at Al Gore's home vs George Bush's on energy consumption. For someone who preaches how we should all sacrifice for the environment, Gore's home sure uses a hell of a lot of resources and for someone who supposedly doesn't care a whit about the environment, Bush's house is sure a model of everything he (supposedly) is against.



Interesting point, but does anyone really have the straight goods on the current state of the former VP's home? Whether or not Mr Gore has behaved hypocritically (as charged by Drudge and other right wing blogs) or whether he is the victim of slander (as all the left wing blogs say), what's the difference? In scientific terms, what is the difference?

If global climate change is no big deal, then why bother mentioning that President Bush has this eco-friendly ranch? If Bush is the saint in all of this, follow his example and let's all make our houses as green and tricked out as he has.

Again, left-right inserts itself into a discussion that is supposed to be about science and the well-being of our home on Earth. This is not about Al Gore or his book or movie. But that's where the discussion goes.

Everybody, I'll bet you dollars to donuts if we could play back every bit of debate about the environment over the last 2+ years of campaigning in the USA, this was probably as far as the debate ever got -- Democrats and Republicans arguing over which guy had the better house.

Nero fiddled...


----------



## elder999 (Jan 5, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Except, attacking the science was what the column in the OP did, and you instantly attacked the author for being a historian rather than a climatologist.


 
I didn't call him a historian-I said he had a degree in history; there is a difference.

In any case, there was *no science* in the column that you posted, which is why I didn't bother refuting any of it: it's errant nonsense. The man confuses "weather" with "climate," and "cause" with "effect," demonstrating that he has as little understanding of the subject as anyone who worships at the altar of Limbaugh...:lfao:

I could, of course, bother with a point by point refutation of that glurge, and it might be interesting, _for those who can understand it_, but it would only be another post that seems to contend against you personally. That was never my intention: I merely indicated that the author didn't have a qualified opinion, and that there was nothing unusual about the "liberal media" offering an opposing viewpoint, your seeming incredulity (or perhaps it was an offer of qualification?) notwithstanding. 

In fact, I don't even have to bother with a point by point refutation of the articlea; a brief glance at the comments on that page offers several posts that do so quite handily, which, perhaps, was the *real* point of it appearing on an "admittedly liberal website." :lfao:



Big Don said:


> While ignoring the fact that the most well known proponent of Global Warming hysteria (AL GORE) has no scientific background either.


 
Actually, I not only didn't ignore it, I conceded as much (if you'd bothered to read my other posts) as well as adding that I thought that he exaggerated quite a bit. No matter.





Big Don said:


> no, and eh, no. Being a condescending crap for brains know it all is boorish in the extreme, but, that couldn't be you, could it?


 
A "know it all," perhaps. At least you got that much right. :lfao:


----------



## elder999 (Jan 5, 2009)

Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or dD) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records. The record based on an ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok station in central east Antarctica was obtained during a series of drillings in the early 1970s and 1980s and was the result of collaboration between French and former-Soviet scientists. Drilling continued at Vostok and was completed in January 1998, reaching a depth of 3623 m, the deepest ice core ever recovered . The resulting core allows the ice core record of climate properties at Vostok to be extended to about _420,000_ years.

The strong correlation between atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and Antarctic temperature is confirmed by the extension of the Vostok ice-core record. From the extended Vostok record, scientists have concluded that present-day atmospheric burdens of carbon dioxide and methane seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years. Temperature variations estimated from deuterium were similar for the last two glacial periods.

At any rate, this method of reassembling the historic climate changes is considered to be accurate (isotopes don't lie, the government does!) to within *plus or minus 5%.*

To make all that above short-there is incontrovertible evidence that the *amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is higher than it's been in close to half a million years. It's been that high before, and the planet was even warmer then (on a whole) than it is now. *

The evidence from the last century pretty much indicates that the global mean temperature *is* rising. Again, the issue of _why_ it is is the one that has become, for a variety of reasons, politicized by both sides of the debate.

However:
 This report, from the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that:



> recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."



A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.

The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat. 


In response, the  American Petroleum Institute, the industry's trade group (some of those willful capitalist polluters who have been really trying hard to say that "there is no global warming," since one of the principal causes, if not *the* principal cause is thought to be their profit..er.._product_) said:



> While consensus on climate change remains a work in progress, we do know enough to take the risk seriously and to rule out inaction as an option".





Additionally, Science magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003 and found that not a single one challenged the consensus that earth's temperature is rising due to human activity. While there are scientific papers that do so, they are not "peer-reviewed" which is the simple gold standard of scientific publishing. Of course, one could attribute this to some sort of liberal-biased science community anti-capitalist conspiracy.

However...

We all know and have seen that the polar ice caps are melting at, as far as we know, unprecedented rates, whatever the cause (though we can be pretty certain that they have been smaller, and even non existent in the past). In addition to being one of the drivers of the world's climate due to thermal driving of the world's ocean currents, the polar ice also plays a fundamental role in reflecting a majority of the sunlight directed towards earth, thus ensuring that the earth's atmosphere didn't reach higher temperatures. (At most times of the year, one of the poles of the planet are the part that is pointed most directly at the sun). This melting process is pernicious: as the poles melt, they reflect less sunlight, the earth's atmosphere and ocean's absorb more heat, the poles melt more and continue to reflect less and less. Addtionally, the added cold fresh water to the oceans may well effect the thermal conveyor currents that drive our climate, as these currents are effected by differential temperature and salinity.

Short term effects we're seeing right now: species of wildflowers are dying off-becoming extinct, as mountain meadows convert into high desert. Species of bees are dying off, possibly becoming extinct, because the flowers they depend upon are going away. Pollination of crops is effected by the lack of bee species. Additionally, there are some "good effects": corn crops came in earlier this year and last, and in Pueblo, Colorado they actually got two harvests. Melons can be grown in areas where the season was previously too short. 

Longer term effects-I dunno, I'm just a scientist, and not a meteorologist or biologist...hell, I'm a knuckle-dragging engineer-an over educated technician, really..

One thing, for sure, they won't effect most of us, if there are any-they'll effect our kids and grandkids. 

Of course, by the time our grandkids are adults, the world may be burning something else, either because we've come up with something else, or we've run out of oil., and thus, the ability to mine coal.....

Wood and dung, perhaps.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 6, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, that is a nice quote, picked and chosen with no context.


 
Actually, the context is in the quote: Ari Fleischer was asked if the President (who had, prior to being elected, said he supported measures like conservation and a carbon tax or cap and trade system) was going to try to curb the American people's energy use. The answer was "no." Seems pretty contextual to me, and should to anyone who can read.



Big Don said:


> Look at Al Gore's home vs George Bush's on energy consumption. For someone who preaches how we should all sacrifice for the environment, Gore's home sure uses a hell of a lot of resources and for someone who supposedly doesn't care a whit about the environment, Bush's house is sure a model of everything he (supposedly) is against.


 
Yes, Mr. Gore's lifestyle _seems_ hypocritical-in direct conflict with everything he says he stands for-as do elements of *mine*, and I'd wager, *yours*. He lies and exaggerates the issue of global warming, all in an effort to promote *himself.* He is as much a part of the politicization of the issue as anyone (who isn't a scientist)-but that politicization was really begun in earnest by the current regime. Of course, he's made very public efforts to offset his home's carbon footprint, and makes a lot of the fact that it runs on "green energy"-that he obtains from the local power company-all in efforts to promote *himself*. 

All of that notwithstanding, the *fact* remains thatAl Gore and George Bush could drop dead today, both of their houses could be razed to the ground, and neither one of them would ever fly on a private jet or Air Force 1 again. Neither one of them would have a word to say about global warming, or U.S. policy, or anything else. Neither one of them would contribute much to the carbon burden of the planet, ever again.

There'd *still* be global warming. :lfao:


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jan 6, 2009)

Man o Man is it shure gunna be quiet in here after all these bickering babies get locked out.  I dun bets theys be too dumb like to gets da hints and all.  *Hic* *hick* *hick*


Global Warming is a normally occuring thing. Planet goes through phases, we're having a hot flash, that's all.  Why do you think it's called "Mother Earth", duh!


----------



## elder999 (Jan 6, 2009)

The Last Legionary said:


> Global Warming is a normally occuring thing. Planet goes through phases, we're having a hot flash, that's all. !


 
This is partially true, and not a matter of dispute. The earth's climate does go through phases, as does the sun; the sun is currently going through a hotter period.The fact remains that the scientific consensus is that *this* phase is being augmented by man made causes.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jan 6, 2009)

I'm more concerned with the chemicals in the water, the plastic islland in the Pacific, than I am over an extra % point or 2 in the air.  Maybe, that air would be naturally cleaned if we weren't removing hundreds of acres of trees from the Amazon daily, or paving over hundreds of acres of pasture for more empty strip malls, etc.  Maybe man wasn't meant to migrate and transport ashe has, resulting in numerous contaminatd ecosystems such as the Great Lakes in North America, etc.  Maybe.

But I don't honestly care.  I put my cans in the blue box, sort my papers into the red box, and watch the overpaid collectors toss em all into the same compactor truck as my other trash. I went green until I wet blue, bought a mulching mower and had to rake up all the clippings my neighbor shot onto my lawn, along with the trash he couldn't pick up.  I gave up.  Man's extinction will be a relief to me, and the planet will go on, hopefully version 3.0 will be smarter than the last 2.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 6, 2009)

I'm not sure that the fact that we are facing multiple environmental problems is an effective argument for not paying attention to any of them :lol:. 

I'll grant you the aggrivation factor of the 'recycling fad', however. It is infuriating that we, the residents, do an awful lot of unpaid labour to sort (and, in some cases, wash) the rubbish, only for it to be mis-managed once it leaves our doorsteps.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jan 6, 2009)

My point is, it's a more complex system than they realize, and I relly don't trust anyone with any government to tell me the truth, or even to properly understand much less have an idea how to fix the problem. They've proven their incompetence already.

In any event, the filter is clogged and damaged. Even if we stop right now, and don't emit another gram of gas, it won't fix the problem.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 6, 2009)

Aye, that last I certainly agree with.  It's been too late for quite some time.  It's still worth trying to work towards it not being so bad tho'.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 6, 2009)

Seems simple to me.

Give everyone in America a solar powered air cleaner that can run 24/7 to scrub the air.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 6, 2009)

Or maybe self-replicating, carbon-sequestering units?  Hang on ... they're called trees aren't they ?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 6, 2009)

Yeah.  We might want to keep more of them around.


----------



## Carol (Jan 6, 2009)

Xue Sheng would be so unhappy if we didn't....


----------



## elder999 (Jan 6, 2009)

I should add, that while what some may call a "liberal" (a loaded word whose meaning has morphed as much as "conservative") I think Bush was right to not sign Kyoto, which placed far too much burden on the U.S., rather than imposing a strict across the board standard. Though, of course I have doubts about his motivations for doing so...

Additionally, the scientific process needs arguments like these-and "global warming," as a theory, almost falls into the same category as "intelligent design," in that it is largely untestable: we cannot limit all the factors but one and then make observation, except for computer modeling based on past data, which is suspect by those opposed to the concept, sometimes for legitimate reasons-at least, their questions are legitimate. There are, however, some incontravertable facts:

1) Since about 1750, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 286 parts per million to 380 parts per million, *mainly from fossil fuels.*

2)CO2 levels have not been that high in the past 420,000 (see post above) to 650,000 years.

3) CO2 continues to build in the atmosphere at a rate of about 1.5 parts per million per year.

4) The Earth's temperature has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1880 and is now warmer than it has been in 400 years.

5) Average global temperature is likely to rise somewhere between 2 and 10 degrees by 2100.

6) The heat will cause (is causing) global ocean levels to rise 3 to 39 inches in this century.

You should have a look here :



> The planet's temperature has climbed to levels not seen in thousands of years, warming that has begun to affect plants and animals, researchers report in Tuesday's issue of _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_.
> 
> The Earth has been warming at a rate of 0.36°F per decade for the last 30 years, according to the research team led by James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
> 
> ...


 
Lastly,to clarify I should add that while our climate's principle driver is the sun, the transfer of solar energy is conducted by the so-called global conveyor, or thermohaline current, which is dependent upon two other factors: temperature differences and _salinity._ The likelihood that melting polar ice caps are affecting the state of this current are very high, given that they are reducing the salinity of the current as well as introducing new variations in temperature differential. Additionally, as I said, the process is pernicious: the polar ice caps reflect a great deal of the sun's heat back away from the polar regions, but as they melt, less and less heat is reflected away, and they will melt faster. 

Our grandhildren are *so* _screwed._


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 6, 2009)

I agree that "global warming" has been morphed into a political thing.  I also find it frustrating that only certain groups are targeted due to their unpopularity (ie: oil companies and factories mainly)

Here are some other interesting facts (taken from: _*Livestocks Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options*,_* a 2006 report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization)

18% of CO2 comes from livestock
9% of CO2 comes from the care and transporting of livestock

2/3 of all ammonia and more than 1/3 of all methane in the atmosphere comes from cows.  (methane is over 20 times FASTER at warming the climate than CO2).

Some other fun facts...

There are more than 1.5 BILLION cattle being raised for food in the world.  This takes up 26% of the earth's ice-free land and 1/3 global cropland.  One dairy cow produces the waste products of 20-40 people a day.  70% of the amazon's forests are now pasture lands for cows.  A cow has to drink 2 gallons of fresh water each day to produce 1 gallon of milk.  California is the largest producer of milk, the average dairy farm in CA has 900 cows (In Wisconsin they are smaller and the average is 85).  The average cow eats 100lbs of feed and drinks 40 gallons of water a day. That is 90,000 lbs of food a DAY and 36,00 gallons of water a DAY for the average dairy farm in California.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 6, 2009)

Aye, it is a big problem that the focus on 'solutions' to the problems of man-made/husbanded pollution has a tendency to hit the more obviously 'industrial'  targets and avoid other areas that are seen as 'natural'.

Sadly, much of farming these days is just as industrial as anything involving petrol and steel.  

It is possible to farm in a more sustainable, semi-closed cycle, kind of way and we will have to go back to that in the end anyhow when the fuel is gone.  As with anything else, it is a case of economic and political will.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 6, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Aye, it is a big problem that the focus on 'solutions' to the problems of man-made/husbanded pollution has a tendency to hit the more obviously 'industrial' targets and avoid other areas that are seen as 'natural'gone. .


 
There *is* talk of a "methane" tax on cattle production.......


----------



## arnisador (Jan 6, 2009)

If it increases the cost of steak, it won't get my support.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 6, 2009)

arnisador said:


> If it increases the cost of steak, it won't get my support.


 

Well, of course it would.....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 6, 2009)

As long as they don't tax me...... :fart:


----------



## elder999 (Jan 6, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> As long as they don't tax me...... :fart:


 
Healthy human digestion does not produce methane; the flammable component in human flatulence is primarily hydrogen, in the form of hydrogen sulfide......

(the **** I know about ****....:lfao


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 6, 2009)

elder999 said:


> There *is* talk of a "methane" tax on cattle production.......


 

I believe that was tried in Australia and it was voted down.  I don't see why they shouldn't.  Other things have taxes on them when they are disportionately using up resources (luxury taxes for example), one could also argue the "sin taxes" on items.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 6, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Or maybe self-replicating, carbon-sequestering units? Hang on ... they're called trees aren't they ?


 


Bob Hubbard said:


> Yeah. We might want to keep more of them around.


 


Carol Kaur said:


> Xue Sheng would be so unhappy if we didn't....


 
Xue's got the right idea... Them things are killers!  Get rid of 'em all!


----------



## Carol (Jan 6, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Healthy human digestion does not produce methane; the flammable component in human flatulence is primarily hydrogen, in the form of hydrogen sulfide......
> 
> (the **** I know about ****....:lfao




Can I call you when I'm cramming for my exams in organic chem?  :lfao:


----------



## elder999 (Jan 6, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Can I call you when I'm cramming for my exams in organic chem? :lfao:


 
Yeah, sure. I should amend that, though: healthy humans don't produce _much_ methane......

...flatus will still burn, though, as everyone knows...:lfao:


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 6, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Healthy human digestion does not produce methane; the flammable component in human flatulence is primarily hydrogen, in the form of hydrogen sulfide......
> 
> (the **** I know about ****....:lfao



My missus will be delighted to know this.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 6, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Yeah, sure. I should amend that, though: healthy humans don't produce _much_ methane......
> 
> ...flatus will still burn, though, as everyone knows...:lfao:


I saw that episode of Mythbusters...then theres this guy.





Now, if Al Gore were to do this........


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 6, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Now, if Al Gore were to do this........


----------



## elder999 (Jan 6, 2009)

maunakumu said:


>


 
:lfao:

Not unless he's been eating a lot of _French_ food...:lfao:

(That's a French device, on the island of Mururoa, in French Polynesia.. you can tell by the lack of a lithium ring....what's really cool is that you can see the front of the shockwave at the end of the atoll the camera is on, and the test itself was some thing like 20 miles away....)


----------



## Carol (Jan 6, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I saw that episode of Mythbusters...then theres this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gee.....maybe a guy that forgets to lower the seat and won't put the cap back on the toothbpaste isn't such a bad kinda guy after all!


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 6, 2009)

Interesting that you would point out the shockwave Elder. On the right hand side, would that be a tsunami heading straight for the camera or is the air so heated and compressed that the change in it's index of of refraction has caused it become opaque?


----------



## elder999 (Jan 6, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Interesting that you would point out the shockwave Elder. On the right hand side, would that be a tsunami heading straight for the camera or is the air so heated and compressed that the change in it's index of of refraction has caused it become opaque?


 
Nothing that complex-these were pretty fast photos for the time. In fact, it's possible I'm mistaken about the lithium ring, in that it's too early in the detonation for it to have appeard.What you're seeing there is actually sand kicked up by the very first disturbance in the air to reach the atoll where the camera was located. What you're seeing to the right on the horizon is probably an instrument bouy, and the shadows to left of the mushroom cloud are foliage at the end of the atoll ,or on another, smaller atoll, I'm not sure....mind you, the sound of that detonation hasn't reached where the camera was, another atoll called Fangataufa (?) about 43 km away.

Least, that's the way I've always understood it. I wasn't there....Mind you, if you were standing where that camera is(and someone may well have been) wearing a tie, before the wind really started to buffet you, before any other effects, and before you heard the sound, _your tie, and all your clothes would be pressed tight against your body by the leading edge of the shockwave._ I've experienced this effect-with large detonations of conventional explosives, of course-it's quite......disconcerting.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 8, 2009)

Seen here, on Huffington Post :lol:



> *The question for me is: who the heck is Harold Ambler?*
> And what makes Ambler such an authority on climate science to so confidently make the a claim as bold as global warming being a lie? By the looks of his various bios scattered around the internet it appears that Ambler's background in the area of climate science is non-existent, he is the author of an upcoming book on a rowing team at Brown University and a musician.


 
*and*;



			
				Ariana Huffington said:
			
		

> Harold Ambler reached out to me about posting a critical piece on Al Gore and the environment. We are always open to posts that present opinions contrary to HuffPost's editorial view -- and have welcomed many conservative voices, such as David Frum, Tony Blankley, Michael Smerconish, Bob Barr, Joe Scarborough, Jim Talent, etc., to the site. We have featured also countless posts from the leading lights of the Green movement, including Robert Redford, Laurie David, Carl Pope, Van Jones, David Roberts, and many others -- and I myself have written extensively about the global warming crisis, and have been highly critical of those who refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence.


 
:lfao:


----------



## elder999 (Jan 8, 2009)

As for that "point by point refutation":



> 1. First, the expression "climate change" itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will.


Climate is the averages of the temperatures, humidity, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological factors in a given region over long periods of time, as opposed to the term weather, which refers to , well, _today&#8217;s_ conditions. _It is, by definition, an average_-a set of expectations, whereas &#8220;weather,&#8221; is what you get *today.* These averages and expectations have _changed_ in the past, and are changing now. The issue is what factors the current set of changes is due to, and where they will progress to.



> 2. *snip!*it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide, unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore's graph. You are probably wondering by now -- and if you are not, you should be -- which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? _Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years._


 
This is a fact commonly misconstrued by the &#8220;anti-global warming&#8221; camp. Yes, in the past, CO2 increases were preceded by 800 years or so by temperature increases, but this is misleading. The fact is that the CO2 rise then precedes another 4200 years or so of warming, for a total of 5,00 years of warming. The way it works is explained (in much better &#8220;make it so mom the shrink can understand&#8221; talk than I can offer _:lol: ) __here_ :



> From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.


 
So, the common misconception is that you can only have one or the other, but the fact is that you can have both-heating causes CO2, which causes more heating , AND more CO2 (like mankind has, *unquestionably* added) causes more heating.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 8, 2009)

I'd not heard that before, *Elder*.  Thank you for adding to the sum of knowledge of at least this particular middle-aged Englishman.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 8, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> The average cow eats 100lbs of feed and drinks 40 gallons of water a day. That is 90,000 lbs of food a DAY and 36,00 gallons of water a DAY for the average dairy farm in California.


 
I'd check your facts on these numbers.  I grew up in Wisconsin and spent a bit of time on dairy farms since my uncle ran one and I had friends in school who grew up on them.  At times I was out there and helped with the chores and such.  I don't recall the cattle eating anything like 100 pounds of feed and drinking 40 gallons of water per day.  That just doesn't jive with my memory.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 8, 2009)

I'd concur with the numbers game query there, *FC*.  My first job as a youngster was working on a mixed farm and I certainly don't recall such large 'inputs' into the cow herd.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jan 8, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> I'd check your facts on these numbers. I grew up in Wisconsin and spent a bit of time on dairy farms since my uncle ran one and I had friends in school who grew up on them. At times I was out there and helped with the chores and such. I don't recall the cattle eating anything like 100 pounds of feed and drinking 40 gallons of water per day. That just doesn't jive with my memory.


 
Similarly, I used to live on a small cattle ranch, with a herd of about 20 cows. We fed them 100lbs of feed total every two days, and they remained fat, dumb, and healthy. Now, they weren't dairy cows, and this is personal experience only, but still, each cow didn't eat but 5lbs, give or take. 100lbs a day for one cow seems...excessive, unless that's literally ALL they eat. Most of our herd's sustenance came from grazing. 

*chews his straw of hay and watches a tumbleweed*

P.S. Oh, why are we talking about cow feed in a thread about Al Gore's reliability?  Better scan the thread again.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 9, 2009)

Another thing that seems to upset the global-warming deniers is how clobal warming can cause _colder_ weather. Note that I said "colder weather." Remember, "climate" is the average, "weather" is today. Anyway, the best explanation (in make it so mom the shrink can understand speak) comes not from the world of meteorology, or climatology, but from the world of electronics.

When I was a little boy in New York, sometimes dad would tune up the shortwave, and we&#8217;d listen to the BBC, or French jazz programs, and sometimes the Moscow symphony orchestra. Once, I asked him why we couldn&#8217;t see British or French TV, to which he replied, _I dunno._

(Of course he didn&#8217;t know; he was an Episcopal priest, a psychologist and a history professor. He was a very bright guy, about the most educated person you could meet, but he didn&#8217;t know diddly about how his car ran, let alone electronics. :lfao

Well, I _wanted_ to know, and later on, I found out:the reason why we can receive radio signals from so far away, and not TV signals, is the _ionosphere_, that "crust" of particles that holds the rest of our atmosphere in place, so to speak-the outer layer.. Get this though: the reason that a radio signal travels further than a TV signal is _because it&#8217;s much weaker than a TV signal._

See, the strong TV signal will penetrate the ionosphere from just about any angle, so TV can only be received from line of sight. You might get TV signals from Earth on the Moon or on Mars, but you can&#8217;t get them (through air) from Moscow in New York, because they go out and just keep going. Radio, though, is deflected back to earth because it is too weak to penetrate the ionosphere-so radio signals from Moscow or London bounce off, and are received in New York, or anywhere else.....

Now, think of the Sun as a transmitter, and its light as the powerful TV signal, and its heat as a weaker radio signal. Light will penetrate our ionosphere from just about any angle, with slight refraction at more northern and southern latitudes. Heat is the weak radio signal, and is deflected by the ionosphere at angles, _like the tilt of the earth towards the sun at "winter"_

As we continue to put more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, the ionosphere is strengthened, as are its effects: more heat is deflected at sharp angles like winter. What heat does get through the rest of the time is trapped by the stronger ionosphere-deflected back to earth. Between these two extremes is a gradual change in the amount of heat allowed past the ionosphere, and because cold air is heavier than warm air, warmth is blocked from moving into colder areas, and the coldest air will sit at ground level

The same phenomena occur during winter in temperate regions, when a high-pressure system increases rigidity at, and just below, the ionosphere so that it deflects more heat-carrying rays; thus on bright sunny days in January the temperature is colder than it is during overcast low-pressure weather and why no one ever gets a suntan or sunburn in the dead of winter (unless they go skiing, and get a reflection tan). When the high pressure dissipates, more heat is allowed to enter the atmosphere. High-pressure systems do not greatly affect heat entering the atmosphere during the summer since the rays carrying heat mainly hit the ionosphere head on.

Higher average temperatures will increase evaporation, making a more-humid atmosphere year round, and that added moisture is available for snowstorms; thus heavier snowfall is definitely caused by global warming just as are colder short-term winter temperatures. The heavier air resulting from the higher moisture content of the atmosphere also makes wind storms more destructive.

That is how global warming contributes to colder winter temperatures and heavier snowfall, _for now_: "weather," remember? :lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 9, 2009)

The problem with this analogy is that it implies that the sun's "light" bounces off the earth and turns into "heat".  While this is correct depending the medium the "light" strikes, it ignores the fact that an incredible amount of heat  (infrared) is bombarding the earth at every moment.  If it can get it, it can get out, and it does get out.  The earth is being barraged by a full spectrum of radiation from radio to gamma rays.  Our eyes are evolutionarily biased towards the "visible" portion of this spectrum.

Infrared radiation is still too powerful to be deflected by layers in the atmosphere.  It passes right through unless it hits a molecule that will scatter it in a random direction from either its entry or exit path.  Accordingly, areas with higher concentrations of greenhouse gas both geographically and according to altitude show a higher increase in temperature.  This has been observed of many major cities and over other objects that emit large amounts of greenhouse gas.

Kilauea, for instance, produces more greenhouse gas then any city on earth.  The temperature high about the volcano is markedly different then the temperature surrounding it.

That said, I think the biggest area of research that still needs to be done is the determination of the amounts of greenhouse gasses emitted from all sources.  Humans, volcanoes, oceans, etc, all sources.  When those numbers are clearly differentiated, then the debate is over.  Until then, we get to argue!

Global warming due to greenhouse gas is factual.  The human portion of greenhouse gas emission is far from settled.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 9, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> The problem with this analogy is that it implies that the sun's "light" bounces off the earth and turns into "heat". While this is correct depending the medium the "light" strikes, it ignores the fact that an incredible amount of heat (infrared) is bombarding the earth at every moment. *snip!*.


 

*TMI* for "mom the shrink," dude.:lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 9, 2009)

elder999 said:


> *TMI* for "mom the shrink," dude.:lfao:



Tru dat.

How can expect to have this as a national debate when the scientific particulars are so far out of an under educated populaces reach?


----------



## Ramirez (Jan 16, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Another thing that seems to upset the global-warming deniers is how clobal warming can cause _colder_ weather. Note that I said "colder weather." Remember, "climate" is the average, "weather" is today.  :lfao:



I made that point on another board, that any small sample will be volatile (weather) while a larger sample will show statistical trends (climate) ,and pointing out I have a degree in statistics, I was promptly told by the head denier that it was BS....although my point had less to do with climate and more to do with statistics.

Right now the current cold snap is being uses as "proof" that climate change is not happening...oddly the heat waves in the summer are never cited for proof of the opposite.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 16, 2009)

What bothers me about the whole subject (and this is evidenced by some posts on this thread) is how _political_ it's gotten.

From Jason's unabridged dictionary:

political decision:  any decision based on the source of an idea rather than the merits of the idea itself.

Lots of otherwise bright folks are flat not looking at the evidence and then forming an intelligent opinion.  They are, instead, looking at what their favorite talking head thinks and then dumping hate on everyone who disagrees.

I don't know the real truth here.  It' likely nobody does.  And since the world could *freaking end* if we don't figure it out, wouldn't it be nice if we could approach the question with open minds?

Argh


----------



## elder999 (Jan 17, 2009)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I don't know the real truth here. It' likely nobody does. And since the world could *freaking end* if we don't figure it out, wouldn't it be nice if we could approach the question with open minds?
> 
> Argh


 

THe real truth is that the earth is getting warmer. *Period.* :lol:

Another truth is that conditions are such that the earth would be getting warmer: the sun is a little hotter, our orbit around it is somewhat different, the precessional wobble of the earth is swinging a bit. 

Another truth is that we've added enough greenhouse gas to the atmosphere to say that it hasn't had as high a concentration of CO2 in about *half a million years*, and _the earth was much, much warmer then._

Another truth is that the warming condition is pernicious and exponential: melting arctic ice and diminshed ice cover leads to more warming, because the reflective properties of the ice kept light from the sun from being absorbed by water as heat. More heat means faster melting-faster melting means _*more*_ heat.

Something I posted elsewhere: 'global warming" isn't a full-on theory, in that it's not testable. We can neither prove nor disprove it by altering conditions, as we're not really capable of altering conditions. We could stop emitting CO2 _today_, and it wouldn't make any difference, trendwise, for quite some time.

We really can't alter anything else: can't add salt to the ocean, can't keep the sun from the poles, can't control el Nino or la Nina. And there are far, far too many factors anyway. Best we can do-the thing that makes it a "theory" -is experiment with computer generated models, and make some predictions based upon them.

In the end, though, you needn't worry. Neither the world, or the human race are likely to come to end because of this. Millions of people _who aren't even born yet_  will see an adverse affect on their lives-some already have, but not many. We're also seeing, as I posted earlier, some positive effects-but these are temporary, at best. Of course, "temporary" on this scale could mean the rest of my life, so.....:lfao:

In the end, we'll all get to see, in the years to come, just how right or wrong the science actually is.


----------

