Couple of points.. Peer review isn't perfect, it's just the best system we have. Yes, some peer review processes will be biased, but much, much less than things like popular media and the echo chamber of discussions among non-experts. When I read technical papers on the subject, or survey work harvesting the best information that is out there what I learn several things: Consensus among experts is growing, not declining. Yes there are those that work in the field that are in the denier camps, but their number is small and appears to be dwindling. What does tend to happen is those that want to do nothing cherry pick specific pieces of work, and ignore the best that science has to offer. That is sad, yet effective. FWIW, there was a Pew study on the beliefs of scientists (academic researcher) vs people in the general population. Over 80% (I think it was 83%, but I'm not sure) of the scientists thought that global warming/climate change was real and that the actions of man contribute to significantly to the issue. This is a much, much higher number than in the general population. I was at an event that had a panel discussion about these types of issues. What was crazy was that the CEO of Exxon/Mobile accused the president of the Union of Concerned Scientists of bias because the UCS person wanted to justify research dollars (what's interesting here is that this was Henry Kendel, who was independantly wealty) from the gov but wouldn't talk to the financial benefits to his company of increasing dependance on oil! It was amusing (and telling) that the irony was lost on the CEO. I guess it comes down to some very basic things. The people that I know who are involved in issues like this are very certain (and many of them aren't left leaning tree-huggers) that we're massively screwing the pooch, and that when taken in total, I have yet to see any compelling comprehensive arguement as to why inaction is prudent. At best I read some local or limited arguements as to why one should question one facet of the "change is comming and we're a significant part of the problem" argument. We can also look at track records of environmental alarmists on many issues where there was a denial behaviour from entrenched interests, and the pattern is undeniable over most of recorded human history (This is the subject of the book Collapse! that looks at why societies fail and extracts some very telling signs to look for to be able to tell when a society is at significant risk... It's sobering to read.) The climate change debate fits the fingerprint very, very well. But I'm willing to admit that this pattern matching isn't deterministic, but if the pattern weren't there, I'd rest better at night. Take a look at the IPCC reports and keep in mind that this is a consensus document among experts that is then watered down by committee and political interests. So it states a less severe consensus, otherwise it doesn't get published. Even when diluted by those that want excuses to not act or not change, it's still pretty scary reading. Now we can look at the spectrum of opinions out there: It's bad, we did it, we have to do significant action NOW independant of cost. Whether or not they are right, no one is going to agree to pay the bills. It's bad, we did it, and we have to expend some effort, the sooner the better, to mitigate the potential harms (this is actually where the scientific consensus is right now). We just don't know, so we should just wait and see before doing anything. Both rational people and those that have a vested interest in not changing fall into this camp. But there are some fundimental problems with this position. If you look at projections about what carbon will do in the atmosphere and how screwed we may get, by the time one can resolve the different trajectories between "not that big a deal" and "OMFG! Look at the mess we've made" that if it's the latter, it becomes a hurculean task to do ANYTHING! So coral reefs die massively, wetland areas submerge, ice sheets really screw us over, California looses it's winter snow pack and the like. We take it hard and we take it deep and it's gonna hurt. Not us so much, but many of us will see that we've screwed the proverbial pooch real hard and deep, and our kids and grand kids will live in a vastly different world. This is bad, very, very bad. While it doesn't represent the middle path of possible futures based on what we now know, it has a non-zero probability (this means yes you too are in the flood plain and should buy some insurance against it). Then there's this "this is all BS, we've seen some slight cooling and it's all natural and we should just not worry and be happy" camp. This is grabbing data and abusing it at it's worst. There HAS been some slight global cooling, but it's because of a very slight shift in our orbit. Best we know is that if we hadn't been dumpint carbon into the atmosphere at the rate we have been, then the cooling would have been greater. But it's magnitude is less that the heating that we project from future warming (remember, these things have long lifetimes in the atmosphere, and even if we emitted no carbon now from here on out, it would take a very, very long time for the atmospheric levels to drop to pre-industrial levels.) There's another arguement that I've never heard adiquatly addressed. And that goes as follows: If all the best science we have to date is so screwed up that it can't be trusted, what makes the "don't worry, be happy crowd" so certian that doubling or more the atmospheric CO2 levels will have no negative impact? Why is it prudent to take global actions that have hudreds of years of time to unwind a wise thing to do?" I've never heard any denier come close to ever answering these questions. Closest I ever hear is that there were times in the past in the planet when CO2 levels were much higher so we shouldn't sweat it, but this ignores that at no time in the geologic record have we ever observed atmospheric compositional changes on the time scales that we're doing by using the atmosphere as the industrial dumping ground for pretty much every gasseous waste product we can create. Nor have I ever heard a good argument about why reducing waste is bad business (it's good business, waste is just that wasted resources, it's a cost that is paid from which no usefull activity is derived). Really the only arguement against this one is that the opportunity cost of the investment isn't paid for by the savings, yet there are tons and tons of examples where it does meet the pay back standard, yet no action is taken (check out a Mackensie study on building energy effieciencies for lots and lots of examples). It's not any one thing that has lead me to my position, it's the sum of them all. Could it be wrong? Sure it could, but the chances of it being wrong are getting smaller every day. Matt
Hmmmm. I'd like to see the data behind this. Like you, I have a vested interest in our kids having a better world to live in, not a worse one. But mortgaging our standard of living so China and India can eclipse any temporary reduction we might be able to effect doesn't seem like a solution. If in fact reducing CO2 makes any difference. Which I still doubt. My favorite living scientist, speaking on this topic: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU&feature=related[/ame] And on a novel approach, if indeed we're producing an unhealthy (for the planet) level of carbon emissions: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk&feature=related[/ame] Hmmm. Dr. Dyson tells me we can probably absorb any excess carbon dioxide quickly and easily just by adjusting land use and land management. Dr. Obnxs tells me it will take centuries and be very painful and expensive to correct if we wait just a little longer and be sure, before we start cutting checks to third world countries. Who to believe? Dyson isn't a denier. He's just rational, and not a slave to the climate change finance machine. And he knows that models are garbage in / garbage out. And that they don't account for nearly enough of the mechanisms at work to be reliable, even if the inputs were good.
who said anyting about mortgaging our standard of living? Really, energy efficiency is the fastest way to reduce carbon emissions, and it's a growth industry. Question is, do we want to create the technology of the future and sell it to others, or do we want to buy it later. The assumption that there is significant cost in action that will radically undermine our standard of living ignores the costs of inaction, and also assumes that the costs of action are stratospheric. why? All the best we have that addresses the situation says it makes a difference, the question is really how much of a difference. Why not believe it? If you respect and belive Dyson, he says it's an issue that we ought to be dealing with now. well, if you belive him and respect him, listen to him. He's not saying the the computer models are worthless, he says that they are overfunded vs other things. Also he points out that they have very large uncertainties in ground tempurature prediction, but also says that if you look at carbon dioxide, and stratospheric cooling, the links are much better understood, the models are much better, and the results are already observable. So he's not saying the modelling is useless, he's saying that modelling surface tempurature variation is very very hard, but that computer modelling on other observables is very doable and very inciteful. On a comment directly from his interview "waiting (to do something about it) is utterly rediculous". Now there's a problem here. The first attempts at climate modeling didn't take into account the sourcing and sinking of CO2 in the oceans. They now do. While I don't know much about the CO2 flux into and out of biomass, this is an active area of work, and is being included into the models as well. This is an example of improving the inputs, and instead of an example of why models are useless, is an example of why modelling is getting better. Also, look at recent work on the issue. A group at Berekely was looking at carbon storage in the ground of wild areas (like the planes) vs carbon stored in the ground in farmed land. Turns out that this carbon is also very large, and liberating it really undermines corn based ethanol even more (corn industry didn't like that). So while he says that there is little understanding of the flux of CO2 into biomass, the amount is growing every day. And it's not a pretty picture for atomospheric CO2. He cites net flux into the brazilian rain forest as a good thing, yet no matter what people do, the rainforest is shrinking day by day due to local concerns about making money. Land management issues are thorny ones as well. since we can't get any action on the low hanging fruit of carbon now, what makes anyone think we can turn the magic "land managment knob" to affect change in the future? He's claiming that this may be a cheaper way to mitigate carbon emissions, and I honestly don't know if it's true or not, but he's not saying don't act on the issue, he's saying act in different ways. Another example of how new knowlege gets into the climate change mix is methane trapped in polar ice. Turns out there is a butt load of it. If warming does happen and ice is effected, then the release of methane from these resevoirs will have a positive feedback effect on warming. Yet another example of how new information is getting worked on and incorporated into the mix. Interesting that he cites work by Jason... For those of you who don't know what Jason is, it's a group of really smart people who are tasked with thinking about severe and important issues. They are the ones that look at issues like do we need a new nuclear warhead or is our current nuclear arsonal safe and reliable (turns out it's safe and reliable, for hundreds of years...). Anyway, I know another member of Jason, and his take is somewhat different. It's more in the camp that "we're screwed, not as much as Al Gore implies, but it's coming, it's not really stoppable, and we'll have to do our best to deal with it." Also, his statements about carbon problems being "very, very far away" is open to debate. Talking to other experts, I've been told that we're looking at 50-150 years to see real changes. But even at this time scale, the changing will keep happening for much much longer. If you look at the time constants of the lifetimes of the molecules in the atmosphere, it's hundreds to many thousands of years for the ones that matter (Some are much shorter, yes, so thier time averaged impact isn't that big a deal. They kind of take care of themselves, so to speak.) If you look at the time constants of forests and trees, we're looking at (For softwoods) on the order of a hundred years plus or minus a factor of two. If you look at farmed vegitation, you're looking at a timescale of a year. So even if you assume that biomass storage is a way to go, how many plants or trees do you have to grow over what time to make a real effect? Over what area? Interesting math to be sure. How will one get this done? Here's the bad news. Rich developed countries will write checks to poor contries because the land in the rich countries is developed and expensive, and in the poor countries is relatively cheap. listen to both, Dyson says to wait for action is folly, not because of climate models, but because of other issues that are more observable. He suggests other ways to act than turning off all coal plants, but he does say action is required. I personally think he's understating the problem of dealing with carbon, after all, biomass is a temporary storage medium, eventually the trees die, they decay and they release thier carbon. It's more of a buffer. you are selectively listening to your own reference. Go back and listen to what he has to say about the stratospheric cooling, and ozone holes. Based on this sound modelling and understanding, he says action is prudent. He just doesn't say that the action of cutting down on the use of carbon is the cheapest way to go about it. It would be interesting to hear his position on the fact that biomass is temporary storage, and he doesn't speak at all on inducing our nation in financially beneficial conservation methods (like via building codes and efficiency standars that have proven track records and actually save money over time). I'm betting he'd say that they are good ideas. I'd also love to hear how he thinks that land use based carbon policy is any easier than energy use based carbon policy. Matt
No - I heard all that - and get it - as I said, he's not a denier - but just presents a more rational Climate Change view - and a much more rational view of the value of the models. ALL the justification the public hears about this issue are "hockey stick graphs" and computer models and surface warming... Dyson certainly expresses a lower sense of urgency than many others, and other less intrusive approaches to addressing the problem. I have nothing against energy efficiency - I help clients design energy efficient data centers for a living - and in some states that's cost justifiable, and in others it isn't, depending on electricity rates. But conceptually, it's a good thing. But the current Cap and Trade schemes are aimed squarely at pushing the US off it's current standard of living. Yes, some viable alternative energy and energy efficiency improvements will surface - the market will do that. But there's absolutely a transfer of wealth component in the schemes that have been presented. Tax the economically successful regions, transfer the wealth to the less economically successful regions. Penalize us for being the evil successful carbon emitting guys, and spread the wealth... It's maddening to me that we already have a clean source of energy available... but it's treated as a hot potato by the politicians. I have nothing against measured investments in wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and whatever else is interesting. But there's already a cost-effective low carbon emissions megawatt producer available - let's just build more of that... NOW - if the sky is really falling. Even if I accept Dyson's position outright, and discount all dissenting views - the sense of urgency being driven in Copenhagen is based on..... models. We can observe all kinds of things happening. That doesn't mean we can predict with any degree of certainty - nor does it mean that we understand the mechanisms which are driving what we're observing. The degree of intrusion and economic impacts we're discussing are so large in scope and scale, we better be darn sure that action is required and urgent. .... but trying to get there will certainly cost a lot of money and reduce standard of living as a result... There was strong consensus that stress caused stomach ulcers.... recently.... and that's a pretty darn simple thing to observe compared to what we're discussing here... and the consensus was wrong. How? Bad science? Group think? IF I acknowledge that (a) we are increasing CO2, (b) increasing CO2 causes warming, and (c) we're seeing that happen right now before our eyes... so what? Temperatures were higher 1000 years ago... with no catastrophic effects. Just better farming in Iceland.
Where I'm coming from. I distinctly remember being in kindergarten or the first grade. living in Peoria, IL, and being told the world's getting colder, that winters will be worse and worse, and food supplies will dwindle so it's important for us to conserve food and resources for the coming ice age. While most kids I think dismissed this it terrified me. A decade later the word cooling had been replaced with warming; the world's getting warmer, summers will be worse, and food supplies will dwindle from drought. 10 years after that the rhetoric behind this has become more and more alarmist and I've decided not to be fooled by this again, I'm looking for rational science and discussion about this. I was rereading a book published in the 70s about the so-called cooling effect. They cited a trend of recorded decreasing temperatures beginning around 1940 and decreasing crop productions, etc. etc. Here's an old Newsweek article I found reflecting the science of the time: Newsweek on the cooling world My conclusion, we really don't know as much as we think and climate science is still a very young and developing field of research with too much variance to make sweeping and radical changes based on. Lets push for conservation with known and proven sciences, saving our resources, decreasing reliance on foreign commodities, and improving air and water quality, let's not go around attacking CO2 in a sort of witch hunt.
I think you're massivly wrong... and to be blunt, you're cherry picking. The consensus of what is going to happen to climate is not based soley on surface climate modelling. That's just wrong. It is true to say that this is one of the more common items of discussion too. It's easy to look a local or short term effects and use them as justifications for complaceny. One could say that this is built into human nature. I've raised very good questions about why the notion of using biomass as carbon mitigation isn't as simple as it sounds, and sound reasons why it's not that good an idea. There has been no addressing those concerns. I've also pointed out that even if the "land use knob" is a very good one, that it is unlikely to be any easier to turn than the current knobs that are in play (in face, people are already trying to turn it, with almost no effect: rain forest preservation is failing in the brazillian basin, and population growth pretty much everywhere else is causing MORE deforestation, not less. These pressures are undeniable and evident. You keep on claiming that action requires massive sacrafice, when that's just not in evidence. You deny that there is lots of action that can be taken that actually makes money that can reduce energy consumption. Yet for tons of reasons they keep being ignored. You asked why I belive what I belive, and I gave you sound reasons. You also presented dissenting views, but those from Dyson really just say don't look at surface tempurature models, look at other atmospheric models, yet he still thinks the need to act now is urgent. Yet you still insist that wait and see or only minor action is prudent. You claim that you understand the insurance analogy, are presented with really tragic outcomes that are possible, even if not that likely, yet insist on not insuring against them. The outcomes that are best guess for likely aren't really that appealing either, yet no insurance against them either! you are presented with the information about the resisdency times of gasses in the upper atmosphere, and information about the time constants of some competing mitigation techniques, yet choose not to see that this really does put some dents in the "just turn the land use knob" argument. you are presented with the argument that the land use knob involves the very same economic impact issues (sorry, you can't develope that land, we have to use it as a carbon sink, take your anticipated profits and jobs they create and stuff them) yet choose to believe that it's a much more simple method of mitigation even when Dyson says he THINKS it's a better way to go, but admits that it's an area of emerging work. Guess what, the work is ongoing, and it is correct that there is lots of carbon storage potential via biomass, but it's temporary and yet our species on it's current trajectory is RELEASING carbon from biomass, not storing it there. There is a further weakness in the notion of using biomass, and this is it requires water. Water is getting more and more scarce. OK farmers, we're cutting back on your water allocation this year to grow some longer lasting carbon sinks. It's another administrative, economic and political hurdle for the proposed carbon storage technique to overcome. Another point is that these types of mitigation techniques don't address basic efficiency of resource use, and are more of a crutch. Not releasing the carbon is the best solution there is, yet biomass storage doesn't address that. Also, if one emits at current rates and uses biomass to store, the land area required is the integral of the rate of carbon generation over the time that it's generated (this isn't exactly true, once land is diverted for carbon storage, it will have a carbon capture rate that is some function of it's age). Really, even if the biomass storage is viable as a part of a total solution, it's just one of many techniques that will be required. We'll need the conservation, the biomass, the nuclear, the solar, the wind based and on and on to have any chance at serious carbon release reduction. And what if Dyson's guess is wrong? That the biomass lever isn't a larger, faster and cheaper knob? Then guess what, more time has passed, there is less time to act effectively, and just like the person who waits till they are old to buy life insurance, the cost of the policy has risen. You've completely ignored the arguement that if the best we can come up with it BS, that there can be any way to know about the prodigeous generation of atmospheric gasses and thier effects, instead taking a "head in sand" approach that say "well, if there's no real good way to know it's bad, we'll just assume it's benign" based on what? Doubling or more of atmospheric CO2 already has observable effects in ocean pH, and the results are not good. So where does certainty on benign outcomes from this massive, unintended geoengineering come from? this one I find very baffling. It's just not logically supportable. If our lack of understanding means that we can't trust predictions of harm, our lack of understanding also means that we can't trust our predictions of lack of harm. The logic is inexcapable and is more support for buying insurance. Usually I just step back from discussions about subjects like this, because I can't seem to get any rational discussion going. Seems like everyone is stuck in a rut (some may accuse me of this as well, but I'm willing to listen to or read dissenting views and will modify my position based on them.) What I come up with from the Dyson vids you provided is that I should learn more about biomass capture. I've also learned that in 12 minutes of discussion, there is no way for anyone to address the subject full, when it is just one of several subjects that are discussed at one time. But I'll learn more about it and see where it leads. My guess is that it's a nice idea that was presented in an oversimplified form in the interview, and like all things that require global agreement and adoption, will run into many, many more hurdles than anticipated at first. That's just the nature of anything big. But we'll see. Matt
Found a site that looks very interesting.... RealClimate: Climate Science from Climate Scientists.... Someone posted something about Dysons views there too. Click here to go straight to it. I also learned that Dysons vids are over two years old. A lot has happened in the area of biomass mitigation/sequestration since then, FWIW... Matt
I read a nice analogy to the climate change discussion today, about how wide the pool of 'experts' is. The maintenance engineers of the airline you want to fly on say that they think the plane sitting at the departure gate has a serious technical problem and there's a 50/50 chance of it not making the destination. However we've asked the engineer who charges up the electric baggage tractors and the engineer who maintains the airport's air conditioning and they both say that the plane looks just fine to them and all this 'wings falling off' stuff is just nonsense designed to put airport guys out of work. You'd still fly, right? I really am unsure about the economic argument. If I and lots of other guys want to buy Minis, that stimulates the economy and increases national wealth (well, my national wealth, since I live in Britain). But if I and lots of guys want to buy CO2 capture kit, that will depress the economy and decrease national wealth. Of course Mini or CO2 capture kit isn't a nice choice, but how come one leads to joy while the other leads to ruin? Andrew
Matt - you're right. I'm wrong. Feel free to keep going to bed at night thinking we're screwed. Sorry to bother you.
That's not what I'm looking for you asked my why I believe what I do. I took the time to answer honestly. You wrote some stuff about why you don't believe what I do, I took the time to write rebuttals and flaws in argument structure. Now you'll just give up on the explanation? Why? I took the time to listen to Dyson, actually may learn something from it. I also pointed out some of the points that he made are actually counter to your position, even though you say you use his perspective for guidance. Now you throw in the towel? Why, I really doubt that I conviced you based on argument, seems like you just don't want to carry the conversation any farther. Either way, that's OK. I hope that my grand kids come across this and wonder how I could be so far from the truth, but I fear that your grand kids will be the ones wondering how you could have been so firm in your beliefs. Now we have the EPA finding that CO2 is under thier perview.. My times are a changing! Matt
Would you believe that first engineer if he were basing his 50/50 evaluation off the consumption of peanuts over the last 20 flights of that plane's 30 year history of service? You're right in this response. The free-market has already begun responding with the creation of the so-called Green economy, but just like any other free-market system there are those looking to profit through less than honest means who are taking the alarmist responses straight to the bank and doing nothing for the perceived problem. I personally think the green economy is a bubble like the US housing bubble and dot-com bubble before it (there was a commodities bubble in there somewhere too) and so I'm somewhat heavily invested in it at the moment. In the not too distant future though we'll move on to another bubble and the green businesses that don't actually have a solid business plan backing them will gradually fail. The economic impact argument comes more from the governments actions in all this. The government doesn't make anything you can buy, they can only tell you or businesses what to do. Typically this comes at the expense of the taxpayers or at increased operating costs to the businesses which are passed directly on to the consumer. Now we've responded and adapted to these actions in the past, cars are indeed safer with airbags and seatbelts and the air is cleaner with catalytic converters and emissions but the price of cars did go up as a result and these costs were passed onto a consumer. It's foolish to think there will be no negative financial impact from actions such as these, despite their efforts the government doesn't produce money out of nowhere.
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants. At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished. CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide. CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
Deviant, The coming Ice age, I clearly remember that. So here's an article from Gary Sutton. http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/cli...gy-sutton.html The Fiction Of Climate Science Gary Sutton, 12.04.09, 10:00 AM EST Why the climatologists get it wrong. Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age." Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age." In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age." You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed's mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work. In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines. Last year, I went back. That fresco is painted over. The same curve hides behind smoked glass, shrunk to three feet but showing the same cooling trend. Hey, why should the Smithsonian put its tax-free status at risk? If the politicians decide to whip up public fear in a different direction, get with it, oh ye subsidized servants. Downplay that embarrassing old chart and maybe nobody will notice. Sorry, I noticed. It's the job of elected officials to whip up panic. They then get re-elected. Their supporters fall in line. Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes. His PR folks say he's "carbon neutral" due to some trades. I'm unsure of how that works, but, maybe there's a tribe in the Sudan that cannot have a campfire for the next hundred years to cover Al's energy gluttony. I'm just not sophisticated enough to know how that stuff works. But I do understand he flies a private jet when the camera crew is gone. The fall of Saigon in the '70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice age. Science's prediction of "A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age," came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the "global cooling" in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue. That armadillo caveat seems reminiscent of today's tales of polar bears drowning due to glaciers disappearing. While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don't lie. Their growth rings show what's happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales. Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn't have stood a chance against a baby iceberg. Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans. Today, as I peck out these words, the weather channel is broadcasting views of a freakish and early snow falling on Dallas. The Iowa state extension service reports that the record corn crop expected this year will have unusually large kernels, thanks to "relatively cool August and September temperatures." And on Jan. 16, 2007, NPR went politically incorrect, briefly, by reporting that "An unusually harsh winter frost, the worst in 20 years, killed much of the California citrus, avocados and flower crops." To be fair, those reports are short-term swings. But the longer term changes are no more compelling, unless you include the ice ages, and then, perhaps, the panic attempts of the 1970s were right. Is it possible that if we put more CO2 in the air, we'd forestall the next ice age? I can ask "outrageous" questions like that because I'm not dependent upon government money for my livelihood. From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status. Sadly, the public just learned that our scientific community hid data and censored critics. Maybe the feds should drop this crusade and focus on our health care crisis. They should, of course, ignore the life insurance statistics that show every class of American and both genders are living longer than ever. That's another inconvenient fact. Gary Sutton is co-founder of Teledesic and has been CEO of several other companies, including Knight Protective Industries and @Backup. Interesting huh?
Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations So its not going to make any differance what the congress votes on in reguards to Cap and Trade, the EPA is going to do an end run around us all no matter what the will of the people is. So I can see sometime ( in the very near future ) you co-worker is going to sue you because you are exhaling C02 and its damaging his health, or all livestock as well as a few people I know will be put down because the Methane they produce is dangerous and the next time you go to dentist you wont get nitous because its killing you... Give me a break, its all JUNK SCIENCE........
Luckily, all it takes to undo an EPA ruling is an Administration change. Which is coming soon if things continue on their current course.