Comments tico89 has made

It's evolution

Maybe Krauthammer has invented his own theory completely disproving Newton's Laws of Motion and is preparing his ground before unleashing them on the unsuspecting public.

What people (like Krauthammer) always seem to miss about science is that it doesn't stay static, it evolves. This much more often that actually being disproved. So when scientists talk about uncertainties, they don't mean that next week someone else will come along about invent a new theory; they mean that soon someone else will come along and expand on the theory. Relativity and particle physics came along to expand on Newton. Other theories like superstrings try and reconcile it all.

The problem is that non-scientists have a tendency to view scientific theories as absolutes. It must state exactly this, and if a new theory states something dissimilar, then the old one must be wrong. Scientists occasionally bark up the wrong branch for a while, but it's extremely unlikely that they're barking up the wrong tree.

Science adapts to new findings. As we increasingly seem to be seeing around us, it's the humans that are having trouble doing that.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Oceania?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'Oceania', jabailo. Are you referring to that 'continent' (it's always a bit hard to know how to classify it) that includes huge numbers of tiny Pacific islands that will slowly disappear off the map as sea levels rise? That includes Australia, a country hit by drought and so worried about climate change they basically voted in a new Prime Minister to sign up for Kyoto? Just wondered.

Actually, I agree with you Viridian. He is kind of fun to have around, and I'm fairly sure he's the longest lasting troll we've ever had on here. The day I don't see his comments all over Gristmill, I will feel a twinge of regret at the loss of such a brilliant source of humour. He could even believe in AGW, and merely be a brilliant satirist of the denier viewpoint.

Apropos La Niña: is it just me, or are these events becoming more and more frequent? I remember reading once you expect them a couple of times a decade, but we just had an El Niño the year before last. On Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Which were the other five?

I suppose the one 65 million years ago is one.On Green group files lawsuit to protect 681 species posted 1 year, 8 months ago 8 Responses

CO2 v others

Interesting how CO2 is always considered to be the prime villain when talking about climate change and greenhouse gases. Obviously in most cases it is, but I wouldn't have thought the same applied for aviation.

The 'atmosfair' link had a lot about CO2 and just mentioned the other pollutants in passing. Understandable as it pointed out you can't take them all into account as otherwise the calculator would be horrendously complicated. But, the last time I checked, C02 from aviation was 2% of global totals, compared with 4% from shipping. Everyone always assumes CO2 is the big one, but it always seemed to me the biggest villain from aviation was water vapour, because of its effect at those altitudes.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Galileo...sigh

Considering he didn't even employ PR agents, Galileo really did a great job of distorting the facts for future generations. Or maybe the future generations did the distorting because for some reason they liked Galileo.

He didn't invent the telescope, or throw anything off the Torre Pendente in Pisa; and the fact that he worked with the 'Copernican' model is a pretty big giveaway that he didn't come up with it himself.

I'm not trying to lessen his accomplishments, just point out that it wasn't all himself. Theories do not become accepted merely through the "humble reasoning of a single individual"--while a single individual may come up with the theory, using the work of others as well as his own, they become scientifically accepted after many others have found them to work.

I rather think that's where 'consensus', the #1 word seemingly most hated by deniers, comes into the pictures.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Good article about glaciers...

...in today's Observer/Guardian here.

Water is the new oil, I guess. I just wonder which will run out first.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Anyway...

...why are you quibbling over the use of one word? It seems to me the rather more noticeable aspect of that paragraph is the stuff about Bush. Obviously not very newsworthy, as it's what you expect, but still, isn't that more worthy of notice?

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Is Obama's climate plan missing something?

No, definitely not.

In fact, it's got a lot of stuff I wouldn't mind if it was missing. Like expanding biofuels, and the twin oxymorons of clean coal and safe nuclear.

Still, I guess it could be worse. The rest sounds all right.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Well, there you go...

Go back to pumping as much dust and other cooling agents as possible into the atmosphere, to counter the heating effect of carbon dioxide. Then, as the world starts to cool, up the amount of CO2. Then up the amount of cooling particles.

Problem solved.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Then there's the other strategy...

There's the so-called 'Hitler' strategy, although I firmly believe it's been around a lot longer than that, that you've outlined. Then there's the other strategy, that appears to have been used against Mr Reid--what I call the 'can't see the wood for the trees' strategy (although 'refuse to see the wood...' would be more accurate I suppose).

It works a bit like this. You don't like a comment or speech that someone has made, but you don't have the ammunition to counter it? Go into nitpicking mode, look through for one small inconsistency or exaggeration, and immediately trumpet that the person is clearly unreliable; refusing to see the bigger picture. Seen employed by deniers worldwide, such as in the 'but this was a cold winter/weak hurricane season/freezing day' arguments.

I thought it was a pretty good speech, the bit quoted at the end, if the statistics are completely accurate.

Btw, "they would consume Page 9 of 12 114 million gallons"? Better than consuming Page 10 of it, I suppose...

Sorry, just proving that no one is free from nitpicking.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Save Earth. Save yourself. Don't screw up.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

It's the problem with a system...

...where a president lasts only 4 years, at least 2 of which he's either settling in or campaigning for re-election, and ending up with more than a month when he's still president despite his successor having already been chosen. It give a perfect excuse for never getting anything done.

As for the quotes, Upton's is complete waffle, 99% of which is meaningless. He might as well just have said, "We're doing nothing until China and India set a lead, and probably not even then." And Joe Barton...his name sounds so much like Joey Barton (English football player who keeps getting arrested for violent behaviour and showing his behind to the crowd).

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

If you're drinking coffee from Starbucks...

...in the first place, it's already obvious that you don't care much about the environment, or animals, or where the coffee comes from. So no wonder many people don't order organic milk.On Starbucks will no longer offer organic milk posted 1 year, 10 months ago 6 Responses

It's kind of fun, though...

And I don't agree that it makes no sense. Perhaps the finished product seems to go off on a tangent suddenly, but if you look the movie up, it makes sense what they were trying to do: make a film about someone being outcast because they're different (bla bla, like so many of these seemingly identical films). Then, they decided to throw in an environmental message when they were struggling for a way to finish it. According to Wiki:

According to the director, George Miller, the environmental message was not a major part of the original script, but "In Australia, we're very, very aware of the ozone hole," he said, "and Antarctica is literally the canary in the coal mine for this stuff. So it sort of had to go in that direction." This influence led to a film with a more environmental tone. Miller said, "You can't tell a story about Antarctica and the penguins without giving that dimension."

It's a pity that environmental messages are now merely considered to be a way of selling a product, in the same way as members of the family Spheniscidae are considered to be cute money-spinners. But, sigh, I guess that's the only way forward.

Btw, am I the only person to be annoyed by the fact no one can use the word "literally" properly? Australia isn't "literally the canary in the coal mine", it's literally a large country in the Southern Hemisphere. Metaphorically, on the other hand...

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Why not whom?

Since when is it pretentious to want to use language properly? (I know, it has been for a long time.) You wouldn't "You're speaking to he?", so why is "You're speaking to who?" completely accepted? But then, maybe I'm just choosy, I still get annoyed about split infinitives. And the utter inability of the vast majority of people to use apostrophes and the letter 's' properly.

Anyway, is it just me, or did the grammatical debate, seeing as it had nothing to do with the original post, merely emphasise the pointlessness of discussing Gore's endorsement?

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Wonderful Imagery

About drawing the line in the sand...reminded me of that scene in the film Madagascar, where the animals are in a very serious predicament (lost on an island they don't know, far away from home), and the only thing they can do is squabble childishly, drawing lines in the sand. For some reason, the picture of someone (from the US) childishly squabbling instead of paying attention to the serious predicament reminds me of the current situation...odd...

The thing I don't understand is why the US gets away with acting like a hard-to-get, beautiful, rich girl: "you change everything to fit what I want, and maybe I'll agree to sign it." Couldn't anyone call their bluff, like Gore seemed to be trying to do?

As for 'prejudging', the definition I found for that was as follows:

To judge beforehand without possessing adequate evidence.

So what evidence do they want?

Sigh. But well done for applauding. By the way, I missed the specific article in any English-language media, but a local paper here translated and paraphrased Gore as saying, not just what is quoted above, but to leave a space open for Bush's successor. Does anyone know if he was really that explicit? Or did the words go through various misadventures en route?

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Yup, Berk's a nut

But the US does seem to hate/mistrust the UN, not just limited to beings like Berk, thinking it's a threat to their sovereignty, and while the US hates the UN, we're not going to get anywhere.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

And the rest of the world?

The 2007 hurricane season provides no evidence against the theory of human-caused global warming.

Of course not. For a start, this is the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season we're talking about. How about other parts of the world, not affected by dust? Bangladesh and its thousands dead from Cyclone Sidr springs to mind.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Congratulations, Australia

(Words I thought would never cross my lips...)

I just wish the new PM had a more positive-sounding name...K. Rudd doesn't really encourage optimism about the country's future...

Just a minor point - isn't "supports the Kyoto Protocol" a bit of a woolly phrase? It seems to me there's a wide variation of possible stances on Kyoto - such as signed but pending ratification (is that supporting or not), or passed in some branches of the government but not in all. As I said, just a minor point, but one that often occurs to me when people talk about "supporting".

It's amazing the way the government has completely altered over the course of one election, although it could have been easily predicted looking at the trends in previous years. Does this mean there's no more space for ostriches like Howard? I wonder if something similar can happen in the next US elections...

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Oh, and for those saying it means nothing...

As with all prizes, awarded as opposed to being actually won (most of all the Oscars), the Nobel Peace Prize is essentially meaningless; and as such I see no reason why Gore shouldn't win it, it being more a recognition than anything concrete.

However, for those making fun of it because of there being such notable nominees as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Benito Mussolini:

[S]ince nomination requires only support from one qualified person (e.g., a history professor), these unusual nominations do not represent the opinions of the Nobel committee itself.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

My thoughts precisely, picoallen

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

My favourite headline...

...was a subtitle in the Guardian:

President claims he can lead world on emissions

I couldn't find anywhere he used those exact words...but it would be great if he did.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Who's the enemy?

The advantage (?) of a war is that it unites the people against a common enemy, calling on phony nationalism to make people fight against an enemy they don't know and usually would otherwise hate a great deal less than they hate the leaders of their own country.

So, who's the enemy here? Seems to be tending towards blaming the climate, except isn't the climate what we're supposed to be protecting?

The problem is the enemy is right in among us--even ourselves. People don't like that, they'd rather concentrate on a practically non-existent enemy abroad. So I don't think a war analogy works. Unless 'climate change' is turned into an enemy itself. "The war on 'climate change'". Pick something abstract. Worked with terror.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Yes, well, this is Grist...

I find Grist refreshing and entertaining, from time to time, and I do get the point Dave is trying to make here. I'm not going to start flying in a private jet just because celebrities I don't give a damn about do - in fact, if anything, it inspires me to do the opposite. But the fact is, I find Grist's adoration of celebrities, frankly, pathetic.

I don't give a shit about Streisand's entourage

Well, that's not what you'd say if you were mentioning her on your stupid Grist List. Yes, you should be consistent. Either every action of celebrities should be followed, or they should be ignored. But this hero-worshipping and foot-licking is disgusting.

I no longer find Grist refreshing, with the same tired old jokes, and I no longer find it particularly entertaining. It's not a place where rational people can discuss; and if what the Radar article quotes as your response to them is a literal quote, then you should be ashamed of yourself.

All that this article has done is make me agree with something said by jabailo. So that's what Grist has come to. I don't know if I'll be back.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Talking of fires...

How about the wildfires raging through Europe, places from Greece to the Canary Islands. As a result of an uncommonly large heat-wave. Surely that's releasing plenty of carbon emissions. And if the planet gets warmer, does this mean this is yet another feedback that will spiral out of control?

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Riots are honest

It's said that riots degrade the reputation of environmentalist groups, but as long as they aren't seen to be backing them, it's worth remembering that riots are the only pure means of fighting a cause. If you think something is worth getting off the sofa or even fighting for, then obviously you care about it. Discussions, meetings, agreements, and all these typical mechanisms get so bogged down and dirtied by compromise that you never get anywhere.

And incidentally, though I know you're only quoting this, literally "Santo Domingo Somos Todos" translates as "We are All Santo Domingo", which is even more poignant if you think about it.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Frankly, I don't give a damn...

...what Ben Affleck has to say for himself. I've never actually seen anything with him in it, which I suppose must be a bit of a shock given my age, and I couldn't care less about his opinion, or those of any of this horde of overpaid, under-talented so-called 'celebrities'. I'm beginning to think I'm in a hopeless minority, however, although some of the above comments give me a little hope.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

After all, humans are a part of nature

We try and ignore it, and either say we're saving nature or saving humanity, but surely it's both, as GreenEngineer said?

As for the doom and gloom point of view, in my opinion trying to paint a pretty picture of the future just to be liked and to cheer people up is plainly irresponsible. In the same way, refusing to do anything about global crises because it seems too difficult to do anything is double irresponsible. Obviously "we're doooommeed....doooommed" doesn't help much either, but humanity is more likely to make major changes if we see the dangers, than if it seems like just a little bit can help. "Someone else can do that..."

It's not defeatism, it's realism. Doesn't the upsurge in 'reality' shows prove people are interested in reality? (Actually, it proves the opposite: they're interested in watching reality and not being a part of it. Theory blown.)

I'm not quite sure if this has been said before, or is off on a tangent, I  didn't have much time to do more than scan the comments, but I think JMG's wrong about the dangers of economic growth. Some, certainly, but when it comes to energy use, it seems there's two options. Regress with energy use, or try and head towards technological advancements. Regressing would take us through all the 20th century oil use and irresponsible bandying around with nuclear power, through to the coal of the industrial revolution. By the time you get back to a sustainable way of life, it may sustain the planet but certainly not humanity.

Forwards, on the other hand, takes us into the realms of much more efficient ways of exploiting renewable energy, or of using current energy resources. There is a way forward, economically, though mass consumerism doesn't help.

If I'm totally lost, ignore, please.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

"if you don't take this pill, you'll be...

...dead by this evening."

"Can I wait till tomorrow, just to make sure?"

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Shame

$249. And I just bought a new notebook yesterday for $1900.

Do people really go through PCs that fast? Computers in my house last an average of 3 years (the average being brought down by buying an hp). Anyway, it seems a bit early to jump on this bandwagon, but you never know.

On another note, am I the only person irritated by that wretched phrase "save the planet"? As in "you save on electricity bills and you save the planet by reducing CO2 emissions". I mean, I suppose it's nice having people running around determined to save the planet, but it'll take a hell of a lot more than simply buying a new computer. And there's a lot more wrong with the planet than just CO2 emissions, if it comes to that.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Nice smirk

I like the grin you seem to have on your face (unless it's just a camera effect) when Hannity and the CEI guy were spouting off their rubbish - encapsulated just how laughable their arguments were much better than any words could have done.

I think you did a reasonable job, given that fox doesn't actually believe in debate, it believes in hiring people who can outshout the guests, and you didn't really let yourself be outshouted.

The private jet argument is, to a certain extent, a valid point. Nevertheless, two wrongs don't make a right certainly springs to mind. Or, for that matter, the following exchange:

"My doctor told me that if I fix up my diet, I may be able to live an extra ten years, and save my family from having to look after me so much."

"Oh, are you following his advice then?"

"No. He's overweight, so he can't be right."

And then there's such a thing as mitigation. Environmental activists who use their private jets to get around and spread awareness, have probably more of a right to use them than some git who makes a living making fun of people who know a lot more than he does on a channel not renowned for inspiring respect.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

I like this bit

"All the graphs [The Great Global Warming Swindle] showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

Well, you're not supposed to...

Oh, and this bit:

Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment.

I'll bet.On It's Not the Sun posted 2 years, 4 months ago 2 Responses

Tenth?

Correct me if I'm wrong, or have missed something, but why is

cutting gas consumption by nearly a tenth...equivalent to each driver taking a one-month holiday from driving each year.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Not to mention Lula

Not to mention Lula:

"The Brazilian position is clear cut," Mr Lula said. "I cannot accept the idea that we have to build another group to discuss the same issues that were discussed in Kyoto and not fulfilled.

"If you have a multilateral forum [the UN] that makes a democratic decision ... then we should work to abide by those rules [rather than] simply to say that I do not agree with Kyoto and that I will develop another institution."
...
"I am open-minded about talking to President Bush ... I will never refuse to discuss any idea, but we should respect the decisions made in the multilateral forums. It is the only thing we have all agreed on in a democratic way," he said. "If the US is the country that most contributes with greenhouse gases, in the world, it should assume more responsibility to reduce emissions."

Now, if we could just get him to rethink his take on biofuels...

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

The cause

More and more experts are saying global warming is as grave a threat to our national security (PDF) as terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

It sounds more like global warming will be a catalyst for grave threats like terrorism and nuclear proliferation. After all, it's not global warming itself that's a threat (a few degrees warmer? Air conditioning can deal with that). It's what it causes, especially among those who can't manage a move to the tundra once it becomes a tropical paradise, and famine, drought and floods spread through their own lands.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

All may not be lost...

Oh well, at least it looks as if Britain and Germany may actually be going to stand up to Bush on his revolutionary new world-saving climate strategy. Then again, it may just be hot air.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

So you can be both alarmist and uncertain?

Scientists are trying to be uncertain to get more money, but at the same time trying to alarm people into giving them more funding? Surely it's got to be one or the other.

It's sad that even scientists have lost their credibility, and become more human in the public eye. More people seem to believe politicians. And that's alarming.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Outstanding work

How is it that something so inhospitable can be so beautiful? I suppose that's part of it in a sense (no McDonald's!). Also, how can somewhere so almost deadly to humans be so vulnerable? It really is a sobering consideration.

That's interesting about you not having considered the effects of mountain glaciers melting. Lack of drinking water in developing nations was one of the first things that worried me about warming temperatures and retreating glaciers (not lack of opportunities to ski). Not a criticism, I seriously found the different viewpoints interesting.

I suppose everyone has their own favourite pet global warming disaster.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Dancing coal?

To add to David's off-topic dancing lumps of coal post, I also have never seen them. I too run Firefox with Adblock Plus, but I was so intrigued by the idea that I opened the site in Internet Explorer, to see what these ads are like (no I don't usually go out of my way to look at ads--special case!). Still no dances, though the privacy report claimed to have blocked several external website images, which I'm guessing were the ads.

Just thought you might like to have a look at whether your ads actually reach any significant proportion of the population reading Grist.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Do they really want to bring the Bible in?

Oh well, I guess it's symbolic. Or something.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Haven't read the book...

...but they have an extract on The Guardian, which makes him sound loquacious, informed, and considerably anti-Bush. While none of these factors are particularly negative (I'd consider them all positive), it does seem to be bordering on an anti-Bush rant, which may not find the audience he wants. At least some of the posts on there sound reasonably reasonable, so perhaps there is hope yet for the reaction from the audience.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

What is it about feeding trolls...?

What is the point in constantly responding to comments by trolls? It just makes them come back for more. It's impossible to argue rationally with someone like that. No one with that much of a preconceived opinion comes onto Grist to learn, just to irritate, and it looks like it's succeeding. Wasn't there something about lowering yourself to their level?

About the actual post, I don't know why everyone is so obsessed about Gore running for presidency, despite his repeated denials - I can't see why he would actually want to be president, and he certainly wouldn't want to run the risk of losing a race.

Bill - I think you're being a bit unfair on cockroaches.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

That's it...

Call something that can be easily controlled terrorism, attack it, and then show off about how you're saving the world. Sounds like they've been taking lessons from the Harry Potter world...or maybe it was the other way round.

Nothing's going to be solved by violence, as violence will put a goodly proportion of the population off any cause. But, for heaven's sake, what was this? Property damage. They deserve to go to jail. But for what they did, not for some nebulous indefinable concept.

I feel the same way about all 'terrorists'. If members of Al Qaeda were prosecuted for property damage, for homicide, for anything like that, it would sure take the glamour out of what they do. And it would keep them from being called 'freedom fighters' whenever the U.S. happens to support them.

Eco-terrorism? Haven't these lawyers got anything better to do?

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

What about the trolls?

If we get given the ability to flag or complain about comments, then presumably this would be something anonymous. In that case, what happens if the trolls start doing mass-flagging, just to irritate the hell out of us even more? It could spiral out of control, although I like to believe there are very, very few real trolls on here.

I'm not sure I agree with the term "fossil-fuel advocate", however. Most of these people aren't really advocating anything, just being sceptical for the fun of it. 'Sceptics' is fine, as is 'bozos'.

And is this place really not for scientists?

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work individually.

If you spend all your time...

...tracking down every complete nutter like Glenn Berk, you won't have any time to spare to keep us up to date on what really matters. Look at it this way, as has already been mentioned: anyone who regularly watches shows like that and actually kind of believes them is not going to come onto Gristmill looking for evidence. If they are actually interested in the subject, then most of the main points are covered in the 'How to talk to a sceptic' guide. Obviously, you should keep your eye out in case anything new pops up, in which case you will probably have spotted it before from another source anyway.

Of course, it's catch-22, as engaging people in intelligent conversation gives them a feeling of importance (the same probably goes for some trolls I could mention), plus the simple fact that if people see something mentioned a lot in print, they will have more respect for it. On the other hand, not refuting them gives the impression that you have nothing to say. With most of these fools though, probably the majority of us in the public can pass the truth on to those around. Keep the firepower for what deserves it, or for anything that's in the grey area.

It might be an idea, though, occasionally to track down one of these shows, and totally annihilate it in an article, just to give us a feeling of satisfaction, and to make others think twice.

On the whole, though, these are just better-known trolls we're dealing with. And ignoring is the best policy.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work individually.

Speaking of lists...

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but in Canada, Ontario has become the "first jurisdiction in North America - to commit to a ban on inefficient lighting", phasing out incandescent light bulbs by 2012. I like the way they say it's not soon enough. Story here. Apologies if it's been spotted already, but I couldn't see anything on here.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work individually.

Nothing wrong with confessing...

...as long as you're not expecting absolution. Yes, confessing 'eco-sins' may help people get to know each other and organise what they need to do. But, as I see it, there's no superior power that's going to say "right, that's your sin, you've confessed, now consider yourself saved". By confessing, are we committing ourselves to doing something?

Me? I enjoy visiting foreign countries and appreciating other cultures; I also enjoy visiting family. For all of this, I use planes a lot of the time. I also buy imported food (stuff you can't get in this country), most of which has enormous amounts of packaging (but then there's not a lot I can do about that). In addition, I gave up on a recycling programme I helped organise in my community, because absolutely no one would help. Then there's using incandescent lights, because there aren't available disposal methods for fluorescents. I suppose most of my 'sins' are those inherent in living in a developing country. Oh, and I eat meat.

Btw, if it's a 'holier than thou' approach you want, you need to run a thread on 'what I have done to help the environment'. That would get every self-righteous person in the neighbourhood licking their lips.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work individually.

True

Climate change, urbanisation, population growth, in other words everything that is happening to this planet at the moment is bound to affect every population. So I agree, yes, it's probably just one small cause. Good to watch out for this kind of problem, though.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work individually.

Environmentally sound = cheaper?

Since when?

Of course, in the long run a lot of environmentally-sound activities like recycling turn out to be cheaper, but I can't see aeroplanes with, for example, a new type of environmentally sound engine being cheaper straight away.

As for essential flights, it's clear enough what an inessential flight is (most domestic flights, all celebrity private jets), but are you seriously suggesting that no travel whatsoever is worthwhile? As I see it, it's a bit like a scaled-up version of cars v. buses. None of these travelling would give off no emissions, but that's not a realistic view; the best option is having more people per one emission-emitting vehicle.

As for food, the day that every country in the world can support itself exclusively on imports and exports via ship, then I'll support getting rid of planes. Remember that it's not just about feeding your people, it's about having something in exchange to trade for the essentials. Laugh at flowers all you like - they form a vital part of many countries' economies, without which they would flounder. In any case, you're once again forgetting about the effect of shipping.

Hey, you sound pretty optimistic!

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work individually.

Ahem

Afraid our comments crossed in cyberspace, and your last one was a lot more logical than any of your previous ones. Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, or slip into trolling; partly what I was doing was playing devil's advocate to try and figure out what you thought you were talking about. Fact is, I loathe flying, and think it's silly the number of people who fly for frivolous reasons - for example, tourists who go to a foreign country purely for the excuse of saying they've been there, and spending all their time in the foreign country acting as if they were still at home (I don't classify myself in that category, I actually want to experience foreign cultures, and I don't like the way you keep calling it a 'wanderlust'). I also disapprove strongly of domestic flights when it's just as easy to take the train. The fact still is that I live in a country I cannot get out of without flying, and I don't understand why you're standing up for cellphones, with their actual human health risks, just to make an anti-aircraft point.

Btw, I did know about the water vapour effect, but it's still incredible the effect of shipping that is so often ignored.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work individually.

Ships and CO2

CO2 output from shipping twice as much as airlines.

All right, I realise that most shipping is cargo, and largely in filthy ships that will get their act cleaned up if more people start going, but it's still an interesting point.

I still think it's a ridiculous post.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work individually.

Is there no middle?

Why is it so easy to oscillate from one extreme to the other never touching the middle? One moment it's complete scepticism in the face of 'climate conspiracies', the next it's desperation and 'eco-anxiety', the typical obsessive extremes reached through a desire to draw attention to oneself and become self-important. I suppose it is because, in all things, not just politics, the right and the left are closer to each other than they are to the centre.

I think I recognise the feeling - an extrapolation of the small, niggling feeling I get whenever I leave a room, that makes me swivel around and switch the light off. I prefer to call it 'having a conscience'. And I'd rather do a lot of hard work to help actually do something, before I'll pay a penny to a therapist to help cure me of my conscience.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work individually.

Translation

jabailo-
as you seem so good at 'translating' things, let me see if I can translate what you've been saying. You reject and refuse to read anything that might actually go against your own viewpoint, but are perfectly willing to 'dig deep' in desperate search for something that might, just possibly, in some circumstances, using a very liberal interpretation, and possibly with the prevailing wind coming from a certain direction, sound slightly as if people aren't totally 100% positive?

Well, that's interesting.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work alone.

Isn't the point...

...not so much what trains now can do, but what we could do with trains? I'm sure the train system in the States has degenerated (although I've never used it personally). It's degenerated in Britain, through privatisation, it's degenerated in many parts of the world. Heck, it's even degenerated in Costa Rica, since an earthquake took out most of the bridges!

But, trains are useful, they're efficient, they can be very, very fast (over 500kph, anyone?), they're reasonably cheap. And they do a good job city-hopping or for commuting, where all you need is for them to follow a fixed path. Look at Canada. Not an awful lot of people take the train across the country, but from Toronto, for example, you can take a commuter train to the suburbs, you can take another train to cities around. And you can use the subway or streetcars inside the city.

Trains aren't going to knock off planes for long-distance journeys, any more than they're going to monopolise sea travel just because one train happens to be able to travel under a stretch of water. But what they can do is replace those pesky short-distance flights, that are causing so much of the problems. So, shouldn't this be about the positive impact of fixing up and reintroducing trains, not about how useless Amtrak are? Isn't that just defeatism?

OK, I'm off now.On Trains are the forgotten mode of transport, at least in the U.S. posted 2 years, 7 months ago 52 Responses

Ironic, isn't it?

Those opposed to action on climate change are compelled to attack the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its reports. Not doing so would cede the scientific high-ground of the argument and essentially doom their preferred do-nothing policy approach.

In order to do nothing, they had to go into hyperdrive. How sad that all these denialists were made to work so hard.

However, I'm not quite sure I get the point you're trying to make here. You say that it can't be considered as a report by "a nameless bureaucracy pursuing its own political agenda", thus gainsaying what most detractors claim, but at the same time it doesn't sound so much like a consensus of science as a compromise, which as I'm sure we all know, is the act of reaching a mutually unacceptable result. So basically, how this 'consensus' came about was by having U.S. 'scientists' step in and rewrite the thing to make is sound like no one's sure what they're talking about, and if that isn't a subversion following a political agenda, I don't know what is.

Actually, it sounds like people are right in what they think of the IPCC, just in the opposite direction - instead of overdoing the problem, it's being forced to water it down.On The innerworkings of it all posted 2 years, 7 months ago 69 Responses

How about the rest of us?

I think that residents of St. Paul wouldn't mind waking up to 70 degree weather and palm trees in their backyard.

Standard Form

(Too true, GreenEngineer)

Going back to my original comment, this is of course where standard form, plus all the micros and nanos (and the megas and teras), came from. Move the numbers closer to the decimal point to make them seem more important, as it's tough to realise that a small number can mean anything.

Seems like a lot of what is supposedly there to make things easier is actually there to get people to realise they're dealing with something real.On How can 3 percent be important? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 22 Responses

How very scientific

As is well known, my own feeling is that the CO2 increases are a result -- not a cause -- of the warming.   Human activity has increased because of whatever it is that's raising the temperature and hence more CO2 (as well as other stuff).

"Feeling"? "Whatever it is"? "Other stuff"?

Hey, jabailo, you couldn't be a little bit more vague could you?
On How can 3 percent be important? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 22 Responses

Not trying to insult any Catholics here, but...

...do carbon offsets remind anyone else of confessions? Feeling mildly guilty about having done something 'wrong'? Then, do something that's easy and not a lot of use to anyone, and all will be forgiven.

Just a thought for Easter Week.On Lots o' good stuff therein posted 2 years, 7 months ago 12 Responses

What kind of order?

So, who decided the order of importance for these 51 things? Green eyeshadow and bamboo fences ahead of switching off lights and computers?

Basically, that article is a total mess - exactly what I'd expect of Time. They're actually seriously suggesting pumping sulphur into the atmosphere? And how about this:

Bamboo makes a beautiful fence, and because it grows so quickly (as much as 1 ft. a day or more, depending on the species), it absorbs more CO2 than, say, a rosebush. Most homeowners have to restrict its growth, lest it get out of control. Do this, however, and you reduce bamboo's capacity as a carbon sink. Only large-scale plantings, which absorb CO2 faster than they release it, can favorably tip the scales. How big is your yard?

Who comes up with this stuff? At least the other articles seemed sensible enough.On Lots o' good stuff therein posted 2 years, 7 months ago 12 Responses

George Bush...

...is an April Fool's Joke that got out of hand.On April Fools joke? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 3 Responses

So what was wrong...

...with Communism? I mean, obviously it hasn't exactly worked out in any of the countries where they've tried to implement it, but basically what we saw was the failure of Communism and the implementation of dictatorships. Of course, nowadays you can't even say you're a socialist, and what's wrong with socialism? It's certainly morally superior to capitalism.

Guess I can't really say that. But at the same time, people on their own, rushing around and doing whatever the hell they like, are more likely to cause anarchy than peaceful solutions. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, and global warming is a bit of an extraordinary problem, and it's not one that will be solved democratically by people exercising their constitutional right to buy giant cars and get the petrol for them cheaply.

Their argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to be under serious threat.

Yeah, well, I have no problem with that statement. But then, that's because the world is under a serious threat!On 'Supporting global warming initiatives is tantamount to endorsing communism and the one world order' posted 2 years, 8 months ago 27 Responses

I don't understand...

...why they even had a debate on this subject, when there was nothing to debate about. I can understand a debate on moral issues, where one side has to out-charm the opposition. I can also understand a dry, scientific debate, which while not very thrilling, can put the two different scientific viewpoints face to face, while a panel of also scientists judge who has the better case. But a debate between scientists and a group of people who make a living out of charming others, even if just to buy books, was never going to be equal. You're right that people don't work that way, the public is never going to go with the facts when there's a nice juicy conspiracy theory or hoax to side with that means not actually having to do anything. But again, as has been mentioned, once scientists leave the facts, they become politicians and lose the moral high ground. The only alternative is to have two groups, one for the scientific community, another to propagandise to the masses and brainwash them. Because when you're dealing with that kind of 'masses', there's nothing wrong with brainwashing, as one side's going to do it anyway. But what the hell possessed them to get drawn into a debate?On Facts alone will never cut it posted 2 years, 8 months ago 45 Responses

Life and history are about hypotheses

The whole of scientific history has come from scientists holding hypotheses, making experiments, and usually being proven wrong. Occasionally, a scientist is strangely proven right, and gains fame, fortune, and is able to waltz off into the sunset, usually due to extreme good luck (I mean, come on, penicillin?). Progress is about taking leaps of faith. However, these are founded on proof and prior knowledge, rather than just wild stabs in the dark (which is what some of the sceptics could really do with...), so it's more a leap of mostly-proven faith, which is what climate change is about. Some people will still look the other way even when there is 99.99+% confidence (i.e. when it is actually happening) and rave about it all being a plot by the CIA in conjunction with Martians.
Personally, I think the biggest punishment for bad science and bad predictions is to be made famous, and forever be ridiculed for your stupidity. I hope that happens with the sceptics.On What should be the cost of skepticism? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 13 Responses

Oops

I forgot actually to comment on the article. Personally, I think it's almost obscene the way rich people go out of their way to show off their wealth. Once being green has been made more glamorous (Keeley anyone?), then the so-called celebrities will throw themselves into greenness with a vengeance, just like baby-adopting in Africa right now. Most celebrities are loathsome, but regrettably we still need them.On But she owns an organic farm! posted 2 years, 8 months ago 25 Responses

I think...

...you're taking this all a bit too seriously. I mean, come on, anyone that believes anything from the 'Drudge Report' isn't worth anyone's while to try and get through to. It's pretty obvious there aren't any "startling errors" in Gore's movie, or else they would have made it onto somewhere a bit more prestigious.

Typical, though, the way they all pick on someone like Gore, as he's high-profile and can be labelled as a non-scientist. Seem to be leaving the IPCC alone. Perhaps William should Broaden his horizons (ok, couldn't resist!).On Coming tomorrow posted 2 years, 8 months ago 19 Responses

Are you saying...

That Barclay's a denialist? That's the impression I got from your post, but it seemed to me, reading the two articles, that he was actually satirising the denialists. Please put me right if I've misunderstood you.On Funny stuff posted 2 years, 8 months ago 3 Responses

Good ol' Keeley!

Thank heavens we've got some serious people telling us about the environment. I mean, up until now, we've just had people no one could take seriously, like Al Gore!

Well, as probably more people in Britain look at Page 3 than look at any of the serious sections (mind you, it's not like the Sun actually has any serious sections, but of other newspapers), then at least the message will get out quicker this way. And some of her suggestions were, well, interesting...On Sister Hazell posted 2 years, 8 months ago 1 Response

"It is better to travel hopefully..."

Persuading most people to give up air travel won't be easy. The fact that so many are willing to be packed into tiny, noisy, uncomfortable tubes of planes, with a screaming baby on one side and a talkative know-it-all on the other, just for the sake of getting somewhere that much faster, says something about the psyche of the average human being and their desperation to get places. So basically, speed has to be de-glamorised. If the common perception of travel as a waste of time can be altered, maybe folks will realise they don't want to be sardines. As the only aerial comfortable alternative is fewer seats in planes, and therefore more planes in the air, flying is a lose-lose situation.

I know it sounds a bit old-fashioned, but modern high-speed air travel has completely eroded the differences between cultures and societies. You grab a Big Mac, hop on a plane, hop off it in a completely different part of the world, and then face the age-old dilemma: another Mac, or BK? Basically, there is not point in so much travel for pleasure if there is no difference between places. Cut flights for business purposes and use video-conferencing (it doesn't matter about not being able to meet new people - most of us know our internet friends better than the people in the next apartment), fill up business class with regular passengers and use planes for long-haul flights, give longer holidays and thus give people a chance to take their time over getting places and appreciate the distances involved. Remember: "it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive", particularly if the hotel has lost your booking.

OK, enough ranting. I think I must sound about thirty years older than I actually am. But then, it's true, I don't like flying; and it's also true that I fly constantly throughout the year, as there's no other way of getting out of where I live. That should be changeable. On When is it necessary, and what are the alternatives? posted 2 years, 9 months ago 39 Responses

Could be an advantage

Good way of dealing with obsessive consumerism: rather than trying to persuade people directly to stop buying so much excess stuff, just make sure they don't have houses big enough to hold it all.

Gar: someday, somehow, all books will be available on the internet. Actually, that was the point that occurred to me first, as all that I have in huge quantities are books, and I much prefer reading off paper than computer screens. Well, and some personal souvenirs. Generally speaking, though, most decorations are only to show off to visitors, and in houses that small, there won't be too many visitors (just those that like the outdoors).

For a really, really, small house, look here. Doesn't exactly fall within most people's income, however. Not much land to enjoy, either.On Tiny houses growing in popularity posted 2 years, 9 months ago 30 Responses

You could hardly do worse...

...than Bush.

I'm afraid, though, that some of your points are a bit naive, meaning I doubt you'd make it in politics (this can be counted as a compliment if you like). However, I think your point 5 is a good idea, though it would be interesting to see which would be considered the lesser of two evils by government employees: working an extra day and not having to bother about anyone else, or getting a free day and having to spend it helping other people. Maybe I'm just cynical.

As I'm not from the U.S., I'd like to think the U.S. elections won't affect me, but I realise that's a hopeless thought. So, if I was eligible, I'd certainly vote for you, or at any rate for some of those policies, most importantly for the country to stop shovelling cash down drains, to get its nose out of other countries' affairs, and to use its world influence for something positive (such as cleaning up the air and the water?) rather than for encouraging wars.On My presidential platform calls for clean air and no war. What about yours? posted 2 years, 9 months ago 23 Responses

A few tips to the sceptics

If climate change sceptics want to be taken seriously, it would probably help if they could actually sound like they know what they're talking about. First of all, advice to Iain Murray: if you're not good at talking in front of camera, prepare and practise what you're going to say! Otherwise, you sound like a bit of an idiot. Unless, of course, that is the overall impression you want to leave.

I was also greatly amused by Inhofe's conspiracy theories - I know everyone likes a good conspiracy theory, but are they really supposed to be taken more seriously than actual science? Then there was good ol' impartial Larry King:

At one point, CNN host Larry King cautioned Nye against making a bet with Lindzen over who was correct about the science of global warming.

"[Lindzen's] from M.I.T. he knows what he's talking about,"  King warned Nye.

Also, to all the people saying that a 90% certainty isn't enough: what is enough? After all, taking action won't harm the environment, so surely, anything over 50% should be enough?

By the way, "I would have preferred an even clearer statement about the dangers of future sea level rise if the ice sheets begin to disintegrate."? Aren't the dangers rather self-evident (floods?)?
On Opinions on the Fourth Assessment Report posted 2 years, 9 months ago 14 Responses

Perhaps we were premature...

Actually, having examined the site more closely, it looks like it's just a case of the Whitehouse.gov search engine being case-sensitive. "global warming" turns up 1 item, as mentioned. "Global warming" turns up nothing, "GLOBAL WARMING" brings up four results, and "Global Warming" turns up 102 results. Of course, this can't compare with the 438 found by Google, which is not case-sensitive, so perhaps there is still some censorship in place (also, what kind of search engine acts like that?).

Interestingly, "global climate change" (which, of course, doesn't specify whether it's warming, cooling, or a happy combination of the two) comes up with 230 hits (on the White House search engine). "Global climate change" is a nice way of twisting "global warming" so that it sounds inevitable, natural, and less dangerous, so it is hardly surprising that this is a much more popular phrase than "global warming". Sigh.

By the way, I turned up this on the site, looking for "Global Warming". I can't help wondering what's happened in the last 5 and a half years.On Search for 'global warming' to no avail posted 2 years, 10 months ago 10 Responses

Something?

Anything that relies so heavily on consensus and agreement between groups and governments will in the end have huge amounts of important flaws and will probably, due to the pressures of bureaucracy, generally emphasise the uncertainties in the science. A report that talks about water levels rising 5 to 23 inches, with other sources talking about feet, will help to confuse the public, who will claim that no one really knows what they are talking about (and they wouldn't be far off with sea levels rising, judging by how difficult these predictions are and the sizes of the ice sheets and oceans involved).

However, this is the price we have to pay. The existence of such a report, the cooperation that took place with this panel, and the fact that something so 'official-sounding' at least talks about sea level rises is something to be happy about. People may enjoy picking holes in arguments they do not always understand, and saying frankly "this is too vague", but few will stand idly by and watch their favourite beaches and tropical islands disappear. And we need people to at least appreciate, if not understand, what is going on -- very, very quickly.On The report may pass over some of the worst dangers posted 2 years, 10 months ago 6 Responses

It's something...

It is about time something was done about such an enormous energy waste -- though turning the lights off once in a while might help -- but it seems a bit impractical actually to pass a law trying to force people to switch their lights, as this could prejudice quite a lot of people against CFLs (human nature being what it is). Unless California state is planning on replacing all non-fitting light-fixtures for everyone at no cost, or issuing adapters, it certainly doesn't sound practical.

The other argument against fluorescent lights is aesthetic (and, I admit, pathetic) -- lots of people don't like the effect the light has on a room, accustomed as they are to incandescent lights.

Still, it's the thought that counts.On Introducing the 'How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act' posted 2 years, 10 months ago 11 Responses

Not completely serious...

Willa,
My comment about 'the day the world goes vegan' was actually meant metaphorically, not literally. What I meant was that as more and more people stop eating meat, eventually the situation will reach a tipping-point where there is not enough demand to make livestock breeding worthwhile. If the past and the present are anything to go by (climate change?) no one will take any action until it is too late to humanely reduce the breeding of livestock, and from that time onwards there is no return for the breeders for every blade of grass the animals eat. Therefore, it will make much more economic sense for them to slaughter the animals, or alternately drive them off their land and into the wild, where they will be in a totally foreign environment which they cannot cope with (and will be killed by predators) or alternately will completely mess up the ecosystem. So, lose-lose situation.On Why the vegetarian critique of meat-eating should make meat-eaters squirm posted 2 years, 10 months ago 103 Responses

Carbon sinks or carbon stinks?

Thanks for a great guide (just discovered it), it's really useful to be able to know in advance what the sceptics are saying and have the answers ready, and so avoid being accused of not knowing what you're talking about.

Well, obviously carbon sinks can offset natural carbon emissions, as they have been doing so to a certain extent for millions of years. In the same way, it seems impossible that people believe they can take on all the emissions pouring out from human sources.

However, with global warming kicking in, and the permafrost starting to melt in areas, exposing more peat bogs and soil, will these carbon sinks still be able to cope with natural emissions?On Only if you ignore fossil fuel emissions posted 2 years, 10 months ago 10 Responses

Time for revolution?

Bush must be getting desperate about his approval ratings, to finally mention something he has always denied.

Unfortunately, that's probably all it will amount to - a mention, everyone applauding him for considering both sides and being fair-minded and impartial, and in the middle of this, no one gets around to doing anything.

If, however, the most powerful country in the world is still at the stage of taking baby steps and wondering whether to admit something is happening, it does not bode well for the future, even if the vast majority of other countries are far, far ahead of that stage. At the moment, everyone needs rather a lot more than one mention in six years.
On Pew report shows Americans poised to take global climate crisis seriously posted 2 years, 10 months ago 2 Responses