<div>Dave et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for your forceful comments on these issues...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>While I was reading the Boston Globe article, offered via a web link in my previous post in this thread, on NASA's James Hansen and his scientific work on climate change, that has sometimes been censored by our government, I was struck by the following few paragraphs, stating vehemently that the time for action to slow human induced global warming is now:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/02/05/too_hot_to_handle/?page=3">http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/02/05/too_hot_to_handle/?page=3</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Those models reveal a miserable situation at present, but a dire one in the years ahead. In his December speech to the Geophysical Union, he noted that carbon dioxide emissions are ''now surging well above" the point where damage to the planet might be limited. Speaking to a reporter from The
Washington Post, he put it bluntly: Having raised the earth's temperature 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last three decades, we're facing another increase of 4 degrees over the next century. That would ''imply changes that constitute practically a different planet." The technical terms for those changes include drought, famine, pestilence, and flood.
</div>
<p>''It's not something we can adapt to," he continued. ''We can't let it go on another 10 years like this."</p>
<p>And that's what makes him so dangerous now. He's not just saying that the world is warming. He's not just saying we're the cause. He's saying: <em>We have to stop it now</em>. Not wait a few decades while
Exxon Mobil keeps making record profits. Not wait a few decades until there's some painless new technology like hydrogen cars that lets us drive blithely into the future. Not even wait a few <em>years </em>until the current administration can cut and run from Washington.
</p>
<p>The president, just this week, said that we've become ''addicted to oil," which is a little as though Abe Lincoln suddenly noticed the South had slaves. Bush's package of fixes-a little money for nuclear, for clean coal, for wind power-goes in the right direction, but so slowly as to be a gesture, not a policy. If we want to keep a semblance of the planet we were born on to, we have to act decisively, expensively, quickly, and
<em>now</em>.</p>
<p>You can argue with Hansen if you want. But you better bring a pretty big data set with you. He's been right so far.</p>
<p><i>Bill McKibben, a scholar in residence at Middlebury College, is the author of ''The End of Nature" and eight other books on environmental topics.</i><img class="storyend" height="8" alt="" src="http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif" width="6" border="0">
</p>
<div>------</div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/1/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">david sarff</b> <<a href="mailto:davesway@hotmail.com">davesway@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>Will Rogers said "We're all ignorant , just about different stuff"<br><br>I think its pretty wild that a bunch of folks are putting on like Gore
<br>invented Global Warming. Their accusation of him was not comprehensively<br>weighed. There are too many people that seem to find comfort in their denial<br>with just a limited number of questionable sources and tiny bits of support.
<br>It especially sets me back when members connected to the Ag community, who<br>are absolutely dependent on science ( of which climatology is a part) to<br>support our present ag structure, long knowing the level of production
<br>losses that can occur with just a few degrees of average climate change.<br>Even potential lowering the carrying capacity of the earth at this stage in<br>human history is absolutely nothing to pooh pooh. Our collective belt is
<br>getting tight.<br>We have never had 6.5 billion humans with ravenous appetites for far more<br>than just food and housing along with so much soil exposed and something<br>like 2% of citizens in our own country practicing the task of growing the
<br>food. There is really nothing in all of human existence to compare this too.<br>The food support pyramid is upside down with one farmer on the bottom and<br>the masses at the top. Where have we done that in ancient history.
<br>If we loose ag production it's not going to be made up by farming the<br>exposed Greenland soils or Canadian tundra turf. Talk about going back to<br>the stone ages. That is exactly what those of us concerned about this wish
<br>to avoid.<br>My view is that we simply include in our accounting the cost of carbon per<br>pound emitted. ( something not included by even our local save the buss<br>group) Our markets will adjust to that. We could be creating jobs and
<br>increasing manufacture closer to home because of it. Making shirts, shoes<br>and boxes of cold cereal more locally. We will be living in self heating and<br>self cooling homes and utilizing resources as we always have, only with
<br>greater excellence. Driving the most technologically advanced vehicles.<br>This is not anti economy or growth. It is in fact a vast opportunity to<br>improve living for us all, and not just here, but globally.<br>People can call this a hoax, the apocalypse, or the fuzzy edge of a horizon
<br>event leading into a technological singularity. But something is going down,<br>its big, and not acting to move forward is out of the question.<br>Dave<br><br><br>>To avoid getting confused by charlatans on the global warming issue, there
<br>>are two fundamental questions to ask yourself:<br>><br>>1. Is global warming occurring at the present time?<br>><br>>2. If so, how much has human activity contributed to such warming?<br>><br>
><br>><br>>1. The amount of evidence supporting the hypothesis that global warming<br>>is occurring is formidable. Over the last 50 years the average air<br>>temperature computed by considering the temperature from thousands of
<br>>different worldwide points has undeniably risen. Glacial and ice mass melt<br>>has far outstripped glacial and ice mass growth worldwide. The ocean level<br>>has risen.<br>><br>>One of the sources cited in the last post from
<br>><a href="mailto:news.of.christ.cult@gamil.com">news.of.christ.cult@gamil.com</a> is a National Geographic Magazine article.<br>>It has pictures for those not able or willing to read words:<br>>Link to National Geographic Society Story The visual evidence is quite
<br>>impressive. On the local level, those of us who have visited/hiked in the<br>>Canadian Rockies over the last 50 years have seen the dramatic decrease of<br>>glacial mass firsthand.<br>><br>>There is other evidence from changes in the ranges of biota worldwide.
<br>>Only a few skeptics deny that global warming has been occurring.<br>><br>><br>>2. The debate over global warming is really not whether it is occurring<br>>or not, but what are the causes, how much is caused by human activity, and
<br>>what effects could humans have on reversing the trend.<br>><br>>A synopsis of the almost unanimous scientific community can be found here:<br>>IPCC: The Physical Basis of Climate Change<br>>It is not light reading.
<br>><br>>Of course, there are a few quasi-scientific dissenters. That is true of<br>>almost any current, edge of knowledge scientific theory, including the<br>>theory of gravity (yes, even at this late date after we have use it to send
<br>>to and retrieve persons from the moon), and the theories of the structure<br>>of matter. One of the main arguments for hypothesizing the human causation<br>>part of global warming is the vastly increased amounts of atmospheric
<br>>carbon oxide.<br>><br>>Human activity is now producing much more of this gas than ever before. In<br>>addition, the natural control of carbon dioxide, plant photosynthesis, has<br>>been reduced since massive amounts of the larger of this kind of vegetation
<br>>has been destroyed in the last 200 years, a great deal of it in the last 50<br>>years (Amazon forests, e.g.). Not only does the destruction of this<br>>vegetation reduce carbon dioxide intake and control, but it also causes
<br>>climatic changes.<br>><br>>Critics of global warming like to point out that there are natural climatic<br>>cycles lasting thousand of years. That is true.<br>><br>>The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. Since shortly after that,
<br>>average world air temperatures have been relatively stable until about 50<br>>years ago, whence they started to climb. [Although there were not weather<br>>stations until the 19th century, there are ways to estimate accurately
<br>>basic world climatic conditions/temperatures in the past.] Proponents of<br>>the hypothesis that humans are now contributing much more than ever to<br>>global warming point to this sudden temperature upswing in conjunction with
<br>>the vast increase of human carbon dioxide production.<br>><br>><br>>As a side note, I find it amusing that biblical inerrantists like Ed<br>>Iverson and his ilk argue against human causation of global warming partly
<br>>on the basis of past ice ages that apparently started over two billion<br>>years ago. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_ages">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_ages</a><br>><br>>According to the Bible, the alleged God thereof created the earth less than
<br>>7,000 years ago. Do the math and draw your own conclusions about Iverson's<br>>theories, expertise, and even basic arithmetical and logical ability.<br>><br>><br>>Ted Moffett and others have posted evidence about the global warming crisis
<br>>here on V 2020. They cite not only the scientific hypotheses, but the<br>>factual basis for them. Critics of the theory frequently cite only a small<br>>bit of the evidence, and like their cousins, the creationists, really only
<br>>show their ignorance of the facts and theory in total.<br>><br>>In small, I like to compare of those who exhort us not to take global<br>>warming seriously with another group -- those realtors and developers in
<br>>parts of southern California who promised that building large, heavy houses<br>>on steep hillsides would cause no problems in the future. This greedy<br>>group even produced a few whorish, but hardly competent geologists to
<br>>support their views. Unless you live in a cave, you know what happens<br>>every year to some of these houses. What you may not know is that you pay<br>>for such folly because those losses impact your home owner's insurance
<br>>costs even though the losses did not occur in this area. Apply the same<br>>thinking to global warming and include the likely effects on your line of<br>>progeny.<br>><br>><br>>W.<br>><br>><br>
><br>><br>><br>>----- Original Message -----<br>>From: "lfalen" <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>><br>>To: <<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com
</a>><br>>Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:25 PM<br>>Subject: [Vision2020] Fw: [Spam] Al Gore's 'Lie' Breaks Records<br>><br>><br>>Here are some other views to consider on Global Warming. Some of these
<br>>should probably be taken with a grain of salt, but so should Al Gore's.<br>>In addition to the NewsMax comments posted below, other books that should<br>>be studied are"The Improving State of the World" by Indur M Goklany and
<br>>"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" by Chistopher C.<br>>Horner. While Global Warming may be occuring, just how much man has to do<br>>with it is questionable. Even if man is not a significant contributor to
<br>>global warming, we should still be looking for other sources of energy Oil<br>>is a finite resource and will come to and end some day like Whale Oil.<br>>There are some problems with ethanol and other biofuels. It take almost as
<br>>much energy to make ethanol as is produced. Another problem is that the<br>>use of corn for ethanol is driving up the price. This creates a problem for<br>>livestock produces and the production of tortillas in Mexico.
<br>>Air pollution is a health problem aside from any effect on global warming.<br>>Just take a trip to Riverside, California and see the smog there. These<br>>problems need to worked on. But draconian measures that disrupt the economy
<br>>are probably not in order at this time. We need to solve these problems,<br>>but lets not go back to the stone age in the process.<br>> ><br>> > Roger<br>> > -----Original message-----<br>> >
<br>>=======================================================<br><br><br>>=======================================================<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<br>> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>=======================================================
<br><br>_________________________________________________________________<br>Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month.<br>Intro*Terms<br><a href="https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117">
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117</a><br><br><br>=======================================================
<br>List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">
Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br>