Slashdot Mirror

So-called experts like Hansen very much talk about "extinction level events" and Venus-like conditions. They are either lying or incompetent.

Extinction level event !=instant global explosion. Someone has been watching too many movies. The problem is that climate change is occurring faster the ecosystems can adapt. This is the extinction that is being described. Even then it is not the extinction of all life. It is the extinction of life as we know it as the animals and plants we depend upon go extinct. It may be our extinction.

If it's not harmful, what's the problem?

Um, what? These are five effects of climate change on the ocean alone. Or are you going to argue that a rise in temperature has no effect on any ecosystem? Please prove that.

There is absolutely no data to support those statements. Nobody knows how fast climate change or CO2 level increases have occurred in the past, and nobody knows how fast ecosystems can adapt.

No data?. A simple google search is all you need.

That is pure guesswork as well. It is just as reasonable to believe that rising temperatures will lead to a rapid expansion of arable lands, since temperature is one of the major limiting factors.

What? If it gets hotter in the Midwest US alone, there will be more droughts. This isn't rocket science. And that is one area of the world. And again you completely missed the point: Do you expect all species to suddenly migrate to other areas of the world when it gets warmer? Some species like birds that are very mobile can do this. Normally in nature, change occurs slowly and species adapt but these changes occur over geologic time scales.

Sea levels have been rising steadily for the past 100 years. Has that forced us to "relocate" major population centers? Have New York City, Tokyo, or Los Angeles disappeared under the waves?

So you admit global warming is happening? I guess your argument is indicative of the deniers and their flawed logic. What you say is factually true but ignores the numbers that sea level is rising at an unprecedented rate. From wikipedia:

Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in).

Also from wikipedia

Conference delegates stated “Research presented today at the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change in Copenhagen shows that the upper range of sea level rise by 2100 could be in the range of about one meter, or possibly more

Please look at all the cities that will be under water if projections are correct.

And projecting into the future, theory suggests they can't rise much faster no matter how much we emit, and in practice, they show no signs of accelerating or following CO2 emission patterns. In addition, many coastal areas have been gaining land area, not losing, due to river sediment, and will continue to do so for a long time.

Please support this with a citation. Most of the science I've seen shows the opposite.

Calling someone a hypocrite doesn't invalid their point, but it does put it in a meaningful context. If someone is saying the world is going to end next year and we should all repent, how seriously would you take them if they put a great deal of money into a 2 year CD? That's hypocritical. If they truly believed what they were saying they'd be donating it, or at least blowing it. The fact that they're making a long term investment gives you a gauge on their confidence in their own beliefs. Maybe they're just hedging their bets, sure, but you can be sure they are especially certain (regardless of what they say) that their prediction is correct.

So in this case, you have two guys that in one joy ride spewed about 60 tons of CO2* (vs. 4.5 for a average year's car travel). How serious can they actually think global warming is? Do they want government intervention because they can't control themselves? Or do they not actually give a damn and think/expect the rules won't apply to those with enough money like them?

For me, at least, the latter is the real sticking point. You have all these rich/privileged people like CEOs and congressmen pushing for massive regulation to fix a problem that they disproportionally cause. Between that and the ridiculous cap and trade bill**, it becomes quite clear that people like them are using global warming as an excuse to leverage even more government control and prevent market competition.

So, yes, just because they're hypocritical doesn't mean that global warming is fake. It does, however, speak very strongly to their motivations which is mostly what the GP was addressing.

*According to http://www.conservation.org/act/live_green/carboncalc/pages/methodology.aspx and a round trip estimate of 6000 miles, which looks about right.
**There's a small chance I'm remembering incorrectly, but even supporters of GW legislation said the bill would to nothing to combat the problem and would only prevent new/small businesses from growing and competing with existing large ones.

That aside, I don't see how any government can possibly take light pollution seriously. Too much investment to satisfy too small a group - who cares if it's world heritage.

Except it's not just astronomers that suffers from light pollution. Animals suffer as well. For instance sea turtles. Turtle hatchlings mistake beach front lights as light being reflected from water. Some in the US are concerned about the effects of net fishing wherein trawlers drag large nets which ensnares dolphins, ie the "Dolphin Safe" labels on some tuna cans, and turtles. But light pollution can have as much a negative impact on for instance leatherback turtles as nets do. There are many other species that are impacted by light pollution.

Falcon

What the platform said was, "ALL public lands and resources, as well as claims thereto, except as explicitly allowed by the Constitution..."

As you acknowledge the Constitution does say "postal raods" and the post office uses many of the roads. What you don't say anything about is the interstate commerce clause, and most US or federal highways are important to interstate commerce, they are how goods are shipped. On top of that the Constitution says nothing about the states, or more local governments, being resrticted from road building or ownership. Moreover the 9th Amendment states that any power, right, not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved to the states or the people. This means states, counties, and cities can own and build roads. As far as I'm concerned this is a prime responsibility of these governments.

If they say "all public lands", they mean ALL public lands

I wonder if in fact that means federal land or includes state and local land as well. In regards to federal land private organizations may be able to manage land better than the federal government. Ever try to buy raw land, land without any structures built on it? In many places it can cost thousands of dollars per acre. Yet the General Mining Act of 1872 allows mining companies to mine stuff like gold and silver on public lands for dollars per acre, and then leave the pollution created left for the government to pay to cleanup. Now, with Representative Nick Rahall from West Virginia chairing the House Resources Committee which is responsible for this, they may sponser one or bills to improve this. Even if so though any bill still would have to go through the senate as well as be signed, or if vetoed have the veto overwritten, by Bush. I'd rather have those like Conservation International be able to purchase and manage national parks than have the federal government do it. Besides, can you guess who's the biggest pollutor in the US? The US government. By far it pollutes more than any business or industry

You think mere neighborhood roads are somehow off-limits?

See above about local governments.

It's the same with private nukes. Nowhere will you find in the party platform mention of private ownership of nukes, but you'll find plenty about private weapon ownership, and nothing about limits. They don't believe in limits -- that's the whole Libertarian philosophy. Either something is allowed in unlimited amounts, or it's not.

Can you provide one stance of Libertarians saying anything about private nukes? Just as with Democrats and Republicans, not all Libertarians believe in the same things. The one belief that holds Libertarians together is the belief in liberty and a small government that exists within the limits of the Constitution of the USA. Otherwise we can go into how Republicans want to privatize the military and control what people do in private. And how Democrats want to nationalize things just like good socialists.

First pics

I hate it when people keep trying to say that humans occupy such a small area and try and say we have little impact because that just is not true.

But I started off by saying that humans have a huge impact. I guess I wasn't clear in the point of the entire post because most of the replies attacked the part of the post where I said we occupy a small area. (which I stand by: http://www.conservation.org/xp/news/press_releases /2002/120402.xml ).
On the other hand, I guess I should have RTFA, or at least RTFS (summary), instead of just jumping to the comments and trying to answer someone's question, since I assumed that 'Earth' in the title was 'planet earth', not 'soil'.
In response to the article I find it interesting that the soil is (perhaps) losing it's ability to hold CO2 due to the rise in temperature despite the raised atmospheric levels. The article I pointed to in my initial reply talks about using iron to cause phytoplankton blooms which would draw CO2 from the oceans, which would then draw CO2 from the atmosphere to maintain equilibrium. I would think (on first glance) that with rising atmospheric levels, the soils would absorb more CO2 (via osmosis) not less (though that may be true with a constant temp).
Anyway, I agree we are (at least most of) the problem, that my post was unclear, but I did think that volcanos released more CO2 than they apparently do. Seems like the highest output from a single volcano is about 1/1000th of humans, but it's about 300 times higher than the 10th highest, so overall volcano output is probably on the order of 1/1000th of humans.

Here is a very very short list of American charities that do work that impacts the world. I'm only listing a few to give you a few links. You can find a gazillion others.

http://www.pedaids.org/

http://www.cancerresearch.org/

http://www.children.org/home.asp?sid=98BD1FD2-E8B7 -42F2-B0A7-BC88E745D831

http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/home

http://www.afsc.org/

http://www.accion.org/default.asp

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php? content_id=49986

You can get a nice list of the top ranked (in terms of money raised being used wisely) charities online

According to American Association of Fundraising Counsel" Americans gave $241 Billion to charity in 2003.

<sarcasm>

That's only ~$1000 per person in the US, which probably does seem a bit niggardly to other countries who like to envision the United States Citizens as fat bloated and heartless. Look at it this way: The average income for a family of 4 in the US is $40k. Giving $4000 for that family is just down right cheap.

</sarcasm>

Certainly if you look at the charts you'll see that Americans did indeed give the Lions share on internal charity, because charity does in fact begin at home, but the amounts spent on international charities, plus the amounts spent for medical research that will eventually benefit the world are hardly insignificant. Donations to save the environment benefit everyone, as does charitable giving in many scientific and medical areas of research.

So, there are some of my figures. If I may turn the tables, you said :The hike in interest rates in the 1980s, caused indirectly by Star Wars expenditure, raised these repayment rates to crippling levels. Would you return the courtesy and post some documentation/facts/figures to back up that statement? I know that the "Star Wars defense was proposed in 1983, and that $60 Billion had been spent on Star Wars in the last 20 years. Yet, if Americans gave away 241 Billion in 1 year, I can't see how 60 billion over 20 years would have caused a hike in interest rates.

I also agree that debts can be crippling, which is why now there are policies established such as the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative (run by USAID) call for forgiving foreign debt (at least in South and Cetral America) in return for children's welfare reform. The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative also makes sure that countries are able to survive their debt. I would very much like to see Iraq be forgiven the debts that their Dictator amassed in their name, but it seems Iraq's creditors will have their pound of flesh.

You can bet that the bill will be footed from here, and we

"Prior to that, out hominid ancestors were hunters/gatheres for some 2M years (during which meat was a significant part of their diet)."

And prior to that, we evolved from non-human primates, which eat diets consisting predominantly of plant material. And don't forget -- we're 99.9% identical at the genetic level to our closest non-human primate ancestors.

I could go on -- into the archeological evidence (fecal fossils, among others) that show that human diets were much heavier on fruits and vegetables than they are today, but you're good with google, so I'm sure you can find it.

• Conservation International
• Defenders of Wildlife
• Earthjustice
• National Audubon Society
• National Wildlife Federation
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• The Nature Conservancy
• The Ocean Conservancy
• The Trust for Public Land
• World Resources Institute
• World Wildlife Fund

As the report points out, many species have declined precipitously over the last century or so, and if this trend continues, a lot of wildlife is headed for extinction. In addition to the rhinos, elephants, birds, and fisheries mentioned in the article, the numbers of many African primates have gone down dramatically, to the extent that some have predicted populations of chimpanzees and gorillas may be at non-viable levels within 5-15 years. (Also try a google search for "bushmeat"; another good site for more general conservation issues is conservation.org.)

Does this mean that humans are going to go extinct? I doubt it. I'm pretty sure that we could wipe out most of the wildlife on the planet and still support human life. However, I doubt that many people want to live in that world. I sure don't. The WWF could get a lot of support, probably more support, by highlighting the problem of species loss without claiming that the world will end if we don't colonize Alpha Centauri. [Although that does mean we get a space race victory.]