Global warming

[Pappadave]

I guess I'm getting the results I wanted. Should we change lifestyles? Yes. Are there viable alternatives in place and available? No. Am I anti-science or anti-environment? Hell no, I spent 35 years in environmental science. I still have doubts, however. Is global warming part of a natural reoccurring cycle. Yes. Are we aiding and abetting? Probably. Can we stop global warming? We can reduce our impact. Should we stop global warming since it seems to be natural and reoccurring and we do not know its function? I don't know, do you? Keep digging, we need more evidence of its natural functions. Whether it's good or bad for us is not really the question, is it necessary for the system we happen live in. Pappadave.

 

[westwall]

Here's a little exchange I had with Lord Monckton, the one time Science Advisor to the British Prime Minister and Queen, and now recognized climate denier wonk on the talk circuit. Note that his Lordship gets stymied at one point and to date does NOT have a logical response to my follow up in red.




Answers in bold face in the body of your email below. - M of B
----- Original Message -----
From: >taichiliberal<
To: [email protected]
Subject: questions on global warming
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:54:36 EST

Dear Lord Monckton,


A few decades ago in America, environmental scientist pointed out that a few hundred lakes in America were dying or dead due to acid rain......rain that was loaded with the chemical pollutants that can be found in the smoke stacks of manufacturing factories. To stop this, it was suggested that all industrial smokestacks be fitted with additional filtration systems that would greatly curtail the pollutants.

Rather than pay for the installation, many industries came up with this hair splitting defense, "If you can't prove that pollutants from my particular plant ended up in a particular lake that killed its wild life, then I'm not libel, and therefore I don't have to change".

In other words, the death by pollution of American lakes via acid rain wasn't exactly being denied....the buck was just being passed....and the corporations just kept making bucks regardless of the consequences.


Now I have consistently asked all those that deny global warming these specific questions, and to date have not gotten a straight answer. Maybe you could answer the following:



1 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing pollutants from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Pollution is damaging: but carbon dioxide, which is what the "global warming" theory is about, is not pollution. It is actually plant food and, in the past million years, concentrations have been at near-starvation levels for trees and plants. Carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere is entirely beneficial to the biosphere, and - once the numerous errors in the IPCC's method of calculation are corrected - causes only a very small and generally beneficial warming.You are in effect saying that CO2 emissions from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts is beneficial to the environment….which is perplexing given that you have a market decrease in the very natural system of turning that into oxygen…trees. All one has to do is live in an urban environment with heavy vehicle traffic and nearby industrial plant’s smokestack and very little to no forest area, and you get the point. Add to this the other various chemical effluents contained in these emissions, and your assertion of benefits becomes questionable at best.

2 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing deforestation of rainforests have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Deforestation, too, is not caused by carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere. It is caused by greed, bribery and governmental incompetence.

But you leave out the fact that deforestation releases the very carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that you base your article on, since trees are about 50% carbon. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year – 1.6 billion tonnes – is caused by deforestation. According to FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, of which the by products are sold in Europe and North America. But this is old news.
Tropical Deforestation And Global Warming: Smithsonian Scientist Challenges Results Of Recent Study

3 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing urbanization that have replaced fields, valleys and forests with concrete for housing, malls and high rises have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Urbanization is accompanied by increases in greenhouse-gas emissions and is, accordingly, relevant to the "global warming" debate, unlike your previous two questions. But the temperature globally would not rise very much even if we quadrupled the pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2. In order to quadruple urbanization, you would have to quadruple deforestation in various spots around the globe….less trees, grass, plants means a lot more CO2 without nature’s ability to convert it to oxygen. And that is not good for all air breathing. And as you know, it wouldn’t take much of a global temperature rise to drastically change the landscape our various societies now enjoy. Just look at what “unseasonable” weather in the form of heavy rains, longer droughts, hurricanes, etc., can do. My other two questions are most pertinent, being that it focuses on all parts of an environment that interacts with human society, and cannot be isolated and separated as you do.


4 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing dumping of industrial waste into our oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Again, this question has no relevance to the "global warming" question. In fact, the volume of the oceans is so large that pollution has had a rather small effect. That is not to say that pollution is a good thing: but one should keep matters in perspective. Most countries of the West now have reasonable and generally-effective systems to control pollution of the oceans.

How can you say that ocean pollution has no relevance to global warming, since the ocean is a critical part of replenishing oxygen and absorbing CO2 to our atmosphere? The more CO2 pumped into the air, the more of a burden on our oceans which can affect the acidic balance. Add to this destroying the various organisms, plant and animal life, and you restrain the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 release oxygen into the air. And our pollution control methods for industrial nations has a long way to go before being seen as generally effective…..just look at the current 2 term American President’s environmental record.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Could Violate EPA Ocean-quality Standards Within Decades

5 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing trawl nets on the oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Over-fishing, particularly in consequence of the Communist Fisheries Policy of the EU, is most certainly a problem. But, again, this question has little or no bearing on the "global warming" issue, which was the subject of my article. If you damage the ocean’s ecology, you affect its ability to convert CO2 to oxygen. Acid rain has been confirmed to destroy lakes in America….and all one has to do is a quick recent historical review of the pollution of shorelines for many cities to know this is no small problem (slimy waters, dead fish, and terrible odors). The Green Peace folk have been most accurate in documenting the effects of trawling and who is doing it.
GREENPEACE | Defending the Deep : Episode III : Esperanza / NORTH WEST ATLANTIC 2005: releases

I will answer some of your questions with this basic statement. Yes man can pollute and has polluted certain areas in a great way. Some areas were rendered almost uninhabitable for any but the most hardy of species. After much work many (though FAR from all) of these areas have been cleaned up.

One of the most critical areas of conservation IMO is rainforest destruction. Once a rainforest has been destroyed to a certain level the land, being sterile save for the uppermost dozen or so centimeters, is rendered barren. It will not be restored for several millenia if ever. All efforts should be made to preserve the rainforest that remains.

The dumping of industrial waste into the oceans rivers and lakes did indeed have a terribly detrimental effect. One only has to look back at the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969 to see what can happen when debris is allowed to collect unabated. What was not spoken about till recently however was that the river had burned many times before, 1868, 1883, 1887, 1912, 1922, 1936, 1941, 1948 and the infamous fire of 1952 which caused around 1.5 million in damages. what was also not spoken of was the fact that the river was allready on the road to recovery. Fish were actually repopulating the river independent of mans influence.

Many other waterways caught fire prior to that event as well of course but this fire occured when the US finally started to pay attention to the environment. And that led to a whole raft of beneficial and in some cases non-beneficial governement acts.

However, once the polluting was halted the rivers and waterways cleaned themselves up very rapidly and you would have an extraordinarily difficult time locating where those events occured today.

Today the third world is actively polluting there own contryside and the waterways around their boundaries yet none of the environmental acts being promoted affect those polluters in any way. They are left to pollute as they will. The first world nations are expected to go backwards in technology and wealth to make things more fair. As any economist or historian will tell you the best way to make things more fair is to elevate everyone UP to the same level, not punish those who are in the middle class.

This also greatly diminishes the pollution that man causes. Every First World Nation has extensive environmental laws and expensive fines for those who violate those laws. The third world nations have no controls. Additionally the population levels also decrease when people become wealthier. The population rate peaked in the mid 1960's at just over 2% and the level now is hovering between 1.3% and 1.4%. And it is going down.

The amount of urbanization that has occured over the last 300 years has not in fact had a major impact on the ability of plants to process CO2. There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels of 200ppm or below result in NO growth at all.

The oceans need no life to process CO2. The last time there was a level of CO2 greater than what could be naturally processed the oceans gobbled it up and formed a variety of limestone called Dolomite. This was 5 million years ago.

So in closing, man can destroy the hell out of his local area. He can make life miserable for those who live near polluted sites. But, he still hasn't the ability to control the climate (I wish we could but we can't), and the planet when left alone has amazing powers of recuperation.

 

[taichiliberal]

Here's a little exchange I had with Lord Monckton, the one time Science Advisor to the British Prime Minister and Queen, and now recognized climate denier wonk on the talk circuit. Note that his Lordship gets stymied at one point and to date does NOT have a logical response to my follow up in red.




Answers in bold face in the body of your email below. - M of B
----- Original Message -----
From: >taichiliberal<
To: [email protected]
Subject: questions on global warming
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:54:36 EST

Dear Lord Monckton,


A few decades ago in America, environmental scientist pointed out that a few hundred lakes in America were dying or dead due to acid rain......rain that was loaded with the chemical pollutants that can be found in the smoke stacks of manufacturing factories. To stop this, it was suggested that all industrial smokestacks be fitted with additional filtration systems that would greatly curtail the pollutants.

Rather than pay for the installation, many industries came up with this hair splitting defense, "If you can't prove that pollutants from my particular plant ended up in a particular lake that killed its wild life, then I'm not libel, and therefore I don't have to change".

In other words, the death by pollution of American lakes via acid rain wasn't exactly being denied....the buck was just being passed....and the corporations just kept making bucks regardless of the consequences.


Now I have consistently asked all those that deny global warming these specific questions, and to date have not gotten a straight answer. Maybe you could answer the following:



1 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing pollutants from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Pollution is damaging: but carbon dioxide, which is what the "global warming" theory is about, is not pollution. It is actually plant food and, in the past million years, concentrations have been at near-starvation levels for trees and plants. Carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere is entirely beneficial to the biosphere, and - once the numerous errors in the IPCC's method of calculation are corrected - causes only a very small and generally beneficial warming.You are in effect saying that CO2 emissions from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts is beneficial to the environment&#8230;.which is perplexing given that you have a market decrease in the very natural system of turning that into oxygen&#8230;trees. All one has to do is live in an urban environment with heavy vehicle traffic and nearby industrial plant&#8217;s smokestack and very little to no forest area, and you get the point. Add to this the other various chemical effluents contained in these emissions, and your assertion of benefits becomes questionable at best.

2 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing deforestation of rainforests have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Deforestation, too, is not caused by carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere. It is caused by greed, bribery and governmental incompetence.

But you leave out the fact that deforestation releases the very carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that you base your article on, since trees are about 50% carbon. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year &#8211; 1.6 billion tonnes &#8211; is caused by deforestation. According to FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, of which the by products are sold in Europe and North America. But this is old news.
Tropical Deforestation And Global Warming: Smithsonian Scientist Challenges Results Of Recent Study

3 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing urbanization that have replaced fields, valleys and forests with concrete for housing, malls and high rises have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Urbanization is accompanied by increases in greenhouse-gas emissions and is, accordingly, relevant to the "global warming" debate, unlike your previous two questions. But the temperature globally would not rise very much even if we quadrupled the pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2. In order to quadruple urbanization, you would have to quadruple deforestation in various spots around the globe&#8230;.less trees, grass, plants means a lot more CO2 without nature&#8217;s ability to convert it to oxygen. And that is not good for all air breathing. And as you know, it wouldn&#8217;t take much of a global temperature rise to drastically change the landscape our various societies now enjoy. Just look at what &#8220;unseasonable&#8221; weather in the form of heavy rains, longer droughts, hurricanes, etc., can do. My other two questions are most pertinent, being that it focuses on all parts of an environment that interacts with human society, and cannot be isolated and separated as you do.


4 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing dumping of industrial waste into our oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Again, this question has no relevance to the "global warming" question. In fact, the volume of the oceans is so large that pollution has had a rather small effect. That is not to say that pollution is a good thing: but one should keep matters in perspective. Most countries of the West now have reasonable and generally-effective systems to control pollution of the oceans.

How can you say that ocean pollution has no relevance to global warming, since the ocean is a critical part of replenishing oxygen and absorbing CO2 to our atmosphere? The more CO2 pumped into the air, the more of a burden on our oceans which can affect the acidic balance. Add to this destroying the various organisms, plant and animal life, and you restrain the ocean&#8217;s ability to absorb CO2 release oxygen into the air. And our pollution control methods for industrial nations has a long way to go before being seen as generally effective&#8230;..just look at the current 2 term American President&#8217;s environmental record.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Could Violate EPA Ocean-quality Standards Within Decades

5 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing trawl nets on the oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Over-fishing, particularly in consequence of the Communist Fisheries Policy of the EU, is most certainly a problem. But, again, this question has little or no bearing on the "global warming" issue, which was the subject of my article. If you damage the ocean&#8217;s ecology, you affect its ability to convert CO2 to oxygen. Acid rain has been confirmed to destroy lakes in America&#8230;.and all one has to do is a quick recent historical review of the pollution of shorelines for many cities to know this is no small problem (slimy waters, dead fish, and terrible odors). The Green Peace folk have been most accurate in documenting the effects of trawling and who is doing it.
GREENPEACE | Defending the Deep : Episode III : Esperanza / NORTH WEST ATLANTIC 2005: releases

I will answer some of your questions with this basic statement. Yes man can pollute and has polluted certain areas in a great way. Some areas were rendered almost uninhabitable for any but the most hardy of species. After much work many (though FAR from all) of these areas have been cleaned up.

One of the most critical areas of conservation IMO is rainforest destruction. Once a rainforest has been destroyed to a certain level the land, being sterile save for the uppermost dozen or so centimeters, is rendered barren. It will not be restored for several millenia if ever. All efforts should be made to preserve the rainforest that remains.

The dumping of industrial waste into the oceans rivers and lakes did indeed have a terribly detrimental effect. One only has to look back at the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969 to see what can happen when debris is allowed to collect unabated. What was not spoken about till recently however was that the river had burned many times before, 1868, 1883, 1887, 1912, 1922, 1936, 1941, 1948 and the infamous fire of 1952 which caused around 1.5 million in damages. what was also not spoken of was the fact that the river was allready on the road to recovery. Fish were actually repopulating the river independent of mans influence.

Many other waterways caught fire prior to that event as well of course but this fire occured when the US finally started to pay attention to the environment. And that led to a whole raft of beneficial and in some cases non-beneficial governement acts.

However, once the polluting was halted the rivers and waterways cleaned themselves up very rapidly and you would have an extraordinarily difficult time locating where those events occured today.

Today the third world is actively polluting there own contryside and the waterways around their boundaries yet none of the environmental acts being promoted affect those polluters in any way. They are left to pollute as they will. The first world nations are expected to go backwards in technology and wealth to make things more fair. As any economist or historian will tell you the best way to make things more fair is to elevate everyone UP to the same level, not punish those who are in the middle class.

This also greatly diminishes the pollution that man causes. Every First World Nation has extensive environmental laws and expensive fines for those who violate those laws. The third world nations have no controls. Additionally the population levels also decrease when people become wealthier. The population rate peaked in the mid 1960's at just over 2% and the level now is hovering between 1.3% and 1.4%. And it is going down.

The amount of urbanization that has occured over the last 300 years has not in fact had a major impact on the ability of plants to process CO2. There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels of 200ppm or below result in NO growth at all.

The oceans need no life to process CO2. The last time there was a level of CO2 greater than what could be naturally processed the oceans gobbled it up and formed a variety of limestone called Dolomite. This was 5 million years ago.

So in closing, man can destroy the hell out of his local area. He can make life miserable for those who live near polluted sites. But, he still hasn't the ability to control the climate (I wish we could but we can't), and the planet when left alone has amazing powers of recuperation.

Here's were your analogy goes off track in a major way, as I will explain:


The first world nations are expected to go backwards in technology and wealth to make things more fair. As any economist or historian will tell you the best way to make things more fair is to elevate everyone UP to the same level, not punish those who are in the middle class.

This is the common distortion/misconception/lie that is used by corporatists and businesses to defend and maintain "business as usual" in order to protect their perceived profit margins. Solar and wind, geothermal, electric cars, longer life life bulbs, energy saving technology for electric appliances, etc. are NOT "going backwards" or punishing anyone and have produced new business that will contribute to the economy.

This also greatly diminishes the pollution that man causes. Every First World Nation has extensive environmental laws and expensive fines for those who violate those laws. The third world nations have no controls. Additionally the population levels also decrease when people become wealthier. The population rate peaked in the mid 1960's at just over 2% and the level now is hovering between 1.3% and 1.4%. And it is going down.

You forget or omit that the First World Nations just LOVE to dump their garbage on third world nations, and they just love to do business with third world nations due to cheaper labor or lack of over sight standards. As for the population "peaking"...it depends on what part of the population you're talking about, and where.

The amount of urbanization that has occured over the last 300 years has not in fact had a major impact on the ability of plants to process CO2. There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels of 200ppm or below result in NO growth at all.

The oceans need no life to process CO2. The last time there was a level of CO2 greater than what could be naturally processed the oceans gobbled it up and formed a variety of limestone called Dolomite. This was 5 million years ago.

And that's just not possible....because you, like Monckton, just ignore that the major exchangers of CO2 have been destroyed at an alarming rate over the last 3 centuries. The CO2 measurement game is essentially a statistical shuffle that puts' in/leaves out variables that suit the drafters preferences. You can't remove a major part of the equation, replace it with artificial turf, and then state "There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates." when you have an INCREASE in artificial pollutants being pumped into the air. You're dealing with an ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED imbalance and then trying to justify certain claims by comparing that to a NATURAL state that existed millions of years ago. That is just not logical

So in closing, man can destroy the hell out of his local area. He can make life miserable for those who live near polluted sites. But, he still hasn't the ability to control the climate (I wish we could but we can't), and the planet when left alone has amazing powers of recuperation.

Man's "local" area is a hell of a lot of land on virtually every continent on the planet. And it doesn't just go away, like a local river clean up. You clean up a river, but dump in the nearby lake or ocean. The planet can recuperate, but it will NOT be the same planet, and it might recuperate to a level that doesn't include mankind.

Once again, my final points to Monckton leave climate deniers a lot to consider, as their standby mantras don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[asterism]

Here's a little exchange I had with Lord Monckton, the one time Science Advisor to the British Prime Minister and Queen, and now recognized climate denier wonk on the talk circuit. Note that his Lordship gets stymied at one point and to date does NOT have a logical response to my follow up in red.




Answers in bold face in the body of your email below. - M of B
----- Original Message -----
From: >taichiliberal<
To: [email protected]
Subject: questions on global warming
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:54:36 EST

Dear Lord Monckton,


A few decades ago in America, environmental scientist pointed out that a few hundred lakes in America were dying or dead due to acid rain......rain that was loaded with the chemical pollutants that can be found in the smoke stacks of manufacturing factories. To stop this, it was suggested that all industrial smokestacks be fitted with additional filtration systems that would greatly curtail the pollutants.

Rather than pay for the installation, many industries came up with this hair splitting defense, "If you can't prove that pollutants from my particular plant ended up in a particular lake that killed its wild life, then I'm not libel, and therefore I don't have to change".

In other words, the death by pollution of American lakes via acid rain wasn't exactly being denied....the buck was just being passed....and the corporations just kept making bucks regardless of the consequences.


Now I have consistently asked all those that deny global warming these specific questions, and to date have not gotten a straight answer. Maybe you could answer the following:



1 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing pollutants from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Pollution is damaging: but carbon dioxide, which is what the "global warming" theory is about, is not pollution. It is actually plant food and, in the past million years, concentrations have been at near-starvation levels for trees and plants. Carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere is entirely beneficial to the biosphere, and - once the numerous errors in the IPCC's method of calculation are corrected - causes only a very small and generally beneficial warming.You are in effect saying that CO2 emissions from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts is beneficial to the environment….which is perplexing given that you have a market decrease in the very natural system of turning that into oxygen…trees. All one has to do is live in an urban environment with heavy vehicle traffic and nearby industrial plant’s smokestack and very little to no forest area, and you get the point. Add to this the other various chemical effluents contained in these emissions, and your assertion of benefits becomes questionable at best.

2 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing deforestation of rainforests have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Deforestation, too, is not caused by carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere. It is caused by greed, bribery and governmental incompetence.

But you leave out the fact that deforestation releases the very carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that you base your article on, since trees are about 50% carbon. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year – 1.6 billion tonnes – is caused by deforestation. According to FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, of which the by products are sold in Europe and North America. But this is old news.
Tropical Deforestation And Global Warming: Smithsonian Scientist Challenges Results Of Recent Study

3 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing urbanization that have replaced fields, valleys and forests with concrete for housing, malls and high rises have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Urbanization is accompanied by increases in greenhouse-gas emissions and is, accordingly, relevant to the "global warming" debate, unlike your previous two questions. But the temperature globally would not rise very much even if we quadrupled the pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2. In order to quadruple urbanization, you would have to quadruple deforestation in various spots around the globe….less trees, grass, plants means a lot more CO2 without nature’s ability to convert it to oxygen. And that is not good for all air breathing. And as you know, it wouldn’t take much of a global temperature rise to drastically change the landscape our various societies now enjoy. Just look at what “unseasonable” weather in the form of heavy rains, longer droughts, hurricanes, etc., can do. My other two questions are most pertinent, being that it focuses on all parts of an environment that interacts with human society, and cannot be isolated and separated as you do.


4 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing dumping of industrial waste into our oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Again, this question has no relevance to the "global warming" question. In fact, the volume of the oceans is so large that pollution has had a rather small effect. That is not to say that pollution is a good thing: but one should keep matters in perspective. Most countries of the West now have reasonable and generally-effective systems to control pollution of the oceans.

How can you say that ocean pollution has no relevance to global warming, since the ocean is a critical part of replenishing oxygen and absorbing CO2 to our atmosphere? The more CO2 pumped into the air, the more of a burden on our oceans which can affect the acidic balance. Add to this destroying the various organisms, plant and animal life, and you restrain the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 release oxygen into the air. And our pollution control methods for industrial nations has a long way to go before being seen as generally effective…..just look at the current 2 term American President’s environmental record.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Could Violate EPA Ocean-quality Standards Within Decades

5 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing trawl nets on the oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Over-fishing, particularly in consequence of the Communist Fisheries Policy of the EU, is most certainly a problem. But, again, this question has little or no bearing on the "global warming" issue, which was the subject of my article. If you damage the ocean’s ecology, you affect its ability to convert CO2 to oxygen. Acid rain has been confirmed to destroy lakes in America….and all one has to do is a quick recent historical review of the pollution of shorelines for many cities to know this is no small problem (slimy waters, dead fish, and terrible odors). The Green Peace folk have been most accurate in documenting the effects of trawling and who is doing it.
GREENPEACE | Defending the Deep : Episode III : Esperanza / NORTH WEST ATLANTIC 2005: releases

I will answer some of your questions with this basic statement. Yes man can pollute and has polluted certain areas in a great way. Some areas were rendered almost uninhabitable for any but the most hardy of species. After much work many (though FAR from all) of these areas have been cleaned up.

One of the most critical areas of conservation IMO is rainforest destruction. Once a rainforest has been destroyed to a certain level the land, being sterile save for the uppermost dozen or so centimeters, is rendered barren. It will not be restored for several millenia if ever. All efforts should be made to preserve the rainforest that remains.

The dumping of industrial waste into the oceans rivers and lakes did indeed have a terribly detrimental effect. One only has to look back at the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969 to see what can happen when debris is allowed to collect unabated. What was not spoken about till recently however was that the river had burned many times before, 1868, 1883, 1887, 1912, 1922, 1936, 1941, 1948 and the infamous fire of 1952 which caused around 1.5 million in damages. what was also not spoken of was the fact that the river was allready on the road to recovery. Fish were actually repopulating the river independent of mans influence.

Many other waterways caught fire prior to that event as well of course but this fire occured when the US finally started to pay attention to the environment. And that led to a whole raft of beneficial and in some cases non-beneficial governement acts.

However, once the polluting was halted the rivers and waterways cleaned themselves up very rapidly and you would have an extraordinarily difficult time locating where those events occured today.

Today the third world is actively polluting there own contryside and the waterways around their boundaries yet none of the environmental acts being promoted affect those polluters in any way. They are left to pollute as they will. The first world nations are expected to go backwards in technology and wealth to make things more fair. As any economist or historian will tell you the best way to make things more fair is to elevate everyone UP to the same level, not punish those who are in the middle class.

This also greatly diminishes the pollution that man causes. Every First World Nation has extensive environmental laws and expensive fines for those who violate those laws. The third world nations have no controls. Additionally the population levels also decrease when people become wealthier. The population rate peaked in the mid 1960's at just over 2% and the level now is hovering between 1.3% and 1.4%. And it is going down.

The amount of urbanization that has occured over the last 300 years has not in fact had a major impact on the ability of plants to process CO2. There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels of 200ppm or below result in NO growth at all.

The oceans need no life to process CO2. The last time there was a level of CO2 greater than what could be naturally processed the oceans gobbled it up and formed a variety of limestone called Dolomite. This was 5 million years ago.

So in closing, man can destroy the hell out of his local area. He can make life miserable for those who live near polluted sites. But, he still hasn't the ability to control the climate (I wish we could but we can't), and the planet when left alone has amazing powers of recuperation.

Here's were your analogy goes off track in a major way, as I will explain:


The first world nations are expected to go backwards in technology and wealth to make things more fair. As any economist or historian will tell you the best way to make things more fair is to elevate everyone UP to the same level, not punish those who are in the middle class.

This is the common distortion/misconception/lie that is used by corporatists and businesses to defend and maintain "business as usual" in order to protect their perceived profit margins. Solar and wind, geothermal, electric cars, longer life life bulbs, energy saving technology for electric appliances, etc. are NOT "going backwards" or punishing anyone and have produced new business that will contribute to the economy.

This also greatly diminishes the pollution that man causes. Every First World Nation has extensive environmental laws and expensive fines for those who violate those laws. The third world nations have no controls. Additionally the population levels also decrease when people become wealthier. The population rate peaked in the mid 1960's at just over 2% and the level now is hovering between 1.3% and 1.4%. And it is going down.

You forget or omit that the First World Nations just LOVE to dump their garbage on third world nations, and they just love to do business with third world nations due to cheaper labor or lack of over sight standards. As for the population "peaking"...it depends on what part of the population you're talking about, and where.

The amount of urbanization that has occured over the last 300 years has not in fact had a major impact on the ability of plants to process CO2. There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels of 200ppm or below result in NO growth at all.

The oceans need no life to process CO2. The last time there was a level of CO2 greater than what could be naturally processed the oceans gobbled it up and formed a variety of limestone called Dolomite. This was 5 million years ago.

And that's just not possible....because you, like Monckton, just ignore that the major exchangers of CO2 have been destroyed at an alarming rate over the last 3 centuries. The CO2 measurement game is essentially a statistical shuffle that puts' in/leaves out variables that suit the drafters preferences. You can't remove a major part of the equation, replace it with artificial turf, and then state "There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates." when you have an INCREASE in artificial pollutants being pumped into the air. You're dealing with an ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED imbalance and then trying to justify certain claims by comparing that to a NATURAL state that existed millions of years ago. That is just not logical

So in closing, man can destroy the hell out of his local area. He can make life miserable for those who live near polluted sites. But, he still hasn't the ability to control the climate (I wish we could but we can't), and the planet when left alone has amazing powers of recuperation.

Man's "local" area is a hell of a lot of land on virtually every continent on the planet. And it doesn't just go away, like a local river clean up. You clean up a river, but dump in the nearby lake or ocean. The planet can recuperate, but it will NOT be the same planet, and it might recuperate to a level that doesn't include mankind.

Once again, my final points to Monckton leave climate deniers a lot to consider, as their standby mantras don't stand up to scrutiny.

http://sufacestations.org

Where are you getting your data to back up your convictions?

 

[westwall]

Here's a little exchange I had with Lord Monckton, the one time Science Advisor to the British Prime Minister and Queen, and now recognized climate denier wonk on the talk circuit. Note that his Lordship gets stymied at one point and to date does NOT have a logical response to my follow up in red.




Answers in bold face in the body of your email below. - M of B
----- Original Message -----
From: >taichiliberal<
To: [email protected]
Subject: questions on global warming
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:54:36 EST

Dear Lord Monckton,


A few decades ago in America, environmental scientist pointed out that a few hundred lakes in America were dying or dead due to acid rain......rain that was loaded with the chemical pollutants that can be found in the smoke stacks of manufacturing factories. To stop this, it was suggested that all industrial smokestacks be fitted with additional filtration systems that would greatly curtail the pollutants.

Rather than pay for the installation, many industries came up with this hair splitting defense, "If you can't prove that pollutants from my particular plant ended up in a particular lake that killed its wild life, then I'm not libel, and therefore I don't have to change".

In other words, the death by pollution of American lakes via acid rain wasn't exactly being denied....the buck was just being passed....and the corporations just kept making bucks regardless of the consequences.


Now I have consistently asked all those that deny global warming these specific questions, and to date have not gotten a straight answer. Maybe you could answer the following:



1 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing pollutants from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Pollution is damaging: but carbon dioxide, which is what the "global warming" theory is about, is not pollution. It is actually plant food and, in the past million years, concentrations have been at near-starvation levels for trees and plants. Carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere is entirely beneficial to the biosphere, and - once the numerous errors in the IPCC's method of calculation are corrected - causes only a very small and generally beneficial warming.You are in effect saying that CO2 emissions from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts is beneficial to the environment….which is perplexing given that you have a market decrease in the very natural system of turning that into oxygen…trees. All one has to do is live in an urban environment with heavy vehicle traffic and nearby industrial plant’s smokestack and very little to no forest area, and you get the point. Add to this the other various chemical effluents contained in these emissions, and your assertion of benefits becomes questionable at best.

2 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing deforestation of rainforests have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Deforestation, too, is not caused by carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere. It is caused by greed, bribery and governmental incompetence.

But you leave out the fact that deforestation releases the very carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that you base your article on, since trees are about 50% carbon. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year – 1.6 billion tonnes – is caused by deforestation. According to FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, of which the by products are sold in Europe and North America. But this is old news.
Tropical Deforestation And Global Warming: Smithsonian Scientist Challenges Results Of Recent Study

3 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing urbanization that have replaced fields, valleys and forests with concrete for housing, malls and high rises have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Urbanization is accompanied by increases in greenhouse-gas emissions and is, accordingly, relevant to the "global warming" debate, unlike your previous two questions. But the temperature globally would not rise very much even if we quadrupled the pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2. In order to quadruple urbanization, you would have to quadruple deforestation in various spots around the globe….less trees, grass, plants means a lot more CO2 without nature’s ability to convert it to oxygen. And that is not good for all air breathing. And as you know, it wouldn’t take much of a global temperature rise to drastically change the landscape our various societies now enjoy. Just look at what “unseasonable” weather in the form of heavy rains, longer droughts, hurricanes, etc., can do. My other two questions are most pertinent, being that it focuses on all parts of an environment that interacts with human society, and cannot be isolated and separated as you do.


4 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing dumping of industrial waste into our oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Again, this question has no relevance to the "global warming" question. In fact, the volume of the oceans is so large that pollution has had a rather small effect. That is not to say that pollution is a good thing: but one should keep matters in perspective. Most countries of the West now have reasonable and generally-effective systems to control pollution of the oceans.

How can you say that ocean pollution has no relevance to global warming, since the ocean is a critical part of replenishing oxygen and absorbing CO2 to our atmosphere? The more CO2 pumped into the air, the more of a burden on our oceans which can affect the acidic balance. Add to this destroying the various organisms, plant and animal life, and you restrain the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 release oxygen into the air. And our pollution control methods for industrial nations has a long way to go before being seen as generally effective…..just look at the current 2 term American President’s environmental record.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Could Violate EPA Ocean-quality Standards Within Decades

5 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing trawl nets on the oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Over-fishing, particularly in consequence of the Communist Fisheries Policy of the EU, is most certainly a problem. But, again, this question has little or no bearing on the "global warming" issue, which was the subject of my article. If you damage the ocean’s ecology, you affect its ability to convert CO2 to oxygen. Acid rain has been confirmed to destroy lakes in America….and all one has to do is a quick recent historical review of the pollution of shorelines for many cities to know this is no small problem (slimy waters, dead fish, and terrible odors). The Green Peace folk have been most accurate in documenting the effects of trawling and who is doing it.
GREENPEACE | Defending the Deep : Episode III : Esperanza / NORTH WEST ATLANTIC 2005: releases

I will answer some of your questions with this basic statement. Yes man can pollute and has polluted certain areas in a great way. Some areas were rendered almost uninhabitable for any but the most hardy of species. After much work many (though FAR from all) of these areas have been cleaned up.

One of the most critical areas of conservation IMO is rainforest destruction. Once a rainforest has been destroyed to a certain level the land, being sterile save for the uppermost dozen or so centimeters, is rendered barren. It will not be restored for several millenia if ever. All efforts should be made to preserve the rainforest that remains.

The dumping of industrial waste into the oceans rivers and lakes did indeed have a terribly detrimental effect. One only has to look back at the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969 to see what can happen when debris is allowed to collect unabated. What was not spoken about till recently however was that the river had burned many times before, 1868, 1883, 1887, 1912, 1922, 1936, 1941, 1948 and the infamous fire of 1952 which caused around 1.5 million in damages. what was also not spoken of was the fact that the river was allready on the road to recovery. Fish were actually repopulating the river independent of mans influence.

Many other waterways caught fire prior to that event as well of course but this fire occured when the US finally started to pay attention to the environment. And that led to a whole raft of beneficial and in some cases non-beneficial governement acts.

However, once the polluting was halted the rivers and waterways cleaned themselves up very rapidly and you would have an extraordinarily difficult time locating where those events occured today.

Today the third world is actively polluting there own contryside and the waterways around their boundaries yet none of the environmental acts being promoted affect those polluters in any way. They are left to pollute as they will. The first world nations are expected to go backwards in technology and wealth to make things more fair. As any economist or historian will tell you the best way to make things more fair is to elevate everyone UP to the same level, not punish those who are in the middle class.

This also greatly diminishes the pollution that man causes. Every First World Nation has extensive environmental laws and expensive fines for those who violate those laws. The third world nations have no controls. Additionally the population levels also decrease when people become wealthier. The population rate peaked in the mid 1960's at just over 2% and the level now is hovering between 1.3% and 1.4%. And it is going down.

The amount of urbanization that has occured over the last 300 years has not in fact had a major impact on the ability of plants to process CO2. There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels of 200ppm or below result in NO growth at all.

The oceans need no life to process CO2. The last time there was a level of CO2 greater than what could be naturally processed the oceans gobbled it up and formed a variety of limestone called Dolomite. This was 5 million years ago.

So in closing, man can destroy the hell out of his local area. He can make life miserable for those who live near polluted sites. But, he still hasn't the ability to control the climate (I wish we could but we can't), and the planet when left alone has amazing powers of recuperation.

Here's were your analogy goes off track in a major way, as I will explain:


The first world nations are expected to go backwards in technology and wealth to make things more fair. As any economist or historian will tell you the best way to make things more fair is to elevate everyone UP to the same level, not punish those who are in the middle class.

This is the common distortion/misconception/lie that is used by corporatists and businesses to defend and maintain "business as usual" in order to protect their perceived profit margins. Solar and wind, geothermal, electric cars, longer life life bulbs, energy saving technology for electric appliances, etc. are NOT "going backwards" or punishing anyone and have produced new business that will contribute to the economy.

This also greatly diminishes the pollution that man causes. Every First World Nation has extensive environmental laws and expensive fines for those who violate those laws. The third world nations have no controls. Additionally the population levels also decrease when people become wealthier. The population rate peaked in the mid 1960's at just over 2% and the level now is hovering between 1.3% and 1.4%. And it is going down.

You forget or omit that the First World Nations just LOVE to dump their garbage on third world nations, and they just love to do business with third world nations due to cheaper labor or lack of over sight standards. As for the population "peaking"...it depends on what part of the population you're talking about, and where.

The amount of urbanization that has occured over the last 300 years has not in fact had a major impact on the ability of plants to process CO2. There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels of 200ppm or below result in NO growth at all.

The oceans need no life to process CO2. The last time there was a level of CO2 greater than what could be naturally processed the oceans gobbled it up and formed a variety of limestone called Dolomite. This was 5 million years ago.

And that's just not possible....because you, like Monckton, just ignore that the major exchangers of CO2 have been destroyed at an alarming rate over the last 3 centuries. The CO2 measurement game is essentially a statistical shuffle that puts' in/leaves out variables that suit the drafters preferences. You can't remove a major part of the equation, replace it with artificial turf, and then state "There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates." when you have an INCREASE in artificial pollutants being pumped into the air. You're dealing with an ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED imbalance and then trying to justify certain claims by comparing that to a NATURAL state that existed millions of years ago. That is just not logical

So in closing, man can destroy the hell out of his local area. He can make life miserable for those who live near polluted sites. But, he still hasn't the ability to control the climate (I wish we could but we can't), and the planet when left alone has amazing powers of recuperation.

Man's "local" area is a hell of a lot of land on virtually every continent on the planet. And it doesn't just go away, like a local river clean up. You clean up a river, but dump in the nearby lake or ocean. The planet can recuperate, but it will NOT be the same planet, and it might recuperate to a level that doesn't include mankind.

Once again, my final points to Monckton leave climate deniers a lot to consider, as their standby mantras don't stand up to scrutiny.

This is where your side has gone off the rails. Hansen wants the US to revert back to a pre-industrial level of technology, The NYT's Thomas Friedman wants us to turn our backs on our way of life etc. etc. etc.

We have never claimed that electric vehicles and all the other green technologies are going backwards. What we have stated is that many of the green techs are MORE environmentally unfriendly than that which they are attempting to replace. Purely electric vehicles are a wonderful example. They take more energy to produce in the first place, they use more energy (up to four times as much with certain vehicles) to go similar distances, cost more than 90% of the population can afford in the first place and are prohibitivly expensive to rebattery, thus are destined for the scrap heap far sooner than a vastly cheaper ICE vehicle.

Environmentalism is a great thing...if done intelligently. If done poorly it creates more harm than that which it wants to replace. And do you really think that a company is going to go through all the expense to ship garbage across the oceans to dump on a third world country?
Please, show some common sense. That costs money so they don't do it. What they do do though is take jobs away from first world countries and transplant them to the third world where there are no controls. That's cheap. That's why if you elevate everywhere to first world status that horrible practice stops. The practices and regulations that the environmentalists currently are pushing will ONLY MAKE THAT PROBLEM WORSE. Wake up to a simple truth why don't you. You parrot the lefty line real good but they don't bother to actually read history so have a very myopic view of the world.

And your final point is complete and utter nonsense. Go take a look at Flanders Fields some day. That was the location for the worst combat that WWI gave us. When the war was over it was quite literally a moonscape. Now you have to look real hard to see any evidence of the battles fought there. The great battles of WWII and especially WWI where millions were killed (and the horribly destructive engines of war simply obliterated all life in their sphere) in the space of four years offer a wonderful example of the recuperative powers of Mother Earth. Twenty years after the First World War the battlefields were disappearing. Now they are almost invisible save in areas where they have been preserved.

Once again you choose to ignore the lessons of history......at your peril.

 

[Meister]

I didn't know there were any of the "warmers" left....I didn't think that was in vogue any longer

 

[Old Rocks]

To people like yourself, Walleyes, intelligent evironmentalism means the golden rule. Whomever is getting the gold gets to make the rules. That is how a river in an American city actually burned. That is how we got Love Canal, and a hundred mores sites like that.

No, people like you are the enemy of the environment and the children of this nation. You would and are sacrificing the future of the children of this nation and the whole world.

 

[westwall]

To people like yourself, Walleyes, intelligent evironmentalism means the golden rule. Whomever is getting the gold gets to make the rules. That is how a river in an American city actually burned. That is how we got Love Canal, and a hundred mores sites like that.

No, people like you are the enemy of the environment and the children of this nation. You would and are sacrificing the future of the children of this nation and the whole world.

Oh I don't think you're one to talk now do you old fraud? Last time I checked you were working for a company that pollutes every continent it's on. That means YOU ARE POLLUTING YOUR STATE.

Think globally ACT LOCALLY! Clean up your own act before you start shooting your mouth off.

 

[Old Rocks]

And who do you work for? Oil companies? The branch of the company that I work for is spending a great deal to clean up the sins of prior owners.

However, that is off subject. The primary source of greenhouse emissions is production of electricity and transportation. All the efforts to create an infrastructure that provides us with electricity and transportation without the pollution are being blocked by people like yourself. You claim to be environmetally aware, but, like your claim to be a geologist, have proved otherwise in your posts.

 

[Old Rocks]

I didn't know there were any of the "warmers" left....I didn't think that was in vogue any longer

But there will always be ideological idiots around, so you will always be in vogue.

 

[westwall]

And who do you work for? Oil companies? The branch of the company that I work for is spending a great deal to clean up the sins of prior owners.

However, that is off subject. The primary source of greenhouse emissions is production of electricity and transportation. All the efforts to create an infrastructure that provides us with electricity and transportation without the pollution are being blocked by people like yourself. You claim to be environmetally aware, but, like your claim to be a geologist, have proved otherwise in your posts.

I am semi retired and the work that I do engage in is directed at cleaning up abandoned mine sites. You are preaching that people should buy incredibly expensive and inefficient electric vehicles which are a horrible drain on the environment, while my wife is a recognized expert on flexwork and has succeeded in getting 350,000 people to work from their homes thereby taking the cars OFF of the roads.

This is who you work for.

WDEL 1150AM - VIDEO: Evraz, DNREC sign pollution control consent decree

Dances With Bears EVRAZ FACING RUSSIAN MILL SHUTDOWN FOR WATER POLLUTION

Steel Guru : Evraz Claymont Steel agrees to pollution control upgrades - 159935 - 2010-08-12

So what was that about cleaning up the sins of the former owners? It seems that Evraz's environmental conscience has to be forced upon them.

You are a pathetic fraud who works for a polluting company and you have the gall to tell US how to live? You take the cake pal, you take the cake.

 

[konradv]

I didn't know there were any of the "warmers" left....I didn't think that was in vogue any longer

Why would you think that? It's not like AGW has been disproven or anything. Do you still believe in the Climategate Hoax?!?! You do realize the scientists involved have been exonerated and the people who stole the emails have been shown to have twisted the meaning of what was said, don't you? If you don't, you've been listening to the wrong people. Unfortunately this mixing of science and politics is one of the reasons the US is falling behind in training scientists. Political hacks have convinced many that science isn't objective, hypocritically trying to make anything they don't like into a political issue, themselves. No, the "warmers" haven't gone. That you think so is just more evidence that some would rather stick their heads in the sand than do critical thinking.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

To people like yourself, Walleyes, intelligent evironmentalism means the golden rule. Whomever is getting the gold gets to make the rules. That is how a river in an American city actually burned. That is how we got Love Canal, and a hundred mores sites like that.

No, people like you are the enemy of the environment and the children of this nation. You would and are sacrificing the future of the children of this nation and the whole world.

Love Canal? The site AlGore fixed with a wave of his hand?

 

[Meister]

I didn't know there were any of the "warmers" left....I didn't think that was in vogue any longer

But there will always be ideological idiots around, so you will always be in vogue.

Remember how you tried to push the fear of the swine flu "pandemic"?
You pick up everything that is in vogue, roxie.

 

[Meister]

I didn't know there were any of the "warmers" left....I didn't think that was in vogue any longer

Why would you think that? It's not like AGW has been disproven or anything. Do you still believe in the Climategate Hoax?!?! You do realize the scientists involved have been exonerated and the people who stole the emails have been shown to have twisted the meaning of what was said, don't you? If you don't, you've been listening to the wrong people. Unfortunately this mixing of science and politics is one of the reasons the US is falling behind in training scientists. Political hacks have convinced many that science isn't objective, hypocritically trying to make anything they don't like into a political issue, themselves. No, the "warmers" haven't gone. That you think so is just more evidence that some would rather stick their heads in the sand than do critical thinking.

Riiiiiight.

 

[konradv]

To people like yourself, Walleyes, intelligent evironmentalism means the golden rule. Whomever is getting the gold gets to make the rules. That is how a river in an American city actually burned. That is how we got Love Canal, and a hundred mores sites like that.

No, people like you are the enemy of the environment and the children of this nation. You would and are sacrificing the future of the children of this nation and the whole world.

Love Canal? The site AlGore fixed with a wave of his hand?

Yeah, I guess that'll improve your rep with some, Frank. Unfortunately you're referencing another of the lies told about Gore and repeated so often many believe it to be true.

Al Gore Quotes - These are NOT GORE QUOTES PEOPLE! Ever heard of SOURCE CHECKING?

You know that "Love Canal" quote? The media botched it - read below:


The incorrect information being circulated: Gore implies that he began Love Canal during a visit to a New Hampshire high school on November 30, 1999
"I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing. I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue," stated Gore. "That was the one that started it all. ... We made a huge difference and it was all because one high school student got involved."

Now, Gore did chair hearings on the matter by the House Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, but that was two months after the Love Canal homes were evacuated and President Carter declared the area a national state of emergency. However, he was not the one who first drew attention to Love Canal, as he tries to claim.
(Sources: http://www.junkscience.com/dec99/lovegore.htm
Associated Press, Dec 1, 1999
The Providence Journal, Dec 21, 1999, page B-04)

Hold it. The real information: It seems that the media took this quote (above) out of context - please see http://www.consortiumnews.com/020100a.html.

Listen to the actual quote: The quote in full. This is from a show called "This American Life" on KUT Radio (90.5 FM).

The media, for the most part, was not mentioning the full quote. Relevant parts were removed, which changed the interpretation. Can anyone explain HOW one is supposed to know the media botched a quote if all the mainstream media outlets are publishing the same incorrect info over and over? I always tell people to check sources, but in this case, that didn't do much good since the media botched this one. Thanks to those who informed me of this. Because there were many primary sources for this quote, I originally had it on my page as a legitimate quote.

 

[taichiliberal]

I will answer some of your questions with this basic statement. Yes man can pollute and has polluted certain areas in a great way. Some areas were rendered almost uninhabitable for any but the most hardy of species. After much work many (though FAR from all) of these areas have been cleaned up.

One of the most critical areas of conservation IMO is rainforest destruction. Once a rainforest has been destroyed to a certain level the land, being sterile save for the uppermost dozen or so centimeters, is rendered barren. It will not be restored for several millenia if ever. All efforts should be made to preserve the rainforest that remains.

The dumping of industrial waste into the oceans rivers and lakes did indeed have a terribly detrimental effect. One only has to look back at the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969 to see what can happen when debris is allowed to collect unabated. What was not spoken about till recently however was that the river had burned many times before, 1868, 1883, 1887, 1912, 1922, 1936, 1941, 1948 and the infamous fire of 1952 which caused around 1.5 million in damages. what was also not spoken of was the fact that the river was allready on the road to recovery. Fish were actually repopulating the river independent of mans influence.

Many other waterways caught fire prior to that event as well of course but this fire occured when the US finally started to pay attention to the environment. And that led to a whole raft of beneficial and in some cases non-beneficial governement acts.

However, once the polluting was halted the rivers and waterways cleaned themselves up very rapidly and you would have an extraordinarily difficult time locating where those events occured today.

Today the third world is actively polluting there own contryside and the waterways around their boundaries yet none of the environmental acts being promoted affect those polluters in any way. They are left to pollute as they will. The first world nations are expected to go backwards in technology and wealth to make things more fair. As any economist or historian will tell you the best way to make things more fair is to elevate everyone UP to the same level, not punish those who are in the middle class.

This also greatly diminishes the pollution that man causes. Every First World Nation has extensive environmental laws and expensive fines for those who violate those laws. The third world nations have no controls. Additionally the population levels also decrease when people become wealthier. The population rate peaked in the mid 1960's at just over 2% and the level now is hovering between 1.3% and 1.4%. And it is going down.

The amount of urbanization that has occured over the last 300 years has not in fact had a major impact on the ability of plants to process CO2. There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels of 200ppm or below result in NO growth at all.

The oceans need no life to process CO2. The last time there was a level of CO2 greater than what could be naturally processed the oceans gobbled it up and formed a variety of limestone called Dolomite. This was 5 million years ago.

So in closing, man can destroy the hell out of his local area. He can make life miserable for those who live near polluted sites. But, he still hasn't the ability to control the climate (I wish we could but we can't), and the planet when left alone has amazing powers of recuperation.

Here's were your analogy goes off track in a major way, as I will explain:


The first world nations are expected to go backwards in technology and wealth to make things more fair. As any economist or historian will tell you the best way to make things more fair is to elevate everyone UP to the same level, not punish those who are in the middle class.

This is the common distortion/misconception/lie that is used by corporatists and businesses to defend and maintain "business as usual" in order to protect their perceived profit margins. Solar and wind, geothermal, electric cars, longer life life bulbs, energy saving technology for electric appliances, etc. are NOT "going backwards" or punishing anyone and have produced new business that will contribute to the economy.

This also greatly diminishes the pollution that man causes. Every First World Nation has extensive environmental laws and expensive fines for those who violate those laws. The third world nations have no controls. Additionally the population levels also decrease when people become wealthier. The population rate peaked in the mid 1960's at just over 2% and the level now is hovering between 1.3% and 1.4%. And it is going down.

You forget or omit that the First World Nations just LOVE to dump their garbage on third world nations, and they just love to do business with third world nations due to cheaper labor or lack of over sight standards. As for the population "peaking"...it depends on what part of the population you're talking about, and where.

The amount of urbanization that has occured over the last 300 years has not in fact had a major impact on the ability of plants to process CO2. There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels of 200ppm or below result in NO growth at all.

The oceans need no life to process CO2. The last time there was a level of CO2 greater than what could be naturally processed the oceans gobbled it up and formed a variety of limestone called Dolomite. This was 5 million years ago.

And that's just not possible....because you, like Monckton, just ignore that the major exchangers of CO2 have been destroyed at an alarming rate over the last 3 centuries. The CO2 measurement game is essentially a statistical shuffle that puts' in/leaves out variables that suit the drafters preferences. You can't remove a major part of the equation, replace it with artificial turf, and then state "There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates." when you have an INCREASE in artificial pollutants being pumped into the air. You're dealing with an ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED imbalance and then trying to justify certain claims by comparing that to a NATURAL state that existed millions of years ago. That is just not logical

So in closing, man can destroy the hell out of his local area. He can make life miserable for those who live near polluted sites. But, he still hasn't the ability to control the climate (I wish we could but we can't), and the planet when left alone has amazing powers of recuperation.

Man's "local" area is a hell of a lot of land on virtually every continent on the planet. And it doesn't just go away, like a local river clean up. You clean up a river, but dump in the nearby lake or ocean. The planet can recuperate, but it will NOT be the same planet, and it might recuperate to a level that doesn't include mankind.

Once again, my final points to Monckton leave climate deniers a lot to consider, as their standby mantras don't stand up to scrutiny.

http://sufacestations.org

Where are you getting your data to back up your convictions?

Check the links given in my exchange with Monckton. If they don't work here, just copy and paste them into your browser (make sure to include the www preface if the http one doesn't work).

 

[taichiliberal]

I will answer some of your questions with this basic statement. Yes man can pollute and has polluted certain areas in a great way. Some areas were rendered almost uninhabitable for any but the most hardy of species. After much work many (though FAR from all) of these areas have been cleaned up.

One of the most critical areas of conservation IMO is rainforest destruction. Once a rainforest has been destroyed to a certain level the land, being sterile save for the uppermost dozen or so centimeters, is rendered barren. It will not be restored for several millenia if ever. All efforts should be made to preserve the rainforest that remains.

The dumping of industrial waste into the oceans rivers and lakes did indeed have a terribly detrimental effect. One only has to look back at the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969 to see what can happen when debris is allowed to collect unabated. What was not spoken about till recently however was that the river had burned many times before, 1868, 1883, 1887, 1912, 1922, 1936, 1941, 1948 and the infamous fire of 1952 which caused around 1.5 million in damages. what was also not spoken of was the fact that the river was allready on the road to recovery. Fish were actually repopulating the river independent of mans influence.

Many other waterways caught fire prior to that event as well of course but this fire occured when the US finally started to pay attention to the environment. And that led to a whole raft of beneficial and in some cases non-beneficial governement acts.

However, once the polluting was halted the rivers and waterways cleaned themselves up very rapidly and you would have an extraordinarily difficult time locating where those events occured today.

Today the third world is actively polluting there own contryside and the waterways around their boundaries yet none of the environmental acts being promoted affect those polluters in any way. They are left to pollute as they will. The first world nations are expected to go backwards in technology and wealth to make things more fair. As any economist or historian will tell you the best way to make things more fair is to elevate everyone UP to the same level, not punish those who are in the middle class.

This also greatly diminishes the pollution that man causes. Every First World Nation has extensive environmental laws and expensive fines for those who violate those laws. The third world nations have no controls. Additionally the population levels also decrease when people become wealthier. The population rate peaked in the mid 1960's at just over 2% and the level now is hovering between 1.3% and 1.4%. And it is going down.

The amount of urbanization that has occured over the last 300 years has not in fact had a major impact on the ability of plants to process CO2. There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels of 200ppm or below result in NO growth at all.

The oceans need no life to process CO2. The last time there was a level of CO2 greater than what could be naturally processed the oceans gobbled it up and formed a variety of limestone called Dolomite. This was 5 million years ago.

So in closing, man can destroy the hell out of his local area. He can make life miserable for those who live near polluted sites. But, he still hasn't the ability to control the climate (I wish we could but we can't), and the planet when left alone has amazing powers of recuperation.

Here's were your analogy goes off track in a major way, as I will explain:


The first world nations are expected to go backwards in technology and wealth to make things more fair. As any economist or historian will tell you the best way to make things more fair is to elevate everyone UP to the same level, not punish those who are in the middle class.

This is the common distortion/misconception/lie that is used by corporatists and businesses to defend and maintain "business as usual" in order to protect their perceived profit margins. Solar and wind, geothermal, electric cars, longer life life bulbs, energy saving technology for electric appliances, etc. are NOT "going backwards" or punishing anyone and have produced new business that will contribute to the economy.

This also greatly diminishes the pollution that man causes. Every First World Nation has extensive environmental laws and expensive fines for those who violate those laws. The third world nations have no controls. Additionally the population levels also decrease when people become wealthier. The population rate peaked in the mid 1960's at just over 2% and the level now is hovering between 1.3% and 1.4%. And it is going down.

You forget or omit that the First World Nations just LOVE to dump their garbage on third world nations, and they just love to do business with third world nations due to cheaper labor or lack of over sight standards. As for the population "peaking"...it depends on what part of the population you're talking about, and where.

The amount of urbanization that has occured over the last 300 years has not in fact had a major impact on the ability of plants to process CO2. There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels of 200ppm or below result in NO growth at all.

The oceans need no life to process CO2. The last time there was a level of CO2 greater than what could be naturally processed the oceans gobbled it up and formed a variety of limestone called Dolomite. This was 5 million years ago.

And that's just not possible....because you, like Monckton, just ignore that the major exchangers of CO2 have been destroyed at an alarming rate over the last 3 centuries. The CO2 measurement game is essentially a statistical shuffle that puts' in/leaves out variables that suit the drafters preferences. You can't remove a major part of the equation, replace it with artificial turf, and then state "There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates." when you have an INCREASE in artificial pollutants being pumped into the air. You're dealing with an ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED imbalance and then trying to justify certain claims by comparing that to a NATURAL state that existed millions of years ago. That is just not logical

So in closing, man can destroy the hell out of his local area. He can make life miserable for those who live near polluted sites. But, he still hasn't the ability to control the climate (I wish we could but we can't), and the planet when left alone has amazing powers of recuperation.

Man's "local" area is a hell of a lot of land on virtually every continent on the planet. And it doesn't just go away, like a local river clean up. You clean up a river, but dump in the nearby lake or ocean. The planet can recuperate, but it will NOT be the same planet, and it might recuperate to a level that doesn't include mankind.

Once again, my final points to Monckton leave climate deniers a lot to consider, as their standby mantras don't stand up to scrutiny.

This is where your side has gone off the rails. Hansen wants the US to revert back to a pre-industrial level of technology, The NYT's Thomas Friedman wants us to turn our backs on our way of life etc. etc. etc.


Funny how you focus on two people of whom extreme viewpoints have NOTHING to do with the points I made with Monckton or with the source material I used to document my points as valid. This is an a-typical dodge of the climate change deniers...you ignore what you can't disprove or which does not support your beliefs, and then try to divert the discussion to what you feel comfortable with in proving your assertions. Sorry to inform you that this ploy just doesn't work with a recorded chronology of the posts.

We have never claimed that electric vehicles and all the other green technologies are going backwards. What we have stated is that many of the green techs are MORE environmentally unfriendly than that which they are attempting to replace. Purely electric vehicles are a wonderful example. They take more energy to produce in the first place, they use more energy (up to four times as much with certain vehicles) to go similar distances, cost more than 90% of the population can afford in the first place and are prohibitivly expensive to rebattery, thus are destined for the scrap heap far sooner than a vastly cheaper ICE vehicle.

First off, who is this "we". I'm talking to YOU, and YOU made a generalized statement based on two individuals to categorize an entire discussion. First you alluded to that all people who point out global warming is real are some sort of luddites, and when I logically pointed out how wrong you were, you now go the route that electric cars are totally implausible. But what you forget is that when the current fuel efficient cars were a result of DECADES of refinement. Comparably, the development of affordable and more efficient electric cars is MUCH faster. Essentially, it comes down to a matter of willingness of the industrial/science community along with public advocacy to bring it to fruition.

Environmentalism is a great thing...if done intelligently. If done poorly it creates more harm than that which it wants to replace. And do you really think that a company is going to go through all the expense to ship garbage across the oceans to dump on a third world country?



Please, show some common sense. That costs money so they don't do it. What they do do though is take jobs away from first world countries and transplant them to the third world where there are no controls. That's cheap. That's why if you elevate everywhere to first world status that horrible practice stops. The practices and regulations that the environmentalists currently are pushing will ONLY MAKE THAT PROBLEM WORSE. Wake up to a simple truth why don't you. You parrot the lefty line real good but they don't bother to actually read history so have a very myopic view of the world.

One example for your education:

Ghana: Digital Dumping Ground
FRONTLINE/World Ghana: Digital Dumping Ground | PBS

Evidently, you're good at parroting moot points and combining it with your personal opinion in an attempt to portray others as uninformed. Problem is, the chronology of the posts exposes your folly...and your own ignorance of general knowledge furthers discredits your assume lecture status.

And your final point is complete and utter nonsense. Go take a look at Flanders Fields some day. That was the location for the worst combat that WWI gave us. When the war was over it was quite literally a moonscape. Now you have to look real hard to see any evidence of the battles fought there. The great battles of WWII and especially WWI where millions were killed (and the horribly destructive engines of war simply obliterated all life in their sphere) in the space of four years offer a wonderful example of the recuperative powers of Mother Earth. Twenty years after the First World War the battlefields were disappearing. Now they are almost invisible save in areas where they have been preserved.

Once again, you pontificate without knowing or using all pertinent information. Some examples for your education:

world war 2 pollution - Google Search

Environmental effects of war



Once again you choose to ignore the lessons of history......at your peril.

I strongly urge YOU to widen your scope when you research history before you endorse policies that are detrimental to present and future generations.

 

[westwall]

Here's were your analogy goes off track in a major way, as I will explain:


The first world nations are expected to go backwards in technology and wealth to make things more fair. As any economist or historian will tell you the best way to make things more fair is to elevate everyone UP to the same level, not punish those who are in the middle class.

This is the common distortion/misconception/lie that is used by corporatists and businesses to defend and maintain "business as usual" in order to protect their perceived profit margins. Solar and wind, geothermal, electric cars, longer life life bulbs, energy saving technology for electric appliances, etc. are NOT "going backwards" or punishing anyone and have produced new business that will contribute to the economy.

This also greatly diminishes the pollution that man causes. Every First World Nation has extensive environmental laws and expensive fines for those who violate those laws. The third world nations have no controls. Additionally the population levels also decrease when people become wealthier. The population rate peaked in the mid 1960's at just over 2% and the level now is hovering between 1.3% and 1.4%. And it is going down.

You forget or omit that the First World Nations just LOVE to dump their garbage on third world nations, and they just love to do business with third world nations due to cheaper labor or lack of over sight standards. As for the population "peaking"...it depends on what part of the population you're talking about, and where.

The amount of urbanization that has occured over the last 300 years has not in fact had a major impact on the ability of plants to process CO2. There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels of 200ppm or below result in NO growth at all.

The oceans need no life to process CO2. The last time there was a level of CO2 greater than what could be naturally processed the oceans gobbled it up and formed a variety of limestone called Dolomite. This was 5 million years ago.

And that's just not possible....because you, like Monckton, just ignore that the major exchangers of CO2 have been destroyed at an alarming rate over the last 3 centuries. The CO2 measurement game is essentially a statistical shuffle that puts' in/leaves out variables that suit the drafters preferences. You can't remove a major part of the equation, replace it with artificial turf, and then state "There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates." when you have an INCREASE in artificial pollutants being pumped into the air. You're dealing with an ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED imbalance and then trying to justify certain claims by comparing that to a NATURAL state that existed millions of years ago. That is just not logical

So in closing, man can destroy the hell out of his local area. He can make life miserable for those who live near polluted sites. But, he still hasn't the ability to control the climate (I wish we could but we can't), and the planet when left alone has amazing powers of recuperation.

Man's "local" area is a hell of a lot of land on virtually every continent on the planet. And it doesn't just go away, like a local river clean up. You clean up a river, but dump in the nearby lake or ocean. The planet can recuperate, but it will NOT be the same planet, and it might recuperate to a level that doesn't include mankind.

Once again, my final points to Monckton leave climate deniers a lot to consider, as their standby mantras don't stand up to scrutiny.

This is where your side has gone off the rails. Hansen wants the US to revert back to a pre-industrial level of technology, The NYT's Thomas Friedman wants us to turn our backs on our way of life etc. etc. etc.


Funny how you focus on two people of whom extreme viewpoints have NOTHING to do with the points I made with Monckton or with the source material I used to document my points as valid. This is an a-typical dodge of the climate change deniers...you ignore what you can't disprove or which does not support your beliefs, and then try to divert the discussion to what you feel comfortable with in proving your assertions. Sorry to inform you that this ploy just doesn't work with a recorded chronology of the posts.

We have never claimed that electric vehicles and all the other green technologies are going backwards. What we have stated is that many of the green techs are MORE environmentally unfriendly than that which they are attempting to replace. Purely electric vehicles are a wonderful example. They take more energy to produce in the first place, they use more energy (up to four times as much with certain vehicles) to go similar distances, cost more than 90% of the population can afford in the first place and are prohibitivly expensive to rebattery, thus are destined for the scrap heap far sooner than a vastly cheaper ICE vehicle.

First off, who is this "we". I'm talking to YOU, and YOU made a generalized statement based on two individuals to categorize an entire discussion. First you alluded to that all people who point out global warming is real are some sort of luddites, and when I logically pointed out how wrong you were, you now go the route that electric cars are totally implausible. But what you forget is that when the current fuel efficient cars were a result of DECADES of refinement. Comparably, the development of affordable and more efficient electric cars is MUCH faster. Essentially, it comes down to a matter of willingness of the industrial/science community along with public advocacy to bring it to fruition.

Environmentalism is a great thing...if done intelligently. If done poorly it creates more harm than that which it wants to replace. And do you really think that a company is going to go through all the expense to ship garbage across the oceans to dump on a third world country?



Please, show some common sense. That costs money so they don't do it. What they do do though is take jobs away from first world countries and transplant them to the third world where there are no controls. That's cheap. That's why if you elevate everywhere to first world status that horrible practice stops. The practices and regulations that the environmentalists currently are pushing will ONLY MAKE THAT PROBLEM WORSE. Wake up to a simple truth why don't you. You parrot the lefty line real good but they don't bother to actually read history so have a very myopic view of the world.

One example for your education:

Ghana: Digital Dumping Ground
FRONTLINE/World Ghana: Digital Dumping Ground | PBS

Evidently, you're good at parroting moot points and combining it with your personal opinion in an attempt to portray others as uninformed. Problem is, the chronology of the posts exposes your folly...and your own ignorance of general knowledge furthers discredits your assume lecture status.

And your final point is complete and utter nonsense. Go take a look at Flanders Fields some day. That was the location for the worst combat that WWI gave us. When the war was over it was quite literally a moonscape. Now you have to look real hard to see any evidence of the battles fought there. The great battles of WWII and especially WWI where millions were killed (and the horribly destructive engines of war simply obliterated all life in their sphere) in the space of four years offer a wonderful example of the recuperative powers of Mother Earth. Twenty years after the First World War the battlefields were disappearing. Now they are almost invisible save in areas where they have been preserved.

Once again, you pontificate without knowing or using all pertinent information. Some examples for your education:

world war 2 pollution - Google Search

Environmental effects of war



Once again you choose to ignore the lessons of history......at your peril.

I strongly urge YOU to widen your scope when you research history before you endorse policies that are detrimental to present and future generations.

I have a feeling I am far more conversant with Earths history then you are. Don't know it for certain but I have a feeling. I also do not endorse anything that would be detrimental to following generations (I do have a 4 year old to consider so I assure you I do have a vested interest in the outcome) and in fact work quite hard at cleaning up past environmental abominations and was active when Greenpeace was founded. I still support Paul and his Sea Shepard organization, though like Paul when Greenpeace was taken over by socialists I left that organisation. So I've been in the trenches a lot longer than you I think. Once again I could be wrong but I doubt it. So please don't attempt to lecture me.

I travelled the road you are on a LONG time ago.

 

[Old Rocks]

I didn't know there were any of the "warmers" left....I didn't think that was in vogue any longer

But there will always be ideological idiots around, so you will always be in vogue.

Remember how you tried to push the fear of the swine flu "pandemic"?
You pick up everything that is in vogue, roxie.

Given the history of prior pandemics, such caution is not only wise, but neccessary. The flu that hit the world at the end of WW1 caused nearly as many deaths worldwide as WW1. And considerably more deaths in the US than we lost to WW1.