Go to THRAWN RICKLE
- Add a comment
- Go to SO YOU WANT TO BE GREEN...BETTER THINK TWICE!
There is absolutely nothing as good as a good debate. I just wanted to let both of you know I am keeping abreast.
Willow 
posted by
Gentle-Willow
on October 1, 2003 at 10:34 AM
| link to this | reply
Out of courtesy...
...I will supply one more response, but this is it. As I have written before, you guys seem unable to deal with facts, even when they hit you in the face...
Not only do I have more "field experience" and "scientific training," I also have learned to think logically, and to think critically. I know how to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I apologize for the GOP reference. I had confused two comments.
I advocate using hydrogen fuel for planes and cars. I can present you with the data if you wish. But what makes you think that cars and planes contribute the most hydrocarbons to the atmosphere? One of the largest contributors is methane from cow farts! This is an indirect human contribution since we domesticate cattle, but you need to get a handle on your facts—you really do.
The 1,500 scientists were parroting the politically driven garbage of a much smaller number. Check it out; don't take my word for it. The facts are right there for your consumption. I understand that they don't agree with your preconceptions, but they are incontrovertible. The Nobel laureates endorsement is pro forma. Probably not one of these people actually reviewed what they were endorsing to any depth. Scientists, in general, are very naïve. If another scientists says so, then it must be so…right?
The atmospheric warming situation is NOT that we don’t know, but that we don’t have sufficient information to predict what might happen, and concurrently we do not know what our potential meddling might do. We DO know that atmospheric CO2 levels have fluctuated over vast ranges during our planet’s history. Any possible current warming trend is well within the overall envelope, and way below any possible critical level. Once again: get the facts, NOT some politically driven jerk’s spinning wheel version.
I clearly told you that “peculiar” weather incidents in the U.S. are local. This is a term of art that implies to those with sufficient knowledge about atmospheric science that the major influences come from local conditions rather than planetary conditions. In other words, these phenomena are NOT part of any global scenario, such as global warming. Another good example of this is el Nino. This mechanism is similar to what you describe as driving the Gulf Stream (which it does not).
Your understanding of the Gulf Stream is woefully wrong. The engine is primarily a function of the rotation of the earth and coriolis forces. The Gulf Stream is warm, because of solar heating in the Gulf of Mexico. The Kuroshio Current that circulates from Japan around the north Pacific and down the West Coast of North America is driven by exactly the same mechanism. The difference is that it has no source of accumulating warmth, and so it remains cold. The Gulf Stream, thus warms northern Europe, whereas the Kuroshio Current cools the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
You can supply the name of no recognized scientist that believes the polar seas are undergoing any kind of significant warming. In simple truth, it just is NOT happening. Anyone who says different is pushing their agenda again. Go to the facts, NOT politically driven spokespeople. Look at the satellite temperature charts. Study the deep-water temperature profiles that have been laboriously obtained by “dipping” a measuring device through the water column every few miles across the entire Arctic (I helped do this!). Polar water simply are NOT warming.
Give it up, DL. The facts are there if you wish to see them.
I do NOT know that more species have become extinct…as you put it. A group of tourists was visiting a commercial cave. One little old lady asked the tour guide: “Young man, how much of this cave is unexplored?”
Do you get the point? “Species” have come and gone throughout our planet’s history. We can no more make a statement about what no longer is here than we can discuss the philosophy of extinct residents of the third planet of Alpha Centauri. We only have the fossil record, and this only preserves “hard” things. Only an unscientifically trained, nonrigorous thinker would make the claim you have made.
We have the right precisely because we are here. When and if the dolphins gain the ability to build and fly spaceships, I will be willing to give them “equal” status. Until then, humans rule, period!
The earth is not here for any purpose. It is simply here. This may sound trivial, but it is profound. Think about it until you get it! Of course we don’t want to mess our home, but there is absolutely no need to retain a residence in a cave or mud hut either. We have used our brains to develop fantastic technologies. Let’s use them for our benefit! 
posted by
arGee
on October 1, 2003 at 10:28 AM
| link to this | reply
You clearly have more field experience and scientific training than I do, which I duly respect. But that doesn't, alas, give you exclsive access to The Truth. Your training and experience does not necessarily make you right. Sorry.
"You speak of the GOP as if it were a coherent entity with one point of view." No idea where this came from. I never mentioned GOP once. Being a Brit, I even had to think for a moment as to what on Earth you were talking about!
You say "Wise use" is wise, and you go on to say you advocate nuclear power over oil. Would this be suitable for cars and aeroplanes, too - the biggest causes of hydrocarbon pollution?
Much of your atmosphere answer comes down to 'we've no idea'. Well, I knew that. John Browne (of BP) knew that a few years back when he broke ranks with the rest of the oil industry and agreed - we don't know - but we ought to start behaving as if global warming is real, because by the time we do know for certain, it'll be too bloody late. And to say my views are outdated is just bollocks. Only this year, over 1,500 scientists from around the world, including around 300 of the living Nobel Prize winners, signed an open letter saying that global warming is a reality, and we'd better pull our fingers out. Personally, I think we're already too late.
"The weather events in the U.S are a LOCAL phenomenon—period, end of discussion." I think you'll find the weather system is a global one. It doesn't respect man-made borders.
"The Gulf Stream is no more capable of switching itself off than is the Sun. It is driven by planetary dynamics and solar heating." It's driven by cold water dropping below warm to create the engine that drives the current. The cold water is now barely cold enough to drop. It's stopped and started twice in the last three years.
"The polar seas are NOT warming—period, end of discussion." There are scientists there right now who disagree. There are around half a dozen positive feedback mechanisms documented that could massively accelerate global warming in a very short period of time. One is the rotting sea-bed vegetation. There's evidence that some of these have already begun.
"Every day, entirely without human intervention, thousands of “species” disappear." You know as well as I do that more species have become extinct since the Industrial Revolution than at any comparable time in history (with the possible exception of the dinosaur wipe-out). Circumstantial maybe, but hard to deny our role in that.
"There is nothing sacred" Your view in a nutshell, methinks.
"Better that we try to gain some modicum of control over the world" Why? What gives us the right? Why should others die so we prosper? What makes you think that humans are the peak of evolution on Earth?
The Earth is here for all living beings. And it's our home. Would you trash your own house, burn all the floorboards, poison your own drinking water, seal down all the windows so the air gets stale and rank? Of course you wouldn't. So why advocate trashing the planet?
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on October 1, 2003 at 9:32 AM
| link to this | reply
Check your facts BEFORE you argue them...
I spent thirteen months at the Geographic South Pole researching the atmosphere, specifically looking at CO2 and other constituents and their relationship to global warming.
I spent 36 months in the Arctic researching the underlying ecosystem and developing ways to protect its fragile structure.
I spent a year in the equatorial Pacific researching the nature of manganese nodules and their potential as a mineral resource.
In fact, I have spent a significant portion of my adult life studying the global environment, specifically because humans have the potential for adversely affecting our planet in a significant way. So don't preach to me about things you clearly don't understand!
You are regurgitating arguments made by politically driven, non-scientific people whose agenda is exactly what I described in detail in my long "green" post.
Now for a short point-for-point response to your comment:
You speak of the GOP as if it were a coherent entity with one point of view. This is silly. Just like the Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists, etc., Republicans have many points of view. I am NOT a Republican, but I know none who espouse unlimited growth without regard to the impact of that growth on the local environment. Things simply aren't black or white, up or down, growth or no-growth. The universe simply is not two dimensional. It is multi-colored, filled with hues and shades...
"Wise use" should not make you laugh. On the contrary, such an approach should be part of everybody's perspective. We should do nothing blindly. "Wise use" is wise.
I do not advocate using oil as a fuel. I never have. To my way of thinking this is a waste of a finite resource. I have long advocated nuclear power, and have written extensively about this. If you review my "Nuke It!" posts, you will get some idea of what I am talking about. Looking farther into the future, I advocate Solar Power Satellites. I presented the details of my concept at the 3rd World Hydrogen Energy Conference in Tokyo back in 1981, and to congress just before I went to the South Pole. I will post something on this later.
Your information on the atmosphere is hopelessly outdated and politically biased. (1) Atmospheric CO2 has varied over our planetary history, BUT we still have no clear understanding about what these changes mean. We don’t even know if the current changes are human caused or simply another part of an as yet not understood cycle. Ironically, the predicted effects of such changes are so dependent upon initial conditions (what we assume as initial inputs for the models), that they range from planetary heating with ensuing polar ice cap melting all the say to a new ice age. We simply don’t know enough about the problem yet to make any predictions, let alone to set policy based upon these predictions. (3) The weather events in the U.S are a LOCAL phenomenon—period, end of discussion. (3) The Gulf Stream is no more capable of switching itself off than is the Sun. It is driven by planetary dynamics and solar heating. (4) The polar seas are NOT warming—period, end of discussion. (5) Greenhouse emissions—see me short previous discussion.
I do view humans as the controlling element of the ecosystem. To equate the human species with mice or mosquitoes, or even lions or tigers, is ridiculous. Every day, entirely without human intervention, thousands of “species” disappear. Simultaneously, others begin to differentiate themselves, so that (if we ever recognize them at all) we are able to categorize them as species. The very word is a human invention to help in our understanding of the ecosystem. There is nothing sacred about the word or the concept. The planet upon which we live has undergone incredible changes in its past, some of them violent beyond imagination, such as the impact of the comet segment or meteorite that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. Nothing humans can do will ever have an impact even a tiny fraction of this. Better that we try to gain some modicum of control over the world we know, and better our living conditions, using our brains and technology to keep things on an even keel.
My eyes are WIDE OPEN—are yours?
posted by
arGee
on October 1, 2003 at 8:58 AM
| link to this | reply
and I have neither the wit nor the knowledge to add to this debate. I just wanted to let you know that I read the article, I wouldn't dare call that a "blog", and all three of the comments and found it all stimulating and very informative. DamonLeigh, on one single point only, I do believe that argee was using the horse-and-buggy scenario to drive a point and not to mislead the reader. I saw the dark humor in it. As you have both agreed, humans make mistake.
Thank you for letting me comment and thank you for sharing your considerable knowledge, both of you.
Willow
posted by
Gentle-Willow
on October 1, 2003 at 7:54 AM
| link to this | reply
You May Not...
...personally espouse infinite growth, but the current economic model does. Look at the way GDP growth is constantly held up as 'a good thing' and negative growth as 'bad'. This, despite the fact that GDP is a measure of ALL spending, including such clearly negative spending as building more prisons, cleaning up after an oil spill, rebuilding an area after a terror attack etc. The current paradigm is completely and blindly pro-growth, without ever taking into account the finite resources of this planet.
Wise use does make me laugh.
Oil - what a natural gift! It took millions of years to create, and we'll have burnt the whole lot in 250 years. It'll be gone (or at least prohibitively expensive) within 20-30 years, we're making no real efforts to reduce consumption or find a viable alternative. Wise use?
The atmosphere - a common property if ever there was one, but now it's so screwed up, there's more carbon dioxide in it today than at any time in certainly the last thousand years, quite possible (the jury is still out) in the last 12 MILLION years. We are rapidly taking the planet into unchartered territory. Already we're seeing record numbers of severe weather events in the US. Already the Gulf Stream is showing signs of switching itself off for good. Already the polar seas are warmed to such an extent that the plant life on the sea bed is close to its warm limit. Past that, it all dies, releasing vast quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, to speed the whole climate change process even further. Wise use?
I could go on, but your arrogance will not be changed. You clearly view the entire planet and all the resources as being there purely for human use, for human progress, for human consumption and comforts. Never mind the fact that the planet is shared by millions of other non-human life-forms (which we wipe out almost daily). Never mind that clean water, clean air, the land, the forests and so on are the ultimate 'commons', there for all, yet their exploitation only lines the pockets of the very few, and brings the rest of us questionable benefits and sky-high prices (in terms of irreverable damage and depletion).
So, when the last of the oil is £150 a barrel, when the seas have risen by 6 metres around the world, when all the waters are polluted and the air is barely breathable - will you then be still wittering on about 'wise use'?
Open your eyes, before they are opened for you.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on October 1, 2003 at 7:38 AM
| link to this | reply
I do appreciate your taking time to plough through my long post...
...and I also appreciate your taking the additional time to give me your thoughtful answer. The bottom line, however, is that it is not I who doesn't have a clue.
I told you following one of your earlier comments that you guys (folks with your twisted world view) inevitably attack the messenger when you can't marshall supporting facts or arguments. Typically, you commenced your post with a personal attack on me, although I do appreciate the PhD reference...I use it from time to time myself.
In the body of your comment you really present no argument, no facts, no evidence. My post speaks for itself. If you are going to counter it, at the very least, you need to discuss several of its more telling points. If you do this successfully, I will be happy to engage you in a meaningful discussion.
You did present the general argument that infinite expansion on a limited planet is impossible. And you referenced the suckerfish, pointing out that no one can possibly know its impact within the overall scheme of things. Your infinite/finite argument is, of course, completely accurate. I do not espouse infinite expansion. Nor do I imply that I understand the complete role of every small element of the planetary ecosystem. What I DO espouse is something that is often called "Wise use." Since we can never fully understand the role played by things like the suckerfish, we use our inate intelligence to observe its apparent impact, and we use our deductive and inductive poswers to determine within reason its actual importance. Then we proceed with our lives, putting humans and their needs above "suckerfish" and their needs. ONLY when the loss of "suckerfish" seriously impacts HUMAN needs, do we address "suckerfish" needs.
Of course, we will make mistakes from time to time. Occasionally we will even make big mistakes. But this is the nature of life. When this happens, we pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and get back in the race, so to speak.
posted by
arGee
on October 1, 2003 at 7:15 AM
| link to this | reply
Well, I Did Plough...
...through this very long post, and to my mind, all it proves is the truth in the joke of what PhD really stands for - Pile it High and Deep.
For a start, your portrayal of the green movement is, of course, deeply biased and, in most statements, pure bullshit. There is virtually no support for any ideas of undoing progress, stopping science, going back to horse-drawn ploughs or anything of that ilk. You're either incredibly ignorant on this subject, or you are deliberately setting out to mislead.
I would never try to defend the green movement in general, or Greenpeace in particular, in absolutely everything they've ever done. Humans make mistakes. Get used to it. However, for every one example you cite, I could offer ten of stunning destructiveness caused by the military-industrial complex over the years - some mistakes, of course, but some downright deliberate and far, far ranging in impact.
The green movement has at it's heart a very simple premise - infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. And whilst the likes of you equate progress with growth (did I miss that meeting?) then we are on track for some very, very nasty shocks in the next few decades. Yes - that soon!
Then, towards the end of your post, I came across this little gem...
"In this case, the suckerfish may be in short supply in Upper Klamath Lake, but it exists far and wide elsewhere. Frankly, even if it were not alive and well—so what? The welfare of fourteen hundred farmers and their families, and the value of what they produce to the whole nation far outweighs any possible value of a small fish that plays no significant role in anything that matters."
That just about sums up the problem. This Earth is such a complex web of inter-relationships and connections that you can have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what role that little fish plays. It is this sort of arrogance, valuing human progress and farmers over the environment, putting humans somehow above and outside of the rest of Nature, that has gotten us into the dire messes we're in today.
Just on that one point, here's a not-so-radical idea. If the farmers can't farm in an area without irrigating, and the irrigating is screwing up the rivers and water tables, then perhaps that area shouldn't be farmed.
As you say, go figure.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on October 1, 2003 at 4:50 AM
| link to this | reply