Movie Recommendation (and a Great Debate on Global Warming)

[Polly]

This is my last post.....I PROMISE!

I hope that all of us can agree with Katy's excellent point made earlier - that we need to move away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy sources. Even if one is not willing to accept the current findings of the climate scientists about global warming, I think we can ALL agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Does anyone else worry (like I do) that our economy, in fact our way of life, is so dependent on the middle east and could be altered drastically in a heartbeat?. To me this is an issue of national security of the highest urgency.

If anyone is interested, I can share my ideas later about what we need to do NOW about energy (is that a collective groan I hear?? LOL!). I think you'd be surprised - I do not espouse the theories of the "typical" tree-hugging environmentalist.

ENOUGH ALREADY. AND GOOD NIGHT, DEAR FRIENDS!

Love,

Polly

[Matthew]

Polly and Wayne

A tip of my hat to you both. It is rare to find such an intelligent , informed and sane debate on any subject, let alone the environment. I thrive on this kind of give and take. You have both provided me with new and stimulating ideas on both sides of the question. A rare moment in my world filled with personalities that have to be right rather than see all the permutations. I hope that your discussion will lead others to look into taking care of the earth with the same kind of attention that they are taking care of their health. In my mind it is all part of the same kind of attention.

Thanks for all the insights.

Love

Matthew

[tex]

Polly,

Whew! LOL.

Obviously there are differences of opinions, due to different ways of interpreting the available data. The Holocene info that I mentioned was based on information compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy, based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vo. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record.

Raymond S. Bradley is a climatologist, and a University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He is also the research director of the Climate System Research Center. (Unfortunately, Bradley's work in general, indicates that the warming of Earth's climate system in the twentieth century is inexplicable via natural mechanisms, but I won't hold that against him. LOL). Anyway, he has done a fair amount of research on that period in the earth's history. Here are some of his other publications:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/byaut ... ley_rs.htm

"Your guys", (at NOAA), say:

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

Those conclusions are predicated on this observation, (which, in the context in which they presented it, at least, amounts to an assumption):

It appears clear that changes in the Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of the Earth during each month.

Now, if this phenomenon were a known fact, the proper wording would be "It is clear, etc." Instead, they say "It appears clear", which implies an assumption, on which to justify their conclusions. Either they can't write, or they're trying to use "smoke and mirrors" to cover up an assumption. Conclusions based on an initial assumption, amount to educated guesses, or hypotheses. They're not nearly as solid as fact-based conclusions.

Okay, note that in the first quote they say:

know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

Know without doubt is pretty strong wording, especially for a conclusion that is based on an assumption. Remember, these are the same guys who can't even predict tomorrow's weather any more accurately than a flip of the coin. LOL. Can we honestly believe that they are capable of knowing anything without doubt?

Hey, it was obvious to me from the very first post that we would have to end up just agreeing to disagree, because I'm well aware that you've done your homework, and you are dedicated to your convictions. IOW, I never expected to be able to dissuade you from your chosen position on this issue. I would sincerely hope, though, that you would find a more credible guide than Al gore.

I'll even suggest a source that's populated with highly qualified guides, (and yes, these guys pretty much see eye to eye with you). Here's what the editors of Scientific American said about the blog RealClimate, when they presented the site with a 2005 Science and Technology Web Award, for writing:

A refreshing antidote to the political and economic slants that commonly color and distort news coverage of topics like the greenhouse effect, air quality, natural disasters and global warming, Real Climate is a focused, objective blog written by scientists for a brainy community that likes its climate commentary served hot. Always precise and timely, the site's resident meteorologists, geoscientists and oceanographers sound off on all news climatological, from tropical glacial retreat to "doubts about the advent of spring."

Perhaps you're already familiar with this site, and these scientists. If not, they're located at:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Enjoy!

Love,
Wayne

P S By the way, that blog does have news feeds, if you have a newsreader set up in your browser. Which reminds me, Reuters has a news feed available which is set up strictly for Bird Flu. If you want the URL, or need help setting up a newsreader, please let me know.

P P S Thanks, Matthew, for the kind words. I hope I didn't blow it with this post.

P P P S I'm pretty sure that the general theory about the claimed perturbations in the earth's orbital pattern is valid, but I believe they had to make some assumptioons to reach the conclusions they ended up with.

[tex]

Polly,

One other thing I forgot to address. A few posts back you mentioned this:

And, isn't it amazing that when scientists do ice core tests in the Anarctic, they find that at no point in the past 650,000 years did the CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere go above 300 parts per million? That is, not until the beginning of the industrial revolution.....and it has been climbing since.

That's true, of course, but why did they pick 650,000 years? The fact of the matter is, their CO2 argument is only relevant if you limit your sample to 650,000 years. Why not go back 50 million years, (when there certainly weren't any humans around to polute the planet). Consider this:

In fact, there was a time when there were 1,000 parts per million of C02 in the atmosphere. That was during the Eocene, about 50 million years ago.

That comes from a critique of the movie, (favorable, by the way), found in this article, (in the last paragraph, if you don't want to read the whole article):

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 55,00.html

I found that link, (along with many others), on the RealClimate site.

We all agree that the planet is in a warming phase, and there's no doubt that the flora and fauna inhabiting this planet, (including humans, of course), must have some effect on long-term trends. The question is whether or not these influences are truly significant in the long run.

The most salient issue that's causing contention between the "activists", and those of us who, (for want of a better word), have somewhat of a "fatalist" attitude, lies in the selective use of facts to claim that certain current environmental markers are unprecedented in the history of the planet, when obviously, they are not, (such as the CO2 issue). That's deceit by omission, or deceit by selective use of data.

Also, probably the biggest fault of the movie is it's repeated use of deception by inference, (as alluded to in the article in the German magazine, Der Spiegel, as referenced above). I'm certainly not blaming you for all these distortions of the facts, I'm blaming your sources. At any rate, that patern of deception certainly doesn't do anything to help win my support for "the other side".

Those are typical tactics used to persuade the innocent masses to believe that certain political "causes" are "just". It has happened countless times in the history of mankind. True, most scientists are in agreement, and appear to support this "cause". With such solid support, then why do the "activists" feel obligated to distort the facts, in order to promote their cause. That type of behaviour kind of reminds me of the guy who would rather climb up in a tree to tell a lie, than stand on the ground and tell the truth. It just doesn't spell credibility.

Love,
Tex

[harvest_table]

Polly and Wayne

A tip of my hat to you both. You have both provided me with new and stimulating ideas on both sides of the question.
Thanks for all the insights.

Ditto that!

Love,
Joanna

[Lucy]

Quiz,

Which state in the USA is the largest user of windmill power?

Polly, if you don't mind responding here one more time, did any of the experts you heard make a direct link to the no. of hurricanes as being directly linked to global warming?

Luce

[Polly]

Luce,

Well, I wasn't going to post again, but you "called"? LOL! I give up on the windmill question. Which state? Re your second question, the experts I have read have linked more frequent and severe weather events (like hurricanes) to global warming, but they say this is occurring on a regional basis, not a global one.

Wayne, thanks for that excellent website (realscience)! Everything I just read there about the "big picture" confirms what I have learned from all of the other scientists - that global warming is real, increasing, and that it is caused by man (CO2 emissions). There is some interesting discussion about how the Admin. has tried to quell the science as well as how a Colorado power company is funding a scientist (a Dr. Michael's) to conduct a "misinformation" campaign about global warming. Also, some praise for Al Gore!

Speaking of the politization of science, I have to get on my soapbox one more time (sorry). I am so sick and tired of what we have become in this country - a bunch of mean-spirited, finger-pointing, partisan citizens. Each political party has its "buzz" words, created in order to provoke an emotional, knee-jerk response - "Bible-thumping", "liberal press", "tree-hugger", etc., etc. etc. I am DISGUSTED - is anyone else? Don't we deserve better than this? From the time I could vote, I have been registered as an independent, and I pride myself on voting the issues after careful study.

Global warming is not "Al Gore's" idea - he is simply carrying the flag and getting the science out from under wraps. And I thank him for this. Just as I have respect for President Bush's suggestion not too long ago that we consider nuclear energy as a solution to global warming. This is not a popular choice with environmentalists, and notice we have heard no more about it. But I admire the President for his wisdom and courage in suggesting it. I happen to believe it has great promise (more on that later if anyone is interested).

Enough again!

Love,

Polly

[Polly]

Oh, here are some fascinating articles. The LA Times just did a 5 part series on what is happening to our oceans. It ran in my local paper and you can find them at :

www.baltimoresun.com/oceans

Our Florida buddies here may be especially interested in the 3rd article, which discusses a public health hazard.

If you read these, please don't despair. As I keep saying, the experts are telling us that we CAN turn things around.

Love,

Polly

[kate_ce1995]

Hi Polly,

I'm laughing this morning about the list of buzzwords.... Just come to a less educated portion of Vermont (i.e. the factory Geoff works in) and you'll find some humor among the buzzwords. One of his co-workers tried to call him a granola cruncher (which he is anything but) but only managed to come up with a grapenut Now I laugh everytime I see tree-lover, granola-cruncher or anything.

Thats it. I live with a grape nut.

Katy

[tex]

Luce,

Apparently the answer to your question would be Texas. They have always been the leader in wind power, (a century ago, it was in the form of windmills to pump water in remote areas), and they apparently will soon expand their current capacity.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... .5bf4.html

The article is incorrect in it's suggestion that this new project will make the Lone Star state no. 1. I think the Sweetwater project already qualifies it for that position.

Tex

[Lucy]

Hi all,

I'm getting behind in reading all the articles you've posted, but I'll attempt to catch up soon.

Texas is correct.

Reason for posting the question about hurricanes is that I was under the impression that the "heavenly bodies" determined these phenomena.

Polly, I'd be interested in knowing the response of the people you are studying to the main meterologists' scientific journal that came out during the last year. I'm sure they must be aware of it since meterologists are the scientists who study this stuff.

The devastation of Katrina, unfortunately, is nothing new to the Gulf Coast, this one just got a disproportionate share of media coverage compared with past storms. I was a very small child when we drove through a totally flatted Lousiana following Camille -- I mean there was absolutely NOTHING left!.

The state of La. was given enough federal funds to build a much better system to protect them from flooding, but they chose to squander the money instead of protecting their people for a storm that they always knew would inevitabley come.

La. has a reputation for corrruption, as you probably know.

Apparently these folks are going to put the same people back in office, so go figure! I don't see why the feds can't prosecute people who don't use federal dollars that aren't spent for what they were issued for.

My point in all this is that to use the nightmare of Katrina to illustrate their point doesn't make any sense to me, given the fact that the city of New Orleans is below sea level. The dramatic rescues had more to do with the fact that the storm hit in just the right spot to flood the city. Otherwise, it would've been just another big, awful hurricane that leveled everything in it's path as usual.
I'm sure that we're due for a big one here anytime as well, and I dread it!

I would say that you can add "Katrina" to your list of political buzz words, wouldn't you?

By the way, do you know what the very first thing God commanded people do according to the Bible?

(Maybe I can get by Wayne on this one. Ha!).

Seriously, Polly, I'd really like to know what the other scientists have to say about meteorological science's position on these storms.

By the way, would it be good to start another thread after this one gets answered?
Yours, Luce

[tex]

Luce,

God's first command was, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Gen. 1:28)

You are quite correct about Katrina. New Orleans has always been a disaster waiting to happen, and it apparently will soon regain that status, as billions of dollars are wasted rebuilding it. With the state's long history of corruption, and the propensity of it's citizens to continue to re-elect corrupt leaders, who could realistically expect any other outcome?

Al Gore has always been an opportunist, and he reinvents himself every few years, to take advantage of the latest fad, so it's no surprise that he would attempt to reincarnate himself again, this time as a poster child for "global warming". If I were in his shoes, I suppose that I would also take advantage of the empathy for Katrina victims, and imply that Katrina is a "sign" of things to come if we don't change our ways, and join the "cause", (as he did in the movie).

You are also correct that much of Katrina's notoriety was obviously due to the media coverage. The deadliest natural disaster ever to befall the United States was the Galveston hurricane of 1900, and most people didn't even learn of the disaster until weeks later. 6,000 to 12,000 people died in that catagory 4 storm, but virtually no one remembers it, since it occurred over a hundred years ago. Katrina is the disaster of choice for the promotion of the "cause", because all those vivid images are still fresh in people's memories.

Tex

P S If you want to see what the top climate scientists are saying, you can read it for yourself at:

http://www.realclimate.org/

[Lucy]

Hi again,

Yep, and that passage means to be good stewards of what we've been given, or should I say "loaned", not to trash it, as it doesn't belong to us.

It's just like what we were taught as children -- leave things like you found them. Pretty good environmental advise, I'd say.

How's that for thumpin'? Luce

[tex]

Luce,

Not that I don't agree with the "good stewardship" concept, (I'm a long-time board member of the local Soil and Water Conservation District, so I most definitely believe in that principle), but where in that command, does it say that? Frankly, I don't see it mentioned anywhere there.

It looks to me like it says, "Have at it, and don't sweat the small stuff." Personally, I feel that it could have been just a bit more restrictive, but then, I'm not making the rules.

Tex

[Tessa]

Polly, do you know if they will broadcast the movie you mention in Spain? I would love watching it.
Or do you know how to get it?

Thank you.


Love,
Tessa