Yesterday I looked for something to watch on TV. After rejecting the soap operas and talk-TV, I settled on what looked like a crime drama. In the opening scene, three kids (two boys and a girl, in their early teens) are on a playground when they’re accosted by three other kids. The victims try to walk away, but the thugs pursue them, insult them, then demand the girl give up her cell phone. She pleads, “Please, I don’t want to lose it.” The psycho thug replies, “What’d you call me? Loser?”
Then he takes out a gun. After threatening them while talking trash, he shoots the girl. Then he makes the two boys get on their knees, and shoots them in the head.
It was in fact some kind of crime drama. I didn’t watch because I was sickened by the opening. Who the hell — who in his right mind, with even the slightest shred of decency — would think that this, on TV for all to see (including kids), is entertainment? Maybe you can tell, I’m upset about it.
My wife is also upset, for a different reason. She enjoys online gaming in a virtual world called “Second Life.” It enables people to create characters and interact in numerous ways, mostly good clean (and sometimes very bawdy) fun. But the one thing she doesn’t like is something called “Gor.” It’s fantasy slave ownership and abuse. Some enjoy pretending to be the master, some enjoy pretending to be the slave. Yesterday she encountered a shop which sells “skins” (textures and colors for one’s character), but this shop featured skins which show bruises, lacerations, wounds, so that people can enhace their fantasies of being physically abused by their “owners.”
This too is thought by some to be “entertainment.”
I understand the thrill of danger, the excitement that accompanies the forbidden. I understand indulging one’s reptilian brain at the expense of reason. But I had hoped that human beings were different from beasts, in that we understood that the thrill of the senses was inferior and the power of spirit and intellect was superior. That we could rise above our animal ancestry, forbear that which hot blood craves in favor of higher pursuits; that we could not just strive for, but actually achieve, nobility. I wonder.
Then I get a comment like this: “While we are all aguing about whether or not, the reality is you are not going to stop this from ocuring! You are all talkers of the great time waste.“
This too makes me wonder. Is the human race so blind? Is there no hope? Do we not even deserve to be saved from ourselves?
My spirit despairs at such resignation. And the fact that I’ve recently been assaulted by bad TV portraying the worst kind of cruelty as a prelude to entertainment, that my wife has witnessed the willingness of people, for the sake of a cheap thrill, to invite the kind of abuse that should never be tolerated, doesn’t help.
But I have a message for every nay-sayer and advocate of “there’s nothing we can do about it.” I refuse to resign. I do not accept the inevitability of failure. But the way I feel right now, it takes a lot of audacity to be hopeful.
I accept that global warming is going to be a lot of pain for a lot of people. But I will allow my intellect to overrule my anger because it knows that what we do does make a difference. The more we change for the better, the better the future will be. Although the future is not likely to be good, there’s no excuse for not doing what we can to prevent its being worse.
If you don’t want to do anything about global warming … get the hell out of the way of those of us who do.
192 responses so far ↓
paulm // February 14, 2009 at 9:26 pm |
Get rid of the TV. We have, much better.
So the world has got to an unacceptable level of moral corruption for GOD and its time for the cleaning out.
Dont resist, embrace it and be happy.
Dave A // February 14, 2009 at 10:03 pm |
Tamino,
It may surprise you but I readily empathise with much of what you write here, even down to the more we change for the better, the better the future will be.
However, I can’t agree that people are only questioning climate change because they don’t want to change their lifestyles. For example, personally, I haven’t flown any where for 14 years, I’ve had two computers since 1997, I’ve been recycling since way before it became fashionable, and I try to walk to most places I need to go to.
BUT, I still have questions about climate change and the supposed role of humans in it.
You might not like that but you can’t just steamroller it out of the way.
[Response: You might not like this, but I've found your objections feeble, too often resembling long-refuted denialist talking points.
If you want to help, get on board. If not, get the hell out of the way.]
Hal // February 14, 2009 at 10:34 pm |
“If you don’t want to do anything about global warming … get the hell out of the way of those of us who do.”
By allowing you to tax me?
What you want me to do isto put on my “bruised victim” skin and let you beat me?
Defend your opinion, but don’t ask me to give up mine.
[Response: You're too transparent; you refuse to believe the truth because you don't want to pay taxes. To hell with the world as long as you don't have to pay a dime.]
TCOis banned...why? // February 14, 2009 at 10:50 pm |
The concern I have is that those who are motivated by policy needs may go easy on the science of diagnosis or may overtout it. I also fear the opposite. And I think I see it from both sides. And it doesn’t surprise me. That’s human nature in policy debates.
Ray Ladbury // February 14, 2009 at 10:52 pm |
Well, it would seem that “hope” has become a watchword for denialists. We’ve got 3 interesting opinions
Paul M-the rapture’s comin’ anyway
Dave A.-I don’t understand the science, but I still don’t like it
and Hal.–to hell with the world as long as I don’t have to pay a dime.
Guys, I kind of like human civilization. I’m kinda partial to it, and I’m going to do what I can to defend and preserve it. You guys can continue to be irrelevant. That’s fine. But don’t think that the same silly arguments you’ve been using to justify inaction are going to work now. It’s time to either do something or know that our progeny (rather yours–I don’t have kids) will die cursing us with their last breath.
Steven M. // February 14, 2009 at 11:07 pm |
I think you are being unfair to reptiles.
Curious // February 14, 2009 at 11:07 pm |
“Then I get a comment like this: “While we are all aguing about whether or not, the reality is you are not going to stop this from ocuring! You are all talkers of the great time waste.”"
It is great to see danialists backing down. The spread of the “I accept there is man-made global warming, but there’s nothing we can do” kind of argument would mean that we could stop discussing childish topics such as “scientists don’t agree” or “it’s not proven”, and start with the important issue: what we can do. And it is because of people like you or people at RealClimate that we are moving forward to the right direction. For that reason I thank you and beg you to keep on informing with the same hope, because your comments are the light and the instrument for the lay amateurs like me, and such a comment proves that you are doing well.
Big hugs.
Andrew // February 14, 2009 at 11:43 pm |
I ditched the cable years ago and that’s helped. Part of what’s going on is that television is appealing to a younger crowd these days that are known to be watching without parental supervision and teenagers have immature understanding of the consequences of actions. Such shows aren’t an indictment of our future, but rather show how inhumane some of the folks are who produce entertainment without thought of much other than making money.
So, hey. I’ve read several articles over the years about West Antarctic Ice Sheet stability. The most recent discussion of the andrill program seem to indicate that the WAIS is not very stable. I’d love to hear more but I’ve seen nothing other than what was in a recent University news release. Can anyone point to more about this?
georgedarroch // February 14, 2009 at 11:53 pm |
Go for the advertisers. Talk to them directly, and say that you’re upset they associate themselves with sickening violence, and tell them you’re organising a boycott. Then let the network know that you’ve let the advertisers know what you think.
As for climate - I think we’re going to see a lot more anger in the next few years. Especially when forcings and feedbacks continue to increase and ENSO and solar output come back from their present low levels.
Ultimately, the objection of so many against climate change is an irrational belief that they can live on this world and act as they please with no moral obligation to any other - don’t you dare tax me or infringe on my right to burn and pollute our atmosphere as much as I damn well please.
It’s a disgusting attitude, and most people are appalled by it when it is stated clearly.
People have rights, certainly. But your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins. Likewise, your right to pollute is limited to a minimum.
dhogaza // February 15, 2009 at 12:23 am |
And while our denialists spin, Carbon emissions are higher than expected, and sea levels rising faster than expected.
Saltator // February 15, 2009 at 1:28 am |
Macabre entertainment is not unique to this civilisation. The Romans had a good go at it. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries public autopsies were popular.
Ray says that he likes civilisation and will vehemently defend it. Our civilisation requires energy and lots of it. We have to get that energy from somewhere. Wind and solar are just not options when dealing with the energy demands that this civilisation has.
[Response: You say wind and solar are just not options. I don't believe you.]
picoallen // February 15, 2009 at 2:41 am |
I was discussing this TV issue with friends at a party just the other night .
The discussion arose out of talking about the coverage of the fires here in Victoria. The coverage has been dominating all stations. We can’t bear watching the TV anymore, and yet in the midst of the crisis we’re compulsively drawn to watch, listen and read hour after hour. (So we can keep track of which community and which friends are currently or potentially in the fire path, have lost their home or worse, and to make sure fires aren’t heading our way yet.)
But why oh why, in between that real horror, do they want to continue the normal programming of a wall-to-wall diet of fictional crime, horror and misery. Australian TV has descended into a litany of tales of imagined sexed up misery & violence, interspersed with advertisments for erection enhancement and quasi prostitution services.
I like a good sci-fi movie, but almost all of them these days are apocalyptic where the best outcome you get is that one or two of you favourite characters survived, until the sequel at least. Sure this genre has it’s place. But I’d love to some utopian sci-fi film for a change, in which we imaging that there is a pleasant future for humanity and the planet for a change.
It’s like we are collectively psyching ourselves into engineering and accepting the demise of our civilisation and the planet along with it.
If I had kids, there is no way I’d be letting them watch TV unsupervised. But what about all the kids with overworked or dud parents?
Anyway. That was a conversation at the beginning of the party. Next we noted the town meeting planned this week to discuss options for survival if/when fire breaks out in our beloved mountains. Then we all tacitly agreed to avoid the subject, got blotto, danced into the wee hours, and in the morning after a big breakfast ended up soothing our hangovers by getting into a concrete rain-water tank. Summer has it’s pleasures still, even if it does make you nervous.
[Response: I'm a big fan of the sci-fi series "Star Trek" (in several of its incarnations), and I believe one of the reasons for its enduring popularity is Gene Roddenberry's vision of the human future -- one which was not apocalyptic, but in which our better nature triumphed. Let's hope his vision is prophetic as well as inspiring.]
Kipp Alpert // February 15, 2009 at 2:42 am |
Tamino,
For one year and one half I have been posting over at Accuweather.com. Every single day. Each night when I get back from the city(NYC)I have a sandwich and turn on the computer. I would read the dumb denier posts, and would provide some support for the reality of Anthroprogenic Global Warming. Unlike most of you I come from a different background. My dad was Glenn Millers base player, and also recorded all of Frank Sinatra’s music for Columbia records. If You want to google him, his name was Trigger. My mom was an artist, and us three kids were all musicians and I became a photographer.In other words, I wish that like most of you I had a science background. I love Science. I’m trying to learn as fast as I can. I envy your twelve years of scientific study, and the wealth of knowledge that oozes off your fingers upon the written page. The greatest memories I have are my college days at BU, marching on Cambridge. I’ll never forget my friend Bobby Z, who put a rag in a state police car and blew it up,. I wish that I could be more of an activist now but don,t know the names of people or organizations that people join to fight for humanity in their shared experiences. For me Deniers are like modern terrorists.They aren’t skeptics, or older people who have a shared philosophy that God or natural variations will cure us. Deniers obstruct you and me and anything that has to do with the progress of the human race. They brag like Hitler youth about how much oil they burn up in their SUV. So then we have the type who find the establishment fine, and god in their wallet.When my wife first came here who is from Tours France, we went into a McDonald’s. I turned around to ask her what she wanted, and she was gone. I went outside to the car and she was leaning against it with her arms crossed. I said “where were you”, and she said, “what do you do here,eat like a bunch of cows”. Ever since then, our family has always eaten at the dinner table, after a couple of words of thanks. We have become so accustomed to civilization, that we don’t understand nature anymore. I have seen mountains obliterated for strip mining, deforestation, and the wild fires in California. Ralph W. Emerson once wrote about commodity, and embraced nature for what she has given us. Now we have The Superbowl, better known as the fall of Rome. As Marie Jo said “all that Americans do is buy things”. That is our culture. I hope that mankind slows down long enough to find out why we are destroying ourselves. Dennis Hlinka, a working scientist told me.” Kipp we just don’t know when or how the tipping points will come. So I feel a certain obligation to do my part in our survival however slight that might be. As Tamino said, are we so consumed with evil pleasures and our own self interests, that we don’t see the forest from the trees. I know one thing, if you don’t want to get robbed, hide your money in a book. Have we become so separated from nature, from Mother Earth, that we just take from it, and give nothing back. What poverty! The real under underclass? Real tears, are like the rivers that flow, beneath the city streets. The new Hampshire license plate reads, Iive free or die. Now I think the very freedoms that have allowed us so much liberty, have spoiled us towards our own destruction. So if we go go down, let’s go down fighting. So please help us with the truth. Science has a soul. How many great men have worked and died or spent their lives for this; no one can deny.
Happy valentines day! Kipp
[Response: I'm sure gonna keep fighting as long as I live.
One thing I must say: although I admire the fervor which leads one to extreme action, I don't condone any kind of violence. I'm reminded of Ghandhi saying that "In this cause, I too am prepared to die; but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill."]
steven mosher // February 15, 2009 at 2:50 am |
Tammy: “get the hell out of the way”
Moshpit “Make me, mutherf**ker”
I don’t think the rhetoric of “get the hell out of the way” contributes to the kind of cooperation we need to address the problem. You should see from my example of confrontational rhetoric that this form of verbal behavior might not be the most effective. But if you want to escalate conflict, then it does the trick.
[Response: We will make you. Without violence, but without doubt. I only hope you're forced by the power of our will and intellect and by your devotion to justice, rather than by the power of nature's wrath; she doesn't share my commitment to nonviolence.]
Timothy Chase // February 15, 2009 at 3:05 am |
Andrew wrote on February 14th:
I don’t have a great deal as of yet, but if you haven’t already, you might want to check out the following article:
JCH // February 15, 2009 at 3:24 am |
Having a fine civilization does not require fossil fuels. Believing that ignores the history of humankind.
wildlifer // February 15, 2009 at 3:41 am |
I’m with your wife about the S&M on SL. The “furries” freak me out too.
JCH // February 15, 2009 at 3:42 am |
Also, you can add one more to solar and wind:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090213115020.htm
:)
Ray Ladbury // February 15, 2009 at 4:21 am |
TCO says “And I think I see it from both sides.”
OK. ‘Splain it to me. How is it ever justified to ignore the evidence…let alont to ignore incontrovertible evidence of a threat? We’ve lost two decades during which we could have been addressing this–and now the bastards tell us it’s too late to do anything about it?
This is not about liberal vs. conservative. It’s about living responsibly.
Kipp Alpert // February 15, 2009 at 4:31 am |
Tamino: The one thing I learned from my Dad was the horrific nature of war.He used to tell me about going around with the Glenn Miller Band in France. Glenn Miller would play anywhere, even close to the action.He would tell me about being in a Hotel next to a hospital where they had one vat for arms then another for legs. He was a pacifist. So I never got into fights or ever
insighted violence. I don’t believe in war or violence. I was talking about a friend who did these things as we marched against the war in Vietnam. I was trying to say that in my school years, I wasn’t studying science. That’s all. My whole post was about saving mankind, not to let it be destroyed by our lesser angels.
Kipp Alpert // February 15, 2009 at 4:41 am |
Tamino:I’m upset that you didn’t get the full meaning of my post. Did you really read it. I know what violence is. It starts by ignoring the truth, and doing what you believe, or that denialism is a better truth, than reality peace or love.
[Response: I read it, and I think I got the meaning. I didn't think you were advocating violence, but for the sake of other readers I wanted to make my belief clear.]
dhogaza // February 15, 2009 at 5:18 am |
Gosh, until this point in time I thought that Moshpit was driven by science.
And here he admits that he doesn’t care.
(snark).
Nice own-goal, dude.
Tom G // February 15, 2009 at 5:45 am |
Sometimes I wonder how we ever got to the top of the food chain…the boob-tube being a case in point.
Normally I am a “glass half full” person, but as I hear of the increasing evidence of climate change, I am becoming a “glass half empty” person.
Changes are coming, most of them bad and they are coming rapidly. I’m middleaged and I expect to see some dramatic things happen in my life time. Actually…they’ve already started to happen. Ice shelf collapse, glacier melt, methane from the permafrost, etc, etc…
But we can still reduce the depth of these changes. I think we can still avoid the Lovelock end game scenario.
Places like Open Mind remind me that I still have that “half glass” and at least some people are still trying to save humanity from its own stupidity.
So please Tamino, since some of us are actually paying attention don’t stop what you’re doing.
Consider it to be Darwin at work.
TokyoTom // February 15, 2009 at 6:39 am |
Tamino, thanks for your audacity and refusal to quit.
I think it`s fine to scold those who disagree with you but, rather than telling them to get out of the way, you might want to consider engaging them in the fair degree of middle ground that actually exist. No sense in making enemies and foregoing gains that most can agree to.
For example:
- energy experts (including libertarians) recognize that what is really holding up renewables and “smart grid” investments is our cantonized, conflicting state regulation of power companies that hampers competition;
- corporate income taxes, and particularly limits on the ability of firms to write off immediately all of the value of capital investments, discourage investment in cleaner technology and prolong the life of exisiting plants;
- conservatives know that ownership rights must be recognized and protected in order to ensure that resources are used sustainably (rather than a tragedy of the commons race/dumping of problems on others), and should understand that extending some type of management to the oceans and atmosphere is needed; they should be able, at least philosophically, a system of rebated carbon taxes that recognizes that citizens are the owners of our common atmosphere.
More on these and other suggestions here:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=carbon+tax
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/06/17/iain-murray-another-libertarian-makes-climate-policy-proposals.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/04/04/bruce-yandle-on-quot-no-regrets-quot-quot-free-market-environmentalist-quot-approaches-to-climate-change-policy.aspx
Philippe Chantreau // February 15, 2009 at 7:29 am |
Mosher talks about cooperation, as if there could be any possibility of an intent of cooperation. I don’t believe it.
It’s like the “auditors” asking researchers for data, code and age of the in-laws. Damn if you do, because no matter how small the error or discrepancy, it will be used to call you a fraud. Damn if you don’t, because if you don’t want to let those clowns mess with your stuff, you must be a fraud.
If I was a researcher, I would tell them to go to hell and would much rather be damn if I don’t. Screw the auditors and let the peer-review go on.
michel // February 15, 2009 at 7:42 am |
You are an angry man. This has been clear for some time. Its quite understandable, there is much to be angry about in our present culture, and much that needs to be reformed. However, you are not dealing with it effectively.
[edit]
[Response: You are a nonsensical person. This has been clear for some time. It's quite understandable, there is so much stupidity that masquerades as "freedom" that people are too easily frightened.]
scellus // February 15, 2009 at 8:13 am |
About Gor: I haven’t been in Second Life, but I googled for some images (try gor and gorean), and to me Gor seems a lot like a sexual power play. If so, wounding others, or receiving wounds, is not the point - the point is the enjoyment people get from expressing dominance or submission. Wounds are there to symbolize power. As we adults know, people do this in real life too, although the extreme forms may be relatively rare. The fact that desire can be strong enough, even in real life, to compromise those higher forms of humanity is a bit disturbing - but power just happens to be part of human sexuality, and we can’t really change it. In Second Life, as in fantasy in general, it is easier to isolate certain feelings, and express only the “reptilian” part. In real life, one behaves as a human in a more integrative way.
But I do share your despair in other ways. We are just humans, and may be incapable to change our behaviour wrt global warming, in time to prevent a major catastrophe. The fact that we know may not be enough to make a difference.
Jay // February 15, 2009 at 11:08 am |
Hoping with you Tamino…
(don’t get big headed or anything, but your blog helps, just a tiny bit, to keep the hope coming.)
naught101 // February 15, 2009 at 11:38 am |
Rock on Tamino!
(and if paulm is right, see you in hell!)
TCOis banned...why? // February 15, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
Ray: you could say the same thing about al Queda, Cold War, pornography, decline in virtues, etc. When you get yourself riled up, it’s easy to let bias affect analysis of the situation itself (even as disaggregated from the policy fixes). A simple example is Dan Rather Memogate. Dan WANTED to beleive those memos so he didn’t make sure real authentication was done and when they were under debate, he spent 12 days expert shopping instead of using the doubt to make him investigate more. This is human nature and affects the left and right. it has to do with our shrieking monkey throw poop at the other chimp tribe when they come near your tree and do it in unison with your fellows background.
Ray Ladbury // February 15, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
My wife and I own a TV. Up to a year ago, it was essentially a device for playing DVDs. We’d watched network TV twice–the Bush-Kerry debates. Now it comes on for a half hour a week to watch The Big Bang on CBS (highly recommended BTW). There’s a movie I want to see maybe twice a year. I can’t abide the radio other than NPR.
The masses have their circuses, and we seem to be investigating whether or not they really need bread to keep them quiet or whether circuses alone will suffice.
It has always amazed me that the same species that created Mozart’s Requeim also created Pop music.
Ray Ladbury // February 15, 2009 at 2:39 pm |
TCO, I am well aware that we are from the nastier branch of the great apes. The difference is that we have a thin veneer of gray matter that we can use for higher cognitive functions–like either doing science or constructing intricate lies for ourselves to believe in. I’ll take science, thanks.
Kipp Alpert // February 15, 2009 at 6:08 pm |
JCH
“Having a fine civilization does not require fossil fuels. Believing that ignores the history of humankind”.
First of all, we have progressed but not that well. Perhaps by quantity but not in Quality. I’m specifically talking about War, emotional intelligence, and of course Global Warming. If we destroy ourselves is that progress?
Also by looking the past we can find our mistakes, and the overuse of fossil fuels is the largest error we have made. What we have done before is irrelevant to what we are doing now.
Yes civilization has progressed through technology and medicine. When we progress to our own extinction, that’s not a joyful scenario.
geodoc // February 15, 2009 at 6:48 pm |
Tamino,
Good on you. Been following this blog on and off for about a year, and this post is the first I’ve wanted to comment on.
Maybe because it’s the first I’ve read that expresses the kind of feeling I’d expect from a climatologist [at least that's what I've assumed you are... but why not explicitly mention it somewhere on the blog's front page?] espousing the ‘consensus’ position on AGW and capable of following through some of its implications for human society.
I would be frustrated too. Seeing you react like this makes me, as a non-expert, believe it all just a little bit more.
No, this is not very scientific, but it’s how people think.
I’ve got a quasi-scientific background, but not much maths or physics and little real comprehension of what’s involved in climate modelling. I can follow Arrhenius and Tyndall, some of the physics of radiative transfer and the characteristics of CO2 which make it (and other heteronuclear molecules) a ‘greenhouse’ gas.
And although I’m still trying to learn, that might end up being enough for me, scientifically speaking. I can see how we have a potential problem. The rate and extent of the warming, whether there are other equally or more significant factors are at play, and what if any action we should take, are still open questions for me.
I’m coming to the conclusion that if climate scientists really believe we should be doing something about global warming… then well, they should start doing it.
They’ll have to leave the lab for a while, of course. Maybe that’s a problem. Campaign. Convince us. Play on your credentials. But first clean up your own house- as Vicky Pope pointed out, there’s far too much rubbish talked about AGW by the doomsayers. Don’t leave it to the environmentalists, because people won’t believe them. Why should they? They have their own agenda and isn’t their first priority the environment, rather than us humans? After all, they already wanted us to radically change our lifestyles, even before AGW became recognised as a potential problem.
In certain circles believing AGW seems to be considered synonymous with being left wing… or an ‘ecofascist’ or a proponent of a ‘new global warming religion’. These are powerful memes frightening people away from confronting the important issues. And if they’re not true, somebody should be explaining why.
Global warming is not something I’ve fully come to grips with yet. Perhaps when I do, I’ll start campaigning myself. But in the meantime it’s good to see some folk on the science side with some fire in their bellies…
Dave A // February 15, 2009 at 10:11 pm |
Ray,
“It has always amazed me that the same species that created Mozart’s Requeim also created Pop music.”
I can’t stand pop music either but at the same time it is a manifestation of the great diversity of human beings. After all life would be pretty boring if everyone was a climate change believer/sceptic/blog commenter like us:-)
JCH // February 16, 2009 at 12:08 am |
Of course all that stood between the musically challenged Mozart and his achievement of Rap stardom was the misfortune of him being born before the age of oil could complete his civilizing.
Listen carefully. It’s obvious what is missing in his music is the absence of tons of fossil-fuel combustion during his life.
luminous beauty // February 16, 2009 at 1:12 am |
I’m also a fan of The Big Bang Theory.
For balance, I also enjoy My Name Is Earl.
As a once famous actor is reported to have said on his deathbed, ‘dying is easy, comedy is hard’.
luminous beauty // February 16, 2009 at 1:36 am |
Mozart was the pop music of his day.
Louis Armstrong was the pop music of his day.
American Idol totally sucks, but Jennifer Hudson, man, has she got some pipes!
Kipp,
Herman Alpert is your old man? That’s so cool. Bass players don’t get enough respect.
Richad Mercer // February 16, 2009 at 4:28 am |
“Don’t leave it to the environmentalists, because people won’t believe them. Why should they? They have their own agenda and isn’t their first priority the environment, rather than us humans?”
You think these two priorities are separate? Then you don’t understand the most basic concept that environmentalists have been trying to tell you for 30 -40 years. Everything is interconnected and interdependent. There is no such thing as human welfare as separate from the enviroment’s welfare. That in a nutshell is where your reasoning collapses.
And why you and others continue to see environmentalists as out of touch. No they’re not. Yes, sometimes environmentalists can be boneheaded, but that is not necessarily the general case.
Who is out of touch, are those who have had their heads in the sand for the last 30-40 years and can’t see the obvious. The solutions for global warming are really not that much different than what environmentalists were advocating before AGW became the big issue. Their basic idea that man is effecting the environment in ways that may be detrimental to life as we know it is not crazy. It’s the truth in many more ways than just global warming. Species are already going extinct at alarming rates, despite what you probably read in the “Skeptical Environmentalist” which is based on a bunch of false premises.
“After all, they already wanted us to radically change our lifestyles, even before AGW became recognised as a potential problem.”
We might already be threatening nearly every ecosystem on earth, even without global warming. The very ecosystems we can’t survive without. You think CO2 is the only problem?
Are you and I living on the same planet?
“In certain circles believing AGW seems to be considered synonymous with being left wing… or an ‘ecofascist’ or a proponent of a ‘new global warming religion’. These are powerful memes frightening people away from confronting the important issues. And if they’re not true, somebody should be explaining why.”
Now what circles would that be? Would it be conservative circles? Environmental concern is not a political issue. It is simply what it is, concern for the environment and by extension, concern for humans. Or turn that around the other way, it’s the same thing. The only ones who have explaining to do are the conservatives who have made it into a political issue based in ideology instead of science.
And what is with that fascination with labeling everyone who doesn’t think like you as being an adherent of an ideology with a handy label? That seems to be quite prevalant on the right. Mention sharing or cooperation and the first thing that pops into their head is socialism or communism or one world government conspiracy. What’s up with that? And just to liven it up with fresh labels, it’s now popular to call lefties fascists. Huh?
naught101 // February 16, 2009 at 4:49 am |
geodoc, for most of us greenies, humans are part of “the environment” - the two are not separable. Modern western society doesn’t seem to see that for the most part, and sees humans as somehow extractable from their supporting ecosystems.
Sure, we campaign to save “the environment” (ie. other species), but for the vast majority of us, humanity’s future is an important part of, and reason for that campaigning…
dhogaza // February 16, 2009 at 5:20 am |
Kudos. “environmentalists” have, for the most part, simply been trying to teach the lessons of science to a deaf society.
Of course, at times they go off the deep end - pushing modest conclusions of science much further than one should.
But this over-enthusiasm is in no way comparable to the science denialism we see regarding climate science, etc.
Philippe Chantreau // February 16, 2009 at 7:54 am |
“Don’t leave it to the environmentalists, because people won’t believe them. Why should they? They have their own agenda and isn’t their first priority the environment, rather than us humans?”
Being involved in the medical field, I’m thinking that every human has about 65% of his/her mass made of water, which has to be continuously renewed with fresh water free of biological and chemical contaminants. And every human breathes a couple of liters of air in and out about 15 to 20 times a minute. That air also has to be reasonably free of contaminants, particles, chemicals, etc…
Each of those is crucial enough to soon lead to death when interrupted (quicker so the breathing, I concede).
Isn’t the simple word of “environment” kind of a stretch to designate things that are inside of your physical body or part of your very structure?
And that’s the most basic level, we’re in fact much more an integral part of the world than that, or the world much more of an integral part of us, it’s all the same, really.
Ray Ladbury // February 16, 2009 at 11:55 am |
dhogoza, Richad Mercer, LB et al., While I agree that geodoc has misunderstood the environmentalist movement, we have to acknowledge that his misperceptions are common. There are nutjobs on our side that do us no credit. My wife and I have been involved in an experiment for about the past 7 years. We joined a rather conservative environmental organization that emphasizes the importance of a healthy environment for hunters and fishermen (outdoorsmen). We’ve spent 7 years trying to reach out and find common ground–and failed utterly.
So to geodoc, I would ask that you not judge the environmental movement by the lunatic fringe. There are responsible voices, and they are worth listening to. The bottom line is sustainability–if we don’t work that one out in the next couple of generations we won’t get another chance.
Barton Paul Levenson // February 16, 2009 at 12:31 pm |
Tamino,
I imagine the dramatic purpose of the set-up you watched, from the writer’s point of view, was to show how rotten the bad guys were, and/or to plant clues about how the good guys were going to catch them. It’s a writing tactic to sometimes “rub the reader’s/viewer’s nose in it” in order to get a desired emotional reaction. It is sometimes very crudely done, however, and you are free to dislike it when a writer uses this tactic. There is a limit to what should be portrayed, though probably reasonable people can disagree about where that limit lies.
And I agree about S&M. I got flamed like crazy on one email list because I wouldn’t agree, not only that BDSM was a valid lifestyle, but that criticizing it was out of bounds. Worse, on the old FIDONET Pitt writers echo, a writer asked what we would think about a novel where a seven-year-old girl seduces a 49-year-old man. I told him that we all have crazy thoughts from time to time, but that our response to such thoughts should be to suppress them and/or to think about something else. I was told to “come off it” by someone who proudly declared that she routinely fantasized torturing small children by dropping hot oil on their skin and then setting them up for gang rapes.
My objections resulted in me being forced off the echo, because I was, they said, trying to suppress freedom of expression.
The Bible says a time will come when people call good evil and evil good. I think we’re pretty much there, and probably have been for a long time.
Barton Paul Levenson // February 16, 2009 at 1:26 pm |
Is the Gor stuff related to John Norman’s S&M SF books?
I have a friend who once interviewed Norman, and he told our writer’s group, “And he wasn’t the kind of raving lunatic you’d expect.” Without missing a beat, my wife then asked, “Oh? What kind of raving lunatic was he?”
My friend’s statement was that Norman was normal on most subjects, but that when it came to criticism of his work, he couldn’t conceive of any reason for disliking it except “radical feminism.” That people might think degrading and oppressing women was a bad thing even if they weren’t radical feminists just never seemed to occur to him.
Kevin McKinney // February 16, 2009 at 2:20 pm |
If the climatological viewpoint is correct, as I believe the evidence indicates, then time is not the denialist’s friend. Of course, it is unconscionable how much time has been wasted already, and scary how little time we may have as a civilization, relative to the tasks we face.
Let’s just keep putting the truth out there, as plainly and as clearly as possible, in as many venues as possible.
BBP // February 16, 2009 at 3:17 pm |
Barton,
[Response: ??? I think you must have hit "submit" before entering your comment.]
luminous beauty // February 16, 2009 at 4:41 pm |
—Blaise Pascal
Our lizard brains are essential to our existence and function quite independently of our cognitive awareness. It is from consciously repressing our instincts, presuming them to be evil, unclean, etc., that we set a perceptually separate and distinct and partial notion of an illusionary self in contradiction and conflict with our genuinely whole, connective and boundless being. The consequence is, that when our affective nature inevitably surfaces, it is perverted into mad and exaggerated malevolence by our necessary inability to cleave to unrealistic moral injunctions.
Barton,
The spiritual path (for Christians) only consciously (not in actuality) begins by accepting Jesus into one’s heart. One still has to travel the path and it is the same path from the beginning for everyone whether one is a Christian or not, or even whether one is conscious that it is the path one travels. Wisdom is the goal. It is not bestowed by Jesus or God or the Bible. One must seek wisdom by one’s own persistent effort, else it is of piddling value.
Philippe Chantreau // February 16, 2009 at 4:58 pm |
“a time will come when people call good evil and evil good”
The number of times I’ve seen “greed is good” coming from the WSJ editorial staff comes to mind…
BBP // February 16, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
Barton,
Is boxing evil? What about football? Both are violent activities where people get hurt. As long as an activity only involves willing participants who know what their doing and does not cause active harm to others, on what basis can you call it ‘evil’?
Global warming is a good example where active harm is being caused, even thought that is not the intent of fossil fuel use, and we need to solve it.
Sorry about the previous incomplete post…
geodoc // February 16, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
“dhogoza, Richad Mercer, LB et al., While I agree that geodoc has misunderstood the environmentalist movement, we have to acknowledge that his misperceptions are common.”
Ray, that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Sorry for being disingenuous in my last post, should have done more to separate out my own views from that of ‘most people’.
I’ll try to explain better. Sure, I understand that man is part of the environment and ultimately, you can’t separate one from the other. But it’s not a concept that’s immediately apparent to most folk. People are inherently anthropocentric, and I don’t think emphasising our oneness with nature is the way to reach them on AGW.
I’ll admit there’s a lot I’m still trying to understand about the issue—my opinions are far from settled so I find it easy to play devil’s advocate (no I haven’t read Lomborg’s book yet but from what I gather, his position is more tenable than the usual skeptic stuff). That said I’m probably closer to the majority opinion on this blog than that of Lomborg or any other ‘denialist’. But I think the sentiment I expressed is widespread and difficult to counter from the environmentalist side. It’s the scientists, public figures, church leaders, professional bodies and politicians from the traditional, non-greenie right and left who need to be making the argument.
Interesting how it didn’t take long to be labelled a conservative. The trouble is the debate is so heavily politicized. Somehow environmentalism/believing climate change/liberalism have got hideously conflated (and same goes for libertarianism/climate change skepticism of course).
The environmental movement is a political movement— it has an agenda and aims of its own, which may be very laudable but not necessarily consistent with looking at the facts dispassionately. I don’t think this is such a controversial thing to say.
geodoc // February 16, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
While writing that last comment I got thinking about something in Tamino’s original post:
Then I get a comment like this: “While we are all aguing about whether or not, the reality is you are not going to stop this from ocuring! You are all talkers of the great time waste.“
So much of the chat on this and other climate blogs is between people with entrenched views, and it’s easy to see it how the commenter does: time-wasting.
I don’t.
The posts here are always fascinating and usually advance my understanding of the issues (sometimes the comments do that too). All I’m saying is that somehow the debate needs to be de-politicized and made more visible outside of the blogosphere, framed in terms that people understand in a way that has meaning for them.
I’m not sure exactly how all this fits in with the current state of TV drama and internet S&M. But maybe we have to get some anger and frustration from somewhere before we can make things happen.
Keep it up Tamino.
paulm // February 16, 2009 at 5:42 pm |
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities
English novelist (1812 - 1870)
luminous beauty // February 16, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
It is hard to depoliticize the course of human affairs, since that is what politics is all about. One might as well expect a fish to live without water, or a breeze to exist without air. Nonetheless, accusing one’s political opponents of ‘playing politics’, inferring that one’s own view is free from political content, is a common political ploy.
Such is the nature of polarized political discourse.
dhogaza // February 16, 2009 at 7:00 pm |
Uh, no, I don’t think he’s every gotten the science right on a single topic he’s discussed.
There’s a reason why population ecologists despise his writings regarding population ecology, etc etc etc.
It’s because specialists realize that he’s beyond uninformed, he has learned enough about various subjects to become very skilled at cherry-picking and otherwise misrepresenting data and scientific research.
In other words, scientists who review his writings on their own areas of expertise recognize that he’s dishonest, and many have not been afraid to say so.
Dave A // February 16, 2009 at 9:06 pm |
Hey all,
Don’t you think geodoc was pulling your leg a bit?
Dave A // February 16, 2009 at 9:15 pm |
luminous b,
well if were going to get down to specifics then Beethoven knocks the socks off Mozart!
Let’s not get into rock music, however, since we’ll be arguing about bands forever - but that’s the beauty of human diversity.
[Response: Mozart is every bit as good as Beethoven -- but he's not nearly so depressing. Or depressed.]
Dave A // February 16, 2009 at 9:23 pm |
dhogaza,
“Uh, no, I don’t think he’s every gotten the science right on a single topic he’s discussed. “
Another unsupported comment. You never ever supply any references to what you say (though surprisingly Hank never takes this up with you either despite constantly cajoling others to do just that)
In contrast Lomborg supplies copious references to back up his work.
Tom G // February 16, 2009 at 9:23 pm |
Lomborg?
I’ve read some of his “material” , listened to him in debate and his false choices and conclusions have made me more than just a little annoyed.
You will have to excuse me while I hold my nose…
Ray Ladbury // February 16, 2009 at 9:55 pm |
Geodoc, What I think most–including most environmentalists–utterly fail to appreciate is that environmentalism is inherently a humanistic endeavor. As Stephen J. Gould pointed out, diversity, environmental “health” etc. are matters of utter indifference to nature. There are simply a narrow range of environmental conditions that are conducive to the continued survival and happiness of our species. So, to say that environmentalists don’t value humanity is an oxymoron–those who do not have not truly understood what it means to be an environmentalist.
Ray Ladbury // February 16, 2009 at 10:06 pm |
“Mozart tells us what it’s like to be human, Beethoven tells us what it’s like to be Beethoven and Bach tells us what it’s like to be the universe. “–the late, great Douglas Adams
“Bach gave us God’s word, Mozart gave us God’s laughter, Beethoven gave us God’s fire. God gave us music that we might pray without words.”–don’t know
[Response:
"When the angels sing to God, they sing Bach" -- my sister.
"When God sings, it's Mozart" -- me.
]
dhogaza // February 16, 2009 at 10:16 pm |
Scientific American devoted most of an issue to rebuttal of Lomborg’s first book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. The rebuttals were written by experts in those areas of science which Lomborg claimed to “debunk”, often the very scientists whose work Lomborg misrepresented (for instance E.O. Wilson in regard to population ecology).
You can go dig through the Scientific American archives yourself.
Call me a liar if you’re too lazy to google.
dhogaza // February 16, 2009 at 10:18 pm |
So does every cherry-picking science denialist on the planet.
Creationists, for instance, provide endless references to quotes by Stephen Jay Gould that “prove” that he “didn’t believe in evolution”.
Lomborg plays the same game, quote mining, cherry picking, outright misrepresentation of science, etc.
Dave A // February 16, 2009 at 11:41 pm |
dhogaza,
“The rebuttals were written by experts in those areas of science which Lomborg claimed to “debunk”"
One of those supposed experts was John Holdren - pray tell me what exactly is his scientific field?
[Response: John P. Holdren is the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
On 20 December 2008, President-elect Barack Obama named Holdren as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
Defending Lomborg doesn't certainly doesn't make you a skeptic -- more of a sucker.]
Kipp Alpert // February 17, 2009 at 1:37 am |
Luminous beauty: Yes, did you read all the people he played with.They called him Trigger. Every weekend in Connecticut growing up, we had Jazz sessions with guys like Dave Brubeck, Stan Getz, Barbara Streisand, and many others. I played the Congo drums and my brother played the piano, and my sister danced around, cracking everyone up. My dad was also a studio musician for CBS, and I saw the Beatles in person, and met Julie Andrews, as well as many others. He started as a classical musician, like most studio guys, and switched over to Jazz with Oscar Peterson. He played for The Carol Burnett show,The Garry Moore show, as well as recording all of Frank Sinatra’s music on Columbia. I will never forget the episode when I would go into New York, for dress rehearsal, and listen to Jonathan Winters, say the most outlandish funny things I have ever heard. Once we went to Brooks Brothers with him, and he stood up and started to joke with everyone. The bus driver was laughing so hard he had to stop the bus. When we came out of Brooks Brothers Johnny was sitting on the curb, talking to the pigeons. Carol Burnett waited a whole hour for my mom and my sister when they were late to meet her, where her show was, at the Ed Sullivan theater. She didn’t know why they were late, but she still waited. She was the best. Well the one thing I know is that Trigger would agree with Ray Ladbury about Mozart. He is 94 and might like NPR too. He hated Broadway musicals, and once tired to break an Elvis Presley Album over my head. He hated rock. He was quite opinionated about music, which is why he was probably so good. Later, KIPP
Philippe Chantreau // February 17, 2009 at 5:36 am |
Sounds like mighty good fun Kipp!! Getz and Brubeck, wow!
Personally I assert that there is no piece of music ever that can even remotely be compared to the Dies Irae of Mozart’s Requiem. That point is not open to debate under any circumstances and disagreement will condemn the disagreeable to be assigned a non human status.
Gareth // February 17, 2009 at 8:17 am |
No! When God sings it’s Robert Plant…!
;-)
Ray Ladbury // February 17, 2009 at 10:25 am |
Dave A., I can personally attest to the expertise of Holdren. He’s quite sharp. He wrote some stuff on alternative energy for Physics Today. Of course, you could have looked this up yourself, but that might have ruined your perfect record for ignorance.
Chris S. // February 17, 2009 at 11:53 am |
Re: Lomborg.
I find this a handy site when discussing Bjorn: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/error_catalogue.htm
Chris S. // February 17, 2009 at 11:57 am |
Addendum to the above. The same site also looks at errors in “An Inconvenient Truth”: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/GoreversusLomborg.htm
Barton Paul Levenson // February 17, 2009 at 1:43 pm |
luminous writes:
We’ll have to disagree on that.
Barton Paul Levenson // February 17, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
BBP writes:
Maybe it’s just me, but I have the impression that deriving intense sexual pleasure from someone else’s pain and humiliation is a bad thing.
I don’t advocate making S&M illegal. If people are stupid enough and evil enough to enjoy it, and if, as you say, they are consenting adults, then I don’t have the right to use the coercive power of the state to stop them. I do, however, have the right to call them idiots and to try to discourage them and others by non-coercive means.
luminous beauty // February 17, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
Barton,
You could call persistent effort, faith, if you’d like. Of course, from the condition of spiritual ignorance in which we all find ourselves, one must have an object, like Christ, or some similar symbol of moral perfection, upon which to direct that faith. However, when one’s faith matures into wisdom, one should put away childish things.
The hardest thing for monotheists to let go, it seems to me, is religious exceptionalism, which is tied, metaphorically if not causally, to sexual domination.
A great source of evil in the world.
I’m glad you’re joking Gareth. But I will say, Jimi Hendrix made music God never imagined.
[Response: Discussion of the relative merits of religious beliefs is interesting and worthwhile, but perhaps there's a more appropriate forum.]
JCH // February 17, 2009 at 5:57 pm |
Me, I think we should just put painkillers in the drinking water and all beverages. Wouldn’t that would ruin their fun.
Peter // February 17, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
Tamino, Sorry but I’m not moving. There are millions of us in Canada whose only weather threat is cold. -50C windchills and such. Much of the energy we use to survive and even thrive is coal or other fossil fuel generated. There is no short or medium term replacement for that, and only nuclear in the long run absent as yet unknown technologies to make up the shortfall. No alternatives currently exist to keep us warm, so you are in effect, telling me and my family that our country and our lives are forfeit because you have set yourself up as arbiter of what shall be done. With respect, sod off.
In any case, you know the end result when American hockey teams play Canadians, they end up bleeding on the ice crying for their mothers to make it stop.
[Response: So you're another member of the "rest of the world be damned as long as I don't have to do anything" brigade. Let Australia burn to the ground -- they'll just end up crying to their mamas about dead relatives.
The fact that you'd rather others suffer than face the challenge to find a way to heat your home other than fossil fuels, shows what a weakling you are.]
Peter // February 17, 2009 at 8:01 pm |
Australia? Come on Tammy, all time cold records have been set across Canada this year, and we know it’s weather, I’d expect better from you. If the emoting eco-weenie left weren’t holding sway in australia, maybe they would still hve firebreaks instead of years of stored fuel on the ground.
Weakling? I go through bigger than you just to get to a fight, backward sunglass boy.
[Response: All-time cold and hot records are broken all the time. If the greedy selfish ignorati like you paid attention to real science rather than seizing on any talking point that rationalizes their greed, we wouldn't have wasted the last 20 years when we should have had the courage to face a huge environmental problem.
You haven't the slightest idea what real courage is, you're just a selfish bully. When a *real* problem comes along, you run like a scared rabbit whining about how cold it is in your backyard.]
Ray Ladbury // February 17, 2009 at 8:19 pm |
Peter, I am reminded of a joke:
In a bar in Minnesota, one of the patrons says a bit too loudly, “Canada, there’s nothing there but whores and hockey players.”
A big guy at the end of the bar stands up and says, “I’ll have you know my mother’s from Canada.”
There’s a pause, and then the first guy says, “What position does she play?”
If you think you will escape harm because you are far inland and in the far north, you are mistaken. No one is asking you to freeze. Rather we are asking you to help us 1)buy time by conserving; and 2)come up with a long term, sustainable solution to a very real threat. Now, is that unreasonable?
Kevin McKinney // February 17, 2009 at 9:04 pm |
Peter, if I thought you were particularly representative of Canada, I’d be ashamed of myself. You seem to be doing a fair amount of “emoting” yourself, just a rather unpleasant type of it.
If you’ve got something of substance to say, please say it. The bluster we’ve heard so far is basically pure posturing.
Dave A // February 17, 2009 at 9:21 pm |
Ray & Tamino,
I’m perfectly aware of who John Holdren is, indeed I used to follow his writings on nuclear proliferation during my CND years.
But it seems to me that he is very much an expert
in political academia, by which I mean he expertly follows the current ‘in’ topics in academia to futher his own career.
Thus he initially, and totally wrongly, was aligned with Erhlich and the doomsaying about population growth, he then switched to doomsaying about nuclear proliferation and now he’s switched to doomsaying about climate change. All the while, climbing up the greasy pole.
Oversimplification? Maybe, but there is a large grain of truth in it.
[Response: Your character assassination of John Holdren is contemptible.]
Dave A // February 17, 2009 at 9:31 pm |
Ray
Also, I know that it is sometimes difficult from the written word to intuit what a person is actually saying, but please don’t always assume that others are ignorant about what they are writing!
dhogaza // February 17, 2009 at 10:04 pm |
It’s not an assumption …
So why did you pick out Holdren rather, than, oh, E.O. Wilson’s rebuttal to Lomborg’s totally hashed-up attempt to refute work done by Wilson etc that estimate species extinctions using statistical methods?
David B. Benson // February 17, 2009 at 11:06 pm |
dhogaza // February 17, 2009 at 10:04 pm wrote “It’s not an assumption …”
That’s right, it is a well-founded inductive inference.
Kipp Alpert // February 18, 2009 at 1:30 am |
Phillipe Chantreau:
We had a great time. Mozart was like Rembrandt, subtracting colors from black. He was a genius. Bach wasn’t too shabby either. Beetoven was more like popular music, great but not the template.
Kipp Alpert // February 18, 2009 at 1:54 am |
Peter:”If the emoting eco-weenie left weren’t holding sway in australia, maybe they would still have firebreaks instead of years of stored fuel on the ground.”Who is the one crying about the cold weather, macho man. If we were to burn all THAT FUEL, we would probably be able to observe the end of mankind. What I fear more than the cold, is our ability to miss the real signal. The world is regressing at an alarming rate. Beside our obvious enviromental challenges, Global Warming is here. Scientists aren’t exactly sure when a tipping point will come, and I don’t want that to happen. Austrailia is the third largest coal user, and that is their only source of energy. Green eco-weenies may be strange, but unlike you, they are not dangerous.
Peter // February 18, 2009 at 1:55 am |
“If you think you will escape harm because you are far inland and in the far north, you are mistaken. No one is asking you to freeze. Rather we are asking you to help us 1)buy time by conserving; and 2)come up with a long term, sustainable solution to a very real threat. Now, is that unreasonable?”
Ray, there is nothing unreasonable about that, but it is a first. I have never been asked to conserve. I have never been asked to do anything. I have been told that fossil fuels are evil and I have been told that I have to stop using them, and I have been told to get “the hell” out of Tammy’s way. Asking is nice, and much more likely to generate a useful dialogue. Also, I am 4 km from the coast, and not far north by Canadian standards, in fact it is a balmy -10C here right now. I live on a lake, which in 1998 didn’t freeze at all, and last year was frozen for 5 months, and this year is being plowed for hockey by 5 ton trucks, and will have been frozen for 4 months by mid-March.
Tammy, you are making my point. of course all time cold records are merely weather, but so is a heat wave inAustralia. Sauce for the goose as it were.
Kevin McKinney, whatever gets you through brother.
[Response: You need to pay more attention. When I posted about the Australian heat wave, I emphasized (as I always do) that global warming is about the trends, not the events, and showed without doubt that the *trend* in high temperature in southern Australia is upward. Strongly.
But in spite of not paying attention to what this blog is about, you rankle at the possibility that you ought to change, so you decided to tell me off with "sod off" and describing Americans as crying for their mamas, after such idiotic statements as "There is no short or medium term replacement" and "only nuclear in the long run." It looks to me like you've made little or no effort to understand the reality of global warming, or the potential of renewable energy sources.
Then you resort to "emoting eco-weenie left" and try to blame the bushfires on them! Perverse. I stand by my opinion: if you don't have the guts to face a real, difficult problem head on, you'd rather deny it and run away, then I don't care what your muscles look like you're a coward.]
Ray Ladbury // February 18, 2009 at 1:55 am |
Dave A., I never have to assume you are an ignoramus. I can always count on your very next post to confirm it beyond doubt. Dave, I’ve actually talked to Holdren. I know his positions, and they are quite reasonable. He still believes that without achieving a sustainable economy, we are headed for a population crash of massive proportions. His–and Ehrlich’s–only mistake was failing to anticipate that humans could eat petroleum, since agriculture has been reduced to turning petroleum into foodstuffs. We’re at Peak Oil now, Dave. How does that bode for population?
Peter // February 18, 2009 at 3:19 am |
“or the potential of renewable energy sources.”
Tammy, you also have not been paying attention. I used the terms short medium and long with respect to timeframe. Potential renewable energy sources will not power the existing heavy manufacturing industry which provides the economic lifeblood of my region in any short or medium timeframe. It takes 10 years (minimum) to get environmental approvals to build any sort of power plant up here save wind, and we’ve got windmills everwhere you can stick ‘em. They are providing about 3% of the total consumption. Nice, but no alternative. Try solar north of 48 degrees latitude and see just how useful it is.
The only electricity provided to me comes from 70% coal, 20% natural gas and 10% everything else from wind to hydro. I could refuse to use that power, but I die tomorrow from exposure, so forgive me if AGW seems far off to me.
[Response: Awwwwww... You're too poor to get some solar panels, or use wood or wood pellets for heating (not fossil fuel), or get a solar hot-water system to do at least part of the job, or look into the investment cost of your own wind generator, or in fact do a damn thing but complain about how hard it is. Fine. At least get the hell out of the way of those of us who will.]
Jim Eager // February 18, 2009 at 3:35 am |
Peter insists that “no alternatives currently exist to keep us [Canadians] warm,” which is simply not true.
Approximately three quarters of Canada’s population lives within 90 miles/145 km of the Canada-US border, which means that at least three quarters of Canada’s population, minimum, can use ground-source geothermal systems to heat their residential and commercial buildings.
Indeed, I live not 2 km from a 3000 square meter mixed commercial-residential building that is heated entirely by ground-source geothermal. In fact, there is an entire subdivision in the city of Calgary, Alberta, where every house is heated by a ground source system.
Calgary is around 264 miles/160 km north of the border, btw.
Jim Eager // February 18, 2009 at 3:36 am |
Oops, I obviously typed that backwards.
Calgary is 160 miles/264 km north of the border.
dhogaza // February 18, 2009 at 6:59 am |
Peter’s claims being true or false don’t matter, and you people shouldn’t fall into the trap of responding to them.
The cold hard truth of climate science doesn’t matter regarding your post any more than similar claims about the tobacco economy refutes the fact that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease.
Of course, plenty of people smoke regardless, but the facts don’t change.
Barton Paul Levenson // February 18, 2009 at 1:12 pm |
luminous writes:
And of course, touchy-feely New-Age mysticism is much more mature than Christianity.
And let’s not forget Freudianism. Now there’s a mature philosophy!
[Response: Discussion of the relative merits of religious beliefs is interesting and worthwhile, but perhaps there's a more appropriate forum.]
P. Lewis // February 18, 2009 at 1:19 pm |
Canadian power generation breakdowns here and here.
Ray Ladbury // February 18, 2009 at 2:13 pm |
Peter, I don’t see where anyone has asked you to freeze to death. I have also observed that when people extrapolate the status quo into the indefinite future, they are invariably wrong. Actually, solar works quite well north of 48 degrees–in the summer. Clearly, you’ll need other solutions in the winter. Peak oil is upon us. Peak coal is maybe a couple of decades off under an business as usual. So the question is what will you do then as your energy costs soar? What will your children do?
I presume that most of your food comes from the south. What will you do as increases in pests, disease, etc. decrease agricultural yields down here in the US and in Canada’s breadbasket?
These are very real threats, and it’s not just “greenies” that are concerned. Most physicists rate climate change as perhaps the most difficult challenge humanity has yet faced in preserving civilization. And we don’t yet know how to solve it. The answer is to buy time by conserving as much as possible and supporting research into energy and mitigation solutions. That is what is being asked: understand the risk and help in addressing it.
You have to understand that those of us who do science for a living have understood this risk for at least a decade, but we’ve faced a lot of opposition to doing anything about it. Much of that opposition has come from entrenched interests such as the oil and coal lobbies in the US. It is natural that we are a little suspicious and hostile to these interests.
This is ultimately not about right vs. left or green vs. capitalist. It is about preserving human civilization. If you have children, that is not a concern that should be far from your mind.
Hank Roberts // February 18, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
Tamino, looking momentarily back to your opening text, I’m sure you know this story but for any youngsters who don’t — look it up, you can find it in three anthologies at least, as well as in some old magazine your grandparents probably read long long ago.
http://ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/arthur-c-clarke/i-remember-babylon/_/R-400000000000000093606
or
http://books.google.com/books?id=H118kM3MECEC&pg=PA702&lpg=PA702&dq=Clarke+remember+babylon&source=web&ots=9vXcTw4lRS&sig=FjZhwBC9uBymIflrezdYLYdDLrE&hl=en&ei=ADWcSZPMA5qWsAPu952aAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=13&ct=result
It pointed to where we were headed.
We got there.
Jim Eager // February 18, 2009 at 4:51 pm |
P. Lewis, you can break that down further to the mix produced in each province and then look at where Canada’s population is distributed.
For example, in Ontario, where 38.8% of Canada’s population lives, nuclear supplies 37% to 52%*, hydro-electric 21% to 27%*, coal 18% to 31%*, natural gas 3.8% to 8%, wind, solar and all other 1%. (*Ontario recently decommissioned one of its coal-fired plants and has slated others for closure, is currently building gas-fired plants, and plans to build more nuclear plants and wind farms.)
Quebec, which accounts for 24.1% of Canada’s population, generates almost 96% of its electricity from hydro-electric, while British Columbia, 13% of population, generates almost 90% from hydro, Manitoba, 3.6% of population, generates about the same from hydro, while Newfoundland and Labrador, 1.6% of population, generates 73.3% from hydro.
On the other side, Alberta, which accounts for 10.4% of population, produces 81% from coal, plus 15% from oil and natural gas, while Nova Scotia, 2.8% of population, generates 90% from coal, Saskatchewan, 3% of population, 75% from coal, plus anther 7% from natural gas, tiny Prince Edward Island, .4% of population, gets 66% from coal, and New Brunswick, 2.3% of population, generates 56.7 from coal, plus 5.2% from natural gas.
Although it varies widely depending on where one lives, clearly over 80% of Canada’s population gets the bulk of it’s electricity from non-fossil fuel sources, and only 20% is dependent on fossil fuels for the bulk of their electricity.
Dave A // February 18, 2009 at 10:01 pm |
Dhogaza,
You “picked” out Wilson , I responded with Holdren. I was just following your example.
Dave A // February 18, 2009 at 10:18 pm |
Ray,
‘Sticks and stones may break my bones etc.
Glad you “talked” to Holdren, If you talked to me I am sure I would come across as “reasonable” too.
On the question of peak oil I think you are somewhat premature in your contention that we are there.
Ray Ladbury // February 19, 2009 at 1:55 am |
Dave A. says “Glad you “talked” to Holdren, If you talked to me I am sure I would come across as “reasonable” too.”
Nah! Too easy.
Holdren was writing for the magazine I was editing for, so I got to know his policy views and his understanding of energy matters pretty well. Let me put it this way. They exceed yours.
Kevin McKinney // February 19, 2009 at 1:24 pm |
Ray, you mean a professional in energy policy with extensive academic credentials in the area understands the area better than the average blogger? What a revolutionary concept!
(self-edit for extended sarcastic rant)
Ray Ladbury // February 19, 2009 at 2:52 pm |
Kevin McKinney says, “Ray, you mean a professional in energy policy with extensive academic credentials in the area understands the area better than the average blogger? What a revolutionary concept!”
Yeah, shocking, isn’t it! To think that someone who has devoted their life to the study of a subject might exceed the understanding of the average ignorant food tube. Who woulda thunk it?
Dave A // February 20, 2009 at 11:06 pm |
Ray,
You said “He still believes that without achieving a sustainable economy, we are headed for a population crash of massive proportions.”
But according to Nature he told the Senate confirmation hearing that he was very young (26) when he made gloomy assessments about overpopulation and that he now no longer thinks it useful to focus on population.
So when he spoke to you or when he spoke to the Senate was he tailoring the comments to the audience?
Dave A // February 20, 2009 at 11:16 pm |
Kevin M,
I don’t recall I said anything about Holdren’s expertise on energy policy but rather pointed out his apparent ‘attraction’ to gloomy scenarios and self promotion.
Ray Ladbury // February 21, 2009 at 1:22 am |
Actually, Dave, the two comments are not incommensurate. We do know a bit more about population dynamics of our species than we did, and the most hopeful thing is that educating women and alleviating poverty are the best ways to reduce fertility. He has chosen to focus his efforts on sustainability, which, hopefully is more attainable.
Philippe Chantreau // February 21, 2009 at 1:36 am |
Thanks, Jim Eager. I did not feel expert enough to adress the Canadian energy thing but my recollection from high school (long time ago) was that Canada was kind of the hydro-electricity giant of the world. I have not looked up what percent of the total energy production is hydro but I believe it likely to be higher than coal.
Dave A, thhere is another doom/gloom type of prophet that systematically asserts that there is no possibility at all to do without fossil fuels or even reduce FF use. They take various shapes but the core message is always the same and the conclusion invariably that we shouldn’t even try too hard to reduce FF dependency, less we’re ready to face the seven plagues. There is usually an adundance of trillions thrown around in the argument. It has no grounding in reality but I never hear “skeptics” addressing them.
Dave Andrews // February 21, 2009 at 8:48 pm |
Ray,
Well tell me what exactly is “sustainability”?
In the 1950’s the world’s population was around 3.5 billion today it is over 6 billion. Now presumably in the 1950s/60s you would have been with Erhlich and Holdren and said that sustainability meant that overpopulation was going to be a disaster.
But here we are now with the world’s population almost double what it was and you are still talking about sustainability. Seems like it is a pretty elastic notion to me and one that might easily stretch to accomodate another 3 billion people, don’t ya think?
Dave Andrews // February 21, 2009 at 8:50 pm |
Damn! “accommodate”
Tenney Naumer // February 21, 2009 at 8:52 pm |
Tamino, your efforts here have really helped me understand a lot more about the trends. Thanks so much for all of the effort you put into your blog.
TV programming these days and very many years has been pretty bad. I turned off mine in 2006.
Oh, and it is great the way you tell it like it is and tell the idiots where to get off.
I was thinking that it is fully justified to tell obstructionist denialist bloggers to get out of the way, but that perhaps face to face things could be different, but then I read Ray’s comment about his experiment. hmmm. Well, yes, hope these days does require audacity.
Or maybe it just requires character.
Ray Ladbury // February 21, 2009 at 9:42 pm |
Dave A., Do you even bother to read what I write? How can you contend that the current load placed on the globe by 6.5 billion people is sustainable. Fish stocks are collapsing. There are deadzones in the oceans. We would have had a massive dieback 2 decades ago had modern agriculture not figured out how to turn petroleum into corn and corn into everything else. What do you propose we do when we run out of petroleum. At present 40% of the world’s biomass goes to support humans.
We might just barely be able to sustain about half the current population. Long term a billion would be better. Look, Dave, it’s pretty simple. Resources are limited. Population is not self limiting. Eventually, population crashes–unless the thin veneer of gray matter we call our cerebral cortex is sufficient for us to find a way to limit our growth voluntarily. Right now, more folks–you included–are using it to construct elaborate lies to justify their inaction.
Daniel J. Andrews // February 22, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
In the past I’ve found those who think our population is sustainable at 6.5-9 billion people are unaware of what is happening even within their own countries.
One small example: Even if climate were not changing at all, the use of water reserves in the south and south-west U.S. are far exceeding the replenishment rates. There is a vast underwater reservoir that is used for agriculture over a large area, and it is being depleted. The edges of this reservoir and others have already run dry and what once were agricultural fields are now left unplanted due to lack of water.
Agriculture in many sections of the U.S. is unsustainable already. We’ve known that for decades well before global warming became an issue. Adding more people just hastens the process.
And if climate change results in drier, hotter conditions in these agricultural areas (as all the science points to, so if you disagree you’d better have some excellent science** to back that opinion), the U.S. is looking at wide-spread drought (as are parts of Canada). We’re already at unsustainable levels of population with our current usage of resources. We need to change how we use the resources, or we need to limit our population. If we do neither nature will limit our population for us.
Incidentally, I’d be happy to allow Peter to opt out of paying any extra taxes that would result from application of CO2 reducing efforts providing he’d vote to refund all the taxes we paid that went into fuelling an unsustainable economy (business as usual) and life-style that resulted in our current economic downturn.
Hell of a job there, folks…I paid all those taxes so you could run things into the ground…and then I have to pay more taxes to pull ourselves out of the ground so you can continue to run things the way you’ve always done….isn’t doing the same thing that didn’t work the first time over and over again figuring it will work this time the definition of insanity? Told you it wasn’t going to work. Give me my money back.
Basically drop the tax argument, Peter, it is far too simplistic, cuts both ways, and cuts your argument much worse…and makes you look like the type of person that you don’t want around in a crisis.
**Lomberg is not science. He makes so many factual and logical errors as to be unreliable in much of what he says…even some of his citations don’t exist, or don’t say what he says they say. Evidence was cherry-picked and then made to say something it didn’t (Fishing stocks have increased in the ocean–cherry pick! The oceans are doing fine–even if ocean stocks have increased, this isn’t evidence for things doing ‘fine’!! siighhhh…look it up if you’re interested) His first book was a sloppy bit of work, and I haven’t seen any evidence he’s improved.
I loved it when he defended his misuse of Wilson’s work basically saying he knew what Wilson was saying better than Wilson himself (not in those words but that was the general gist when you considered it).
Douglas Watts // February 23, 2009 at 3:34 am |
“Over-population” has nothing to do with fisheries depletion. Many U.S. commercial fisheries were close to extinction by 1900 — when the U.S. population was only 74 million people — 25 percent of the population level today. Fisheries depletion is no different than whale depletion. It occurs when the harvest rate exceeds the replacement rate. World population is irrelevant to this dynamic, except in the most broad and ridiculous sense (ie. if there were no people, there would be nobody deplete the fisheries). Even a world population at the level of when Christ walked around, given today’s technology, could wipe out our fisheries.
dhogaza // February 23, 2009 at 5:23 am |
But the economic incentives probably wouldn’t exist. That’s what increasing world population gets you … increased demand, increased value, more investment capital available to go get the goodies.
Similar stuff happens on land … when the world population was at the level of when Christ walked around, there would’ve been no financial incentive to develop the water resources that made the Imperical Valley of California possible.
Ray Ladbury // February 23, 2009 at 1:42 pm |
Uh, Dougie, what do you think creates increasing demand for fish? for soybeans? for corn? More people consume more=more demand. More demand increases prices, which creates incentive to increase supply.
No, population is not everything. Increased affluence also increases demand for protein, but it’s a big part of the equation.
Dave A // February 23, 2009 at 10:03 pm |
Ray,
Increased affluence also leads to fewer people. The more developed a society is the less children it has, for all kinds of reasons - just look at the world around you.
So you are facing a really, really big choice here Ray. The world’s population is going to increase considerably, no matter what you or I may think about it and most of that growth is going to be in the developing world. Pressure on resources is going to increase. This growth of population is also going to impact climate change, because one of the best ways of improving peoples lives is to provide them with access to energy, in particular electricity. But if you don’t improve peoples lives they will still continue to have more and more children.
So where do we put the resources, Ray? Is it better to throw everything at CO2 reduction or to put the major effort into reducing poverty and improving peoples lives?
Dave A // February 23, 2009 at 10:31 pm |
dhogaza,
S**t, people have children. If only we had stayed at the early Christian level!
Well we left that level approx 2000 years ago and we are now here. But do you know what, people still have children and your comments are basically ridiculous.
dhogaza // February 24, 2009 at 5:22 am |
First DaveA says:
Then points out that:
Which is a direct contradiction of the first post.
Sigh.
dhogaza // February 24, 2009 at 5:23 am |
(psst daveA you haven’t taken into consideration infant mortality)
dhogaza // February 24, 2009 at 5:26 am |
And, of course, I never posted anything to justify this.
I only made the obvious point that more people mean more economic pressure on resources (always true, unless davea suggests that resources are infinite).
I said nothing about values.
Barton Paul Levenson // February 24, 2009 at 11:34 am |
Dave A introduces a classic fallacy of bifurcation:
Who is saying we should throw “everything” at CO2 reduction? And who says CO2 reduction won’t reduce poverty and improve peoples lives?
Ray Ladbury // February 24, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
Dave A., Welcome to humanity’s midterm. Apparently you didn’t study. Don’t worry. It’s take home, open book, open note. In fact there is one question:
Demonstrate that it is possible to create a sustainable economy. Don’t forget to show your work.
I don’t think your strategy of false dichotomy will work for this task. If we ourselves shift to a zero-emission economy but ignore development, third world countries will burn whatever they can find to survive and negate our efforts. If we devote all our efforts to development, the ravages of a changing climate will frustrate all of our efforts and lead to massive collapse of population.
Now you may think Professor Nature is a bitch for giving us such a difficult exam. In fact, she had thought about making it easier by not throwing in the whole climate issue, but there is still the issue of Peak Oil and the finiteness of fossil fuels in general, so omitting climate from the equation wouldn’t really make the question much easier, would it? At most, it would mean that we would have to confront the issue in a couple of decades rather than right, fucking now. And given the fact that humanity has never seemed to learn how to study in advance for the exam, we’d be cramming just the same after a couple more decades of BAU.
In fact, we’ve squandered 2 decades already. Better start cramming, Dave. Developing a sustainable economy–including renewable energy AND development–is the only way we pass Civilization 101.
Kevin McKinney // February 24, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
Well-stated, Dr. Ladbury.
Dave A // February 24, 2009 at 8:59 pm |
Ray,
Could you clarify which issue we would have to confront in a couple of decades. Is it ‘peak oil’, finiteness of fossil fuels, population growth or climate change.
Thanks
Dave A // February 24, 2009 at 9:18 pm |
BPL,
Accept that the world’s population is going to grow. Many people, especially in the developing countries live in conditions of, often, extreme poverty. The quickest way to improve their lives is to enable them to access energy sources. The widest available source of energy is fossil fuel.
So are you going to help them improve their lives or not?
David B. Benson // February 24, 2009 at 10:43 pm |
Dave A // February 24, 2009 at 8:59 pm — All of those. Simultaneously.
Dave A // February 24, 2009 at 9:18 pm — The most widely used sources of energy, for cooking, are animal dung and woody materials.
Fossil fuels are largely only used by the rich although there are some minor exceptions.
Helping the poorest includes designing and providing cookers which use the aailable matrials efficiently. Some engage in that. BPL’s efforts are better directed elsewhere, IMO.
Hank Roberts // February 24, 2009 at 10:54 pm |
Exactly the same stuff, unchanged after years of discussion, Dave A, just posting talking points from the old files?
dhogaza // February 24, 2009 at 11:00 pm |
Yes, DaveA, the reason we want to forestall catastrophic climate change is because we’re unwilling to improve the lives of those who live in developing countries.
Like, say, bangladesh. Our evil plan is to deny people living along the coast the benefits of being able to bathe their feet in sea water right inside their hovels in a few more decades.
Ray Ladbury // February 25, 2009 at 2:15 am |
Dave A., Do you have a reading disability. What part of–we have to confront all of these challenges–do you not understand. We make progress where we can, how we can. It is the work of a generation or two, and if they fail they will be the last generations to know the benefits of civilization. Now what part of that is unclear?
Barton Paul Levenson // February 25, 2009 at 12:08 pm |
Dave A writes:
The widest available sources of energy are sunlight and wind, Dave, both of which can be found in many more places than fossil fuel can. And people can improve their lives very well with those. It is not necessary for every country in the world to repeat Britain’s industrial revolution in order to achieve a high standard of living.
As for population continuing to grow — sure it will, but not for long. In my lifetime the world mean annual population growth rate has slowed from 2.0% per year to 1.3%. Present projections have it going to zero possibly as early as 2050. One main reason for this is the widespread success of birth control even in poor third-world countries (e.g. Bangladesh, where the mean number of children per women has fallen from seven to three just in the past few decades).
Dave A // February 25, 2009 at 10:25 pm |
BPL,
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Wind and sun might be widespread but the technology to produce energy from them on a large and reliable scale is not yet available, especially solar.
And yes the mean population growth is, and will continue to decline but there are still going to be some 2.5 - 3 billion more people on earth by 2050. And these people will need access to energy resources. Why do you think China and India are building so many coal fired power stations rather than wind or solar options?
Dave A // February 25, 2009 at 10:41 pm |
Ray,
I don’t have a reading disability thanks. As you say there are many problems we face and we obviously have to make choices. I guess, however, I must be an optimist and, as I’ve said before, see a glass half full rather than one half empty.
Ray, over the last 60 years we have had all kinds of dire predictions about humanity’s future - and do you know what, none of them have so far proved correct. One of the reasons for this is that people are generally a lot more resourceful than they are given credit for and secondly technology has advanced at an incredible rate. I don’t see why these aspects shouldn’t continue.
Dave A // February 25, 2009 at 10:48 pm |
dhogaza,
Wow! Should you be admitting such stuff in public? :-)
Ray Ladbury // February 26, 2009 at 1:39 am |
Dave A. says: “Are you being deliberately obtuse? Wind and sun might be widespread but the technology to produce energy from them on a large and reliable scale is not yet available, especially solar.”
and in the very next post
“… technology has advanced at an incredible rate. I don’t see why these aspects shouldn’t continue.”
Troll points!! Actually, Dave, I, too am counting on technology. However, having been involved in science and technology, I realize that they take time–and since we have wasted 2 decades allowing anti-science idiots to make policy, time is what we do not have. We need to buy time for technology to work by conserving energy and switching as much as possible to renewables.
Actually, solar energy is already competitive for villages, etc. off the grid. Since these areas are among those that will be increasing energy consumption most rapidly in coming years, this is an area where we can increase standards of living without increasing carbon emissions. Likewise wind energy. No offense, Dave, but when it comes to a choice between your opinion and T. Boone Pickens as to what is viable, I’ll take Mr. Pickens.
There’s an old saying: There are those who make things happen, those who watch things happen and those who wonder what happened. To be in the first two groups, you have to understand what is going on. It appears you are unwilling to make that investment of effort. The ignorant are destined to be irrelevant.
EliRabett // February 26, 2009 at 1:54 am |
Ray, that’s too good a test to waste on David A.
Douglas Watts // February 26, 2009 at 9:39 am |
Uh, Dougie, what do you think creates increasing demand for fish?
–
Ray, with all respect. A starving, writhing overpopulated mass does not create demand for Beluga caviar. Or giant bluefin tuna sushi at $20,000 an animal. Or dynamiting coral reefs.
Your hypothesis is empirically wrong as it respects fish and harvesting fish. Whales were not, and are not, being hunted to extinction because there are too many humans. It’s just about a few dumb and incredibly greedy hunters aided by technology and unrestrained by normal, civilized people.
And how is overpopulation affecting the U.S., where we are paving over all of our best farmland to make strip malls? This is not about too many people. It’s about a tiny few people making enormously wasteful land and resource decisions for short term profit.
thx.
Douglas Watts // February 26, 2009 at 9:47 am |
Dear Ray —
what I am trying to say is that citing “overpopulation” is wrong because it is non-factual, is easily falsified and is too often used as a catch-all for all types of very specific problems that are, at best, exacerbated by overpopulation, whatever that phrase even means. In short, citing “overpopulation” as a problem or “the problem” does not only fail to get the conversation moving but drives it into the ground, but cause it necessarily causes one to say that the government needs to tell people how many kids they can have. It’s a non-starter and is not necessary and perversely distracts us from all the real issues regarding pollution, resource use, extraction, spoiling, sustainability, etc.
I believe we are actually on the same page about this, but in different words.
thx.
Barton Paul Levenson // February 26, 2009 at 11:38 am |
Dave A writes:
No. Are you being deliberately obnoxious?
If you’re talking about improving the lives of people in Third World villages, it doesn’t have to be on a large scale, does it?
I know.
If you’ve been following the energy news you know China just massively stepped up its wind power program.
Kevin McKinney // February 26, 2009 at 12:58 pm |
Dave A, it isn’t true that China is “building coal-fired power stations rather than wind or solar options.”
China’s rate of expansion of wind generation has been quite remarkable, and the nation is clearly attempting to become a world leader in the manufacture of wind turbines. President Obama isn’t the only one who thinks there is lots of money to be made in green jobs.
Google it for yourself; you won’t find it difficult.
Hank Roberts // February 26, 2009 at 3:54 pm |
Oh, lordy, if we could just stop replying to Dave A, we could have some interesting threads again.
Please, folks, consider talking about anything else than Dave.
dhogaza // February 26, 2009 at 4:39 pm |
Your cherry-picked examples are arguable, but it’s not worth arguing about them.
Because like most arguments based on cherry-picking, it’s irrelevant to the fact that increased population provides the demand that has led to wholesale stripping of the ocean of not only luxury items but fish - like wild salmon - that was once so plentiful that in its canned version it fed the poor in the US midwest, and here in the PNW was cheap fresh eats in-season.
Jim Eager // February 26, 2009 at 5:33 pm |
DaveA’s hand-wringing over the plight of the energy impoverished in the third and developing world is quite touching.
It reminds me of the scene in the The Great Global Warming Swindle showing the African clinic that had to make do with a single solar panel to run either the lights or the refrigerator and lab instruments. I’ve always wondered if Durkin dug into his pocket and bought them a few more PV panels, another inverter, and more storage batteries, or if he just went home to his editing suite with his footage.
DaveA’s concern trolling is the exact same type of hypocritical bullshit.
Lazar // February 26, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
Pleeeease do.
Ray Ladbury // February 26, 2009 at 6:08 pm |
Douglas Watts, Actually increased population also increases the number of wealthy individuals who do have demand for beluga caviar and blue-fin tuna sushi. It also increases demand for herring, sardines, pollack and whatever else the fishermen catch. I agree 100% that overpopulation is only part of the cause of increased consumption. It is, however, a part we cannot afford to ignore.
I have no children, Douglas. The government didn’t tell me not to have children. I made the decision because I decided to devote more effort to my career and because the world has more than enough people. Decreasing fertility rates has much more with educating women an giving people choices than it does with government decrees. Of course “giving people choices” can also result in increased consumption if we do it wrong.
Antiquated Tory // February 26, 2009 at 6:33 pm |
‘Gor’ is quite obviously a reference to the Tarnsman of Gor series by John Norman, a cheesy SF/Fantasy series loaded with S&M themes. In constant reprint since first being published in the 70’s. The latest reprint goes straight for a photo of a naked, manacled woman on the cover, which quite spoils the un-self-consciousness of the original issue (and breaks the tradition of S&M SF/Fantasy cover art).
Dave A // February 26, 2009 at 9:41 pm |
Jim Eager,
What a nice person you are (bullshit!)
Dave A // February 26, 2009 at 9:45 pm |
Ray & Eli,
You think T Boone Pickens gives a damn about sustainability, climate change, or future generations?
He’s in this for the bottom line, profit for TBP
Dave A // February 26, 2009 at 9:59 pm |
BPL,
Yes China has stepped up its wind power production but it is way way behind the growth in coal fired power. And there is a simple reason for this - wind and other renewables cannot provide constant, reliable sources of energy that will satisfy the demands needed. If you think it will you are effectively saying that millions of people will have to go without the things that you , yourself,regard as ‘normal’.
In fact you admit as much in your comment about “Third World villages”
Dave A // February 26, 2009 at 10:22 pm |
Hank,
I’m curious. In the time we have crossed each others paths, I don’t recall you ever expressing your own point of view. You provide helpful links to all kinds of research, but never say what you think about any particular issue.
You don’t even swear at me like Ray!!
Why is this?
Hank Roberts // February 26, 2009 at 11:54 pm |
Good news, worth reading:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/environmental_law/2009/02/outstanding-env.html
Jim Eager // February 27, 2009 at 12:56 am |
Dave A, I’m not at all interested in being a nice person when it comes to denialists, obstructionists and propagandists like you.
As Tamino said, time for you and your ilk to get the hell out of the way.
And if you decide to stay in the way expect to get your shins kicked.
Ray Ladbury // February 27, 2009 at 1:50 am |
From he whose name must not be uttered (for fear of falling asleep): “You think T Boone Pickens gives a damn about sustainability, climate change, or future generations?
He’s in this for the bottom line, profit for TBP”
Yup, precisely. That’s why I trust that he will dispassionately evaluate the options and pick a winner. He’s picked wind.
-AND-
“I’m curious. In the time we have crossed each others paths, I don’t recall you ever expressing your own point of view.”
Maybe Hank is here to learn and help others do the same…. Take awhile to wrap your mind around that idea if you need it.
EliRabett // February 27, 2009 at 5:30 am |
He owns a bunch of gas leases
Gavin's Pussycat // February 27, 2009 at 9:35 am |
It seems TCO isn’t the only one getting drunk around here.
Bob North // February 27, 2009 at 3:50 pm |
Kind of on the theme of the title for this post, I am suprised that this technology has not received more widespread attention:
Ocean Power Technology
Ray Ladbury // February 27, 2009 at 5:06 pm |
Bob North,
It’s received a lot of attention. There’s even a pilot plant in Britain, I believe. I remember first hearing about it in 1977.
luminous beauty // February 27, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
Oy weh!
Hank Roberts // February 27, 2009 at 9:15 pm |
http://www.desmogblog.com/dscovr-finally-going-fly
Dave A // February 27, 2009 at 9:38 pm |
Ray,
“That’s why I trust that he will dispassionately evaluate the options and pick a winner. He’s picked wind.”:
Dispassionately wouldn’t have anything to do with Federal subsidies would it?
luminous beauty // February 27, 2009 at 10:26 pm |
Since solar, geothermal, wave, etc. all get the same subsidy, I doubt it.
luminous beauty // February 27, 2009 at 10:40 pm |
Another under appreciated source of ocean energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion
JCH // February 27, 2009 at 11:20 pm |
Basing it upon the very limited subsidy alone, everybody in the energy business knows the rug can be pulled out from under any subsidy, would be an irrational and incredibly stupid thing to do.
T Boone is a little bit of both, but just a little.
T Boone is chasing the wind, and the water, because he understands commodities. Oil is screwed.
Philippe Chantreau // February 28, 2009 at 1:03 am |
As rethoric goes, that’s pretty weak an argument Dave A. First, Pickens has made his money alread ears ago. Wall Street obviously indicates that some can never have enough and are ready to sacrifice everything that’s not theirs for an extra buck. It remains to be shown that Pickens is that kind.
Oil and gas get all sorts of goodies from direct subsidies to tax breaks to royalties exemptions. If my tax money is going to subsidize anything, I’d rather have it go where it’s actually needed than to an industry racking in tens of billions of pure profit per quarter.
Philippe Chantreau // February 28, 2009 at 1:28 am |
Alas, it might take the wave generation idea more swell to convince the powers that be, as it was shown before that having your ducks in a row might not be enough:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/salters-duck1.htm
http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=salters-duck.htm&url=http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/299034/Wave+master.htm
“According to sworn testimony before the House of Parliament, The UK Wave Energy program was shuttered on March 19, 1982 in a closed meeting, the details of which remain secret. The members of the meeting were recruited largely from the nuclear and fossil fuels industries, and the wave programme manager, Clive Grove-Palmer, was excluded.”
See Dave? It’s not only the fossil fuel industries that are unjustly persecuted by mean people and shut out from debate…
Ray Ladbury // February 28, 2009 at 2:01 am |
Dave A., Dispassionately. Get a frigging dictionary and look it up, Troll. It will be a good way to start your education. Come back when you have something of substance.
Douglas Watts // February 28, 2009 at 9:03 am |
Salmon, here in the PNW was cheap fresh eats in-season. — dhogaza
–
Umm .. the reason you have no cheap canned salmon in the PNW is because of dams, starting with Bonneville in the 1930s, that was literally designed to have no fish passage. And Grand Coulee, and John Day and the lower Snake 4 and all the rest.
Your anecdote only proves my point. Population growth is not correlative to resource depletion and species extinction. The Columbia River, which used to host the largest migratory fish run on the planet Earth, was destroyed around WW II by government dam builders. There was no rhyme or reason for it. They destroyed the entire Columbia River just because they wanted to build some big ass dams with the public’s money. Overpopulation had nothing to do with it. In fact, they destroyed the entire Columbia River salmon fishing industry by building these dams. And now there are no salmon and no cans of salmon.
Barton Paul Levenson // February 28, 2009 at 12:29 pm |
Bob,
There’s also something called “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion” or OTEC which uses the temperature difference between shallow and deep water to run a turbine. It was researched at least as far back as the 1960s and had, I think, at least one pilot plant in the 1970s, but I haven’t heard anything more about it since then. Anyone?
Ray Ladbury // February 28, 2009 at 1:52 pm |
Douglas Watts, OK, Doug. I’ll bite. Just how do you have population increase without consuming more resources. And how do you increase consumption in a finite environment without depleting resources. Humans now consume 40% of the biosphere for their sustenance. Do you think that is sustainable?
I concede that population growth is only part of the equation. There is also “growth,” or increased consumption per capita. I also concede that a decreasing population can pose problems as daunting as a rising one (e.g. deflation–the history of the middle ages is instructive here, as is the history of Central Africa during colonialism). However, in a finite environment, human population cannot grow without bound. And if you are going to contend that we don’t live in a finite environment, you’d better be prepared to justify that.
Ray Ladbury // February 28, 2009 at 2:05 pm |
Barton, I remember the discussion of the technology. As I recall, the problems were the same with any large-scale technology on the ocean–corrosive seawater, the large scale needed for generating a lot of energy from a low-intensity source and environmental concerns. I haven’t heard much about it in at least 2 decades. One thing I’ve wondered, if we started drawing a lot of energy this way, how would it affect the rate of warming.
JCH // February 28, 2009 at 2:40 pm |
They built the dams because the overpopulation of humans was greater than the private-sector demand for human labor. At a time when a high percentage of mothers stayed at home, 25% of the workforce was unemployed.
The salmon decline commenced with the arrival of an overpopulation of California gold miners.
dhogaza // February 28, 2009 at 2:53 pm |
They’ve all got fish passage facilities other than Grand Coulee, so I took the liberty of correcting your comment.
Now you’re just getting silly.
Why the hell do you think the dams were built?
Hydro for an expanding population and the related growth in industry, some also for irrigation (John Day in particular), some also to make possible the use of large barges to carry (mostly) ag goods to market (lower 4 snake dams).
All of this is related to population growth.
And of course chinook, the species primarily impacted by dam construction on the Columbia, is only one of several species. Habitat destruction in the form of logging (to feed our wood products habit, which has grown with population), and ocean conditions have all contributed to declines in numbers.
I’m going to repeat one of your sentences, because it’s truly one of the most stupid things I’ve ever seen on the intertubes:
dhogaza // February 28, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
Oh, and just one last thing …
Hydro power in the PNW lowers our carbon footprint compared to areas where electricity comes from coal-fired plants.
And the dams are responsible for the growth in ag in the Palouse, both irrigation and barge passage.
Was it worth it? Obviously conservationists like myself point out the cost was high, and blowing up the lower 4 snake dams are a real priority as it would open up a lot of salmon habitat.
But to say there was no rhyme or reason, that’s just false.
Philippe Chantreau // February 28, 2009 at 5:06 pm |
24000 megawatts=no rhyme or reason.
lee // February 28, 2009 at 5:41 pm |
One could argue - and people have - that those Columbia watershed dams won WWII for us.
Aliminum ore is relatively common. Aluminum in proximity to huge amounts of cheap electricity for refining it is not common - and was especially not common in the 1940s.
Those dams made aluminum. That aluminum made airplanes. It allowed us to keep up when we were losing airplanes in combat at ratios sometimes approaching 10-1 against experienced japanese and german pilots.
Why do you think Boeing is in Seattle?
That in turn drove massive population growth- which in turn drove massive urban and industrial use of water, which in turn pushed watersheds to near limits, which in turn also contributed to the fisheries collapses.
David B. Benson // February 28, 2009 at 7:55 pm |
dhogaza // February 28, 2009 at 2:59 pm worte “And the dams are responsible for the growth in ag in the Palouse, both irrigation and barge passage.” Well, I live on the Palouse. It is all dry-land farming. There might be a bit of well irrigation for some farmers own grass, fruit trees and vegatable gardens. Before the lower Snake River dams were finished, the wheat, dry peas and lentils went to market via the railroads. Adding barges did not increase the land area in production nor the yield per acre.
In effect, electricity rate payers subsidize the farmers; the water to operate the locks is not available to generate electricity.
By far the worse, however, is the resulting parilous state of the long run salmon and steelhead.
Hank Roberts // February 28, 2009 at 8:30 pm |
> rhyme or reason
Woody Guthrie, “Roll On Columbia”
Dave A // February 28, 2009 at 8:48 pm |
Ray,
You seem to have a lot of anger in you which is a great pity.
But consider this -
“Solar, wind and tide represent less than 0.1% of the total world primary energy supply” ( David Coley, ‘Energy and Climate Change: Creating a Sustainable Future’, John Wiley& Sons Ltd, 2008, p368)
Thats “0.1″ per cent Ray. How are you going to get it up to the levels required to replace fossil fuels given a rising world population?
Oh, and I won’t mention the fact that you can’t put a wind turbine, a Salter’s duck or a photovoltaic cell in your gas tank - oops, just did!
David B. Benson // February 28, 2009 at 11:09 pm |
lee // February 28, 2009 at 5:41 pm — At that time there was only Bonneville and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Coulee_Dam
David B. Benson // February 28, 2009 at 11:13 pm |
Boeing started in Seattle for the wood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing#Before_1950s
dhogaza // March 1, 2009 at 12:03 am |
Hmmm, a *bit* of irrigation?
Not to mention Hermiston melons …
Wikipedia says that “by some definitions the palouse includes areas of northeastern Oregon” and in my growing up here in the Willamette Valley, perhaps the word was much more loosely worded than David uses it (as in the Palouse Basin, I imagine).
Whatever, the reality is that the damming of the Columbia led to a large increase in agriculture.
I know that railroads used to carry ag products before the lower 4 snake dams made it possible for barges to reach so far upstream, and if the dams disappear, they will again.
If barging crops didn’t make farming more profitable then the major economic argument posed against removing these dams is bogus …
Ray Ladbury // March 1, 2009 at 2:36 am |
Dave A., Why, pray, should I waste my time with you? What have you brought to the discussion other than baseless accusations, ignorance and negativism?
Anger? No. Rather a realization that you are ineducable.
lee // March 1, 2009 at 4:01 am |
“lee // February 28, 2009 at 5:41 pm — At that time there was only Bonneville and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Coulee_Dam”
yes. And Grand Coulee is currently the largest electric generating facility in the US, and the 5th largest hydroelectric plant in the world. That one dam alone generates a massive amount of electricity.
From the wikipedia article:
—
Boeing became the major industrial power it is, because of its WWII production of airplanes, epecially bombers. but yes, I oversimplified that - production of airplanes was not dependent on proximity to the aluminum sources, and produced many airplanes. but Boeing had an advantage because of cheaper aluminum shipping costs, and during the peak of WWII was building some 350 airplanes a month.
–
This is all side-issue, though. the major dams on the Columbia were initially built to create employment opportunities for a large population with employment problems, the dams led to massive growth in industry, with massive growth in population, which in turn required massive use of resources.
Population is tied to resource use and overuse.
luminous beauty // March 1, 2009 at 5:20 am |
Boeing, which was building warplanes in Seattle, was a primary customer for aluminum from Northwest smelters. It has been estimated that electricity from Grand Coulee Dam alone provided the power to make the aluminum in about one-third of the planes built during World War II.
Hank Roberts // March 1, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
Great link, Luminous.
This one has climate information on an archeological site occupied since the end of the ice age, that would give a continuous climate record for the area.
http://www.nwcouncil.org/history/MarmesRockShelter.asp
David B. Benson // March 1, 2009 at 8:16 pm |
dhogaza // March 1, 2009 at 12:03 am — The Palouse is defined by soil type: loess. It is not a basin and begins well to the east of the Columbia Basin (where the loess was blown in from). The Palouse is mostly in Washington State but also a bit of the adjacent parts of Idaho, as far up hill as the loess extends. I’ve only been through Anatone a few times and that 30+ years ago, but from what I remember, not much, if any loess. So I’d leave that part out.
To finish this geography lesson, the lower Snake River dams provide no irrigation whatsoever. The Columbia Basin project obtains all of the irrigation water by pumping at Grand Coulee from Lake Rosevelt into the equalizing basin from whence the water flows generally south across the plains, still sshowing the sculpting provided by the Bretz (Spokane, Missoula) Floods. (Which also sucultpted the channeled baddlans, providing the western border of the Palouse.)
In recent times, last 10–15 years, more farms have appeared in the Columbia Basin area, but not in the project, which either pump deep water or else pump directly from the Columbia Rivier; much of the Washington wimes comes from grapes grown on such lands.
Dave A // March 1, 2009 at 10:06 pm |
Ray,
Say about me what you like. But is David Coley, of the Centre for Energy and Environment, University of Exeter (UK) right or not when he says solar, wind and tide represent less than 0.1% of the world’s primary energy supply?
If he is right then I suggest you need to to have a major rethink about this issue.
Ian Forrester // March 2, 2009 at 12:07 am |
Dave A, your numbers are away out. The IEA shows that 2% of electricity production for all the OECD countries is from geothermal, wind, solar and other renewables. I don’t know the percentage of electricity generation in total power production but it has got to be much larger than your figures to give only 0.1% to renewables.
You deniers are never ones to worry about real numbers but always seem to produce numbers which are orders of magnitude out. They always seem to be out in the direction supporting your dishonest views, never the other way round. Thus I conclude that your “errors” are not real but are purposely used to support your dishonest arguments.
I have a question for you, Dave A. You claim to be anti-nuclear but yet say that you are green so how come you are so negative towards any green technology which would lead to less nuclear energy production? That seem to me to be very hypocritical. Or are you just a typical AGW obfuscator and delayer?
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/surveys/mes.pdf
Hank Roberts // March 2, 2009 at 12:29 am |
“Pony somewhere” — play another game?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=50&q=“David+Coley”+”Centre+for+Energy+and+Environment”
Ray Ladbury // March 2, 2009 at 12:49 am |
Dave A.,
And I suppose you would have said the automobile would never replace the horse and buggy. The value at any particular time is not particularly relevant. Solar and wind are growing from that initial small contribution very rapidly, and they show no sign of slowing down.
Oil accounts for a high proportion of energy consumption. If you think it will be doing so in 50 years, I would suggest that you do some rethinking–if you are capable.
Again, your contribution is not particularly edifying. Let us know when you have something that goes beyond calumny, platitude of trivial observation.
Dave A // March 2, 2009 at 10:45 pm |
Ian F,
Coley’s number comes from the IEA,Renewable Information 2004. Ok, now a bit out of date, but your 2% figure doesn’t dramatically alter anything, and note I was talking only about wind, solar and tide.
Thus there is still a mountain to climb for renewables and to pretend they are the ’solution’ is totally unrealistic.
Secondly, you didn’t read closely enough. I said I was anti nuclear weapons, and still am, and I was also worried about the proliferation aspects of the spread of nuclear power. Those concerns still exist.
But if the climate change situation is as serious as you and Ray et al insist then you have to make choices about the ways forward. And there is no doubt that increased use of nuclear energy in the developed world could dramatically reduce their CO2 emissions.
So its time for some serious thinking.
Dave A // March 2, 2009 at 11:07 pm |
Ray,
I didn’t say that those technologies couldn’t grow from their very small base, of course they can. But whilst they grow you need energy sources to maintain the current world population and accommodate the growth in that population. So realistically you need to continue to rely on current main energy sources, You can’t avoid this, unless you are willing to dramatically reduce the living standards of those in the developed world whilst at the same time denying any immediate/medium term improvement in the lives of the majority of the lesser developed world.
This is reality Ray, and you need to bring it to bear in your approach to climate change.
Ray Ladbury // March 3, 2009 at 2:18 pm |
Excuse me, Dave, but perhaps you can show me where I’ve advocated shutting down all coal-fired powerplants with immediate effect. I believe I have been very consistent saying that in the near term conservation is the best option, along with conversion to renewables where possible. I believe I have also been quite clear that the goal is to buy time so that science, technology and mitigation can develop. What is more, I believe I have pointed out that assistance to developing countries in implementing a green energy infrastructure will pay significant dividends, since implementing a new infrastructure is easier than replacing an outdated one.
Oh, but that’s right. You don’t bother to read what I write in any case since it doesn’t conform to your silly-assed, fantastical stereotypes.
Dave A // March 3, 2009 at 9:49 pm |
Ray,
Well it seems like our views might be converging, and on balance that can only be a good thing!
Ricki (Australia) // March 7, 2009 at 11:34 am |
Tamino,
Don’t be discouraged, there will always be bad examples of human society. Without those who strive for something better, we are indeed just another beast.
Think of all those who worked against nuclear war in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s — we got awfully close a couple of times.
Keep your chin up and we can continue working for change.
Jay // March 17, 2009 at 5:07 pm |
Thought you might like this…
http://www.vimeo.com/3661849