Slashdot Mirror

It's worth noting that the Guardian Unlimited is traditionally left-of-center in its reporting and editorials. They've been reporting on the effects of climate change for quite some time. Some articles, including this, are genuinely interesting and thought-provoking while others, like the one we are commenting on here, deserve only a passing notice.

The kind of bet described, hot or cold in 15 years, is no more than the toss of a coin. The Guardian probably published it to continue stirring the debate on climate change.

The Pentagon report referred to above is available here. Hope their server doesn't overheat. It's conclusions are chilling (no pun intended) and no doubt caught the U.S. Administration's attention. It also gives good insight into how the developed nations actually view climate change. As a national-security issue. It's worth a read.

Mt. Pinatubo put 20 Mt of SO2 into the atmosphere. Reliant's Keystone plant in Pennsylvania produces 171,000 tons of SO2 every year - so that's 1/117th of Pinatubo, every year, from just one power plant in Pennsylvania. http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/pinatubo.html http://www.ems.org/nws/2005/05/11/newsreport_50_di

Nice to see you avoid technical discussion and head on off and dig up personal and work information to post up here. I've let CmdrTaco know. I've asked them not to get rid of our editorial comment (Nice to see how calm and reasoned you people are when someone shows information that doesn't abide by your religion).

Wouldn't have minded you mentioning what I do. I would have gladly clarified. My company provides environmental equipment for the oil industries, water monitoring, soil strength and the like. So you would rather they not be environmentally conscious in doing their perfectly legal business?? Who cares if it contaminates the water right? But regardless that's the home office, and it's an area they are TRYING to get into, not that we are in. The US division doesn't deal with oil companies at all. The closest energy area we work with is hydro-electric (Which I assume as a left wing Birkenstock wearing long haired nut your against as well.) and what we monitor is Dam integrity. I assume your against that too. You'd rather see dams collapse. But regardless MY company, the US division, does not even have an oil company in our customer database. Anyone who chooses to attack people personally rather than discuss the facts is obviously someone who lack knowledge, as well as intelligence, morals, etc etc etc.

Bet you also like donating money to the ALF, if not actually participating. I mean your tactics are the same. If you lived locally would I find you at my doorstep? Or maybe you'd toss a Molotov cocktail in my cars, seems like it's more your style. Any arson attacks on SUV in the SF area? Maybe the SF PD would like a tip.

But on to some of your mis-truths, lies in your words.

"real scientists"

Really? Well let's see who is behind real climate. Would that be Environmental Media Services with a name like that it tends to hold up my acertation that it's a PR firm. Even better they have the same street address as Fenton Communications yet another PR firm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Fenton the company that brought us such great science as the Alar scare. Yeah great source you've got there. Who's on the board of directors, Heinrich Himmler.

As to altenergyaction, do you always cite yourself as a reference? You don't see any issue with that, and is your buddy Smith the president (former?) of Cherokee Forest Voices. That some kind of group of scientists? Sounds like it's on par with the likes of MIT, UCLA and all that. Geez make it easier or me. Looks like you are directly paid by them, and admit it. Then attack me for selling equipment that makes large structures safe. Yeah money grubbing weasel that I am. At least I don't work directly for a PR company. Looks like you get a few bucks from Real Climate too. Anyways since you obviously run that site, anyone here can see the tactics of the group.

So again, would you rather discuss science, or are you going to continue with attacks lightweight communist thug. As to SidV, show your ignoarnce, no way you could, or do know why I use that handle. And again, your so simply minded to you there is only left wing and right wing, and attack anyone that doesn't agree with you. I'm pretty sure if Sid came back the only thing he'd care about is getting a fix, but I'm sure he wouldn't side with facists like you.

Yeah, like those hippies at the Pentagon.

(You need to download this report and read it.)

here and here and here.

All of these talk about NPP (net production). On the NASA image, it the relative picture is misleading since there is not that much NPP in the tundra or deserts!

Anyway, the 50% is not made up. 50% of all land plant growth equievelence seems close to being accurate. The oceans are quite baren now (and the volume of the Pacific is equal to the volume of the Moon). Now that China is getting fat, we can only see the NPP skyrocket (meat calorie production requires about 9x plant calorie input).

As someone said, "People are not pigs. People will eat anything".

[...] a very poorly designed reactor, a shutdown of the insufficient safety systems, and a government that didn't care about its people. None of those conditions exists in US nuclear power plants.

Just wait, soon Kansas science will take over and we won't be teaching evolution. We'll be teaching that burning more coal and oil will improve the environment. We'll be teaching who knows what other Bush-science.

It has already begun. Another poster pointed out that creationism is sneaking into the classroom in the form of "Intelligent Design". And now the National Park Service is selling a book that says the Grand Canyon was caused by Noah's flood.

Yeah, those damn hippies at the Pentagon... be like Bush, cover your ears and pretend there's nothing to this global warming thing.

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

Your quote completely mischaracterizes the report, which you can read in its entirety from here. Let me offer an alternative quote from the report (p. 7-8):

Rather than predicting how climate change will happen, our intent is to dramatize the impact climate change could have on society if we are unprepared for it. Where we describe concrete weather conditions and implications, our aim is to further the strategic conversation rather than to accurately forecast what is likely to happen with a high degree of certainty. Even the most sophisticated models cannot predict the details of how the climate change will unfold, which regions will be impacted in which ways, and how governments and society might respond. However, there appears to be general agreement in the scientific community that an extreme case like the one depicted below is not implausible. Many scientists would regard this scenario as extreme both in how soon it develops, how large, rapid and ubiquitous the climate changes are. But history tells us that sometimes the extreme cases do occur, there is evidence that it might be and it is DOD's job to consider such scenarios.

In other words, the the report does not claim that the extreme doomsday scenerio you describe above is likely to happen. Rather, the purpose of the report was to pick a unlikely but plausable extreme outcome since it's the DOD's job to prepare for the worst-case scenerios.

In fact, let me know share with you the emphasized section in a big box on the front of the report,

IMAGINING THE UNTHINKABLE

The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable - to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security.

We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.

We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.

The article you quote from The Observer reports that "'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'" The sentance quoted from the Pentagon report was summarizing what the world would be like in the imagined, extreme scenerio. Your wouldn't have been able to tell this at all from The Observer article, however, since the article made it seem like the Pentagon thinks that thi

So if the next bad warming experience was as bad as the one 50 some million years ago, it would mean that people would have to move more inshore (there will still be a coast mind you) and we can live further north and south than we can now. Trama.

This is a very naive conception of what global climate change (all causes aside) may bring; some worst-case scenarios examined by the Pentagon in this report indicate far worse scenarios than "warmer weather", including the collapse of the gulf stream currents (i.e. causing a radical cooling cycle) and major climate shifts world-wide rendering much of currently viable landmass desert-like.

Regardless of whether any potentially forthcoming natural catastrophes are the result of ongoing cycles or human disruption of those cycles, smug ignorance is plain unproductive.

The only people he is bad for is Enron...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HAA!!! That's funny!
Next thing, you'll be telling us he's been bad for defense contractors and pharmaceutical companies. What a comedian!

here's another copy of the original study with a slightly improved .pdf conversion:

http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climatechang e. pdf

IAAL but this isn't legal advice.

"Worrying about fish that may make it to the wild and into the food chain seems pretty tame in comparison."

The complaint of the CFS seeks regulation, or at least oversight - the point of the injunction is to stop something irresponsible before it starts, rather than waiting to see irreversible results before condeming them. It is true that GM food is an everyday part of our life, but the production of those crops is regulated, and with good reason. Additionally, this seems different than the life-saving potential of greater food production - if it's merely making money from entertainment value associated with the Nemo fad, then perhaps it should be looked at more seriously. These fish will make it into the wild one way or another, and the same concerns they have with Salmon (a food crop) shouldn't be ignored just because this is a toy.

Not to mention the fact that some kid or college student will inevitably eat one of these.

just drink coffee.

sheesh.

of course, you should be aware of the bad side effects of everyone's favourite beverage and purchase your beans accordingly

please, none sponsored by the UN... no offense, but they're a bunch of tree-hugging hippies

Care to give some examples?

that would twist and distort facts to suit their own purposes

Um... you mean the goals of the entire global community? That's who the UN represents(aside from the security council, but that's on non-economic issues anyway). And as such there is no coherant 'purpose' of the UN because it's members and therefore opinions is so diverse. Really, your opinion of the UN is assine and ignorant. Name one policy or action that is fool-heartedly 'hippie'

However, if anyone has a link to a study that shows exactly when we're destined to run out of oil

Global oil estimates vary from widely from a few decades to around 150-200 years. Global estimates seem to be only 14 times what what we have already extracted. Add to that an ever-climbing consupmtion rate How about 284 years at present consumption rates, and much less than that given the inevitable increate in consumption rates. I give it ~100 yrs before oil becomes scarce enough to drive it off the market.

Oh, and that survey is by the USGS, I hope that meets your exacting standards. Their estimates are liberal If even the USGS is not sufficient, propose a competeing estimate.

The truth is, unless we find that the core of the earth is made of oil, we're going to run out in a matter of decades (probably 10-20) instead of thousands of years.

...compared to the 1000 miles of streams that have been buried in West Virginia. Not to mention the 15%-25% of southern West Virginia's mountains that have been leveled causing the loss of 300,000 acres of highly productive hardwood forests.
All so you can have electricity for 3 cents per kilowatt-hour.

vice fuehrer cheney dodges GAO investigations regarding his energy task force

"WE ARE APT TO SHUT OUR EYES AGAINST A PAINFUL TRUTH...
FOR MY PART, I AM WILLING TO KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH;
TO KNOW THE WORST; AND TO PROVIDE FOR IT."
-Patrick Henry

Nice try, AC fed troll, but too many people are seeing through your lies, obfuscations and coverups now. It's not going away. The clintonistas were crooks and liars, so are the current bushbots, and we know that you criminals cooperate with each other more than you let on in public, and have so for a long, long time.

Mena, Arkansas ring a bell for you?

Tell that to your boss. Now go look up "the nuremberg trials". "Just folloing orders" don't cut it as an excuse any longer, you just wish it would. And all the guys who have quit, because they see saw what was going on, and got themselves out because they couldn't stand being around pukes like you? Guess what? They still have all their skills and contacts. All of them. And there's something else, they value true honesty and true patriotism and take their constitution and oath seriously, and they can see through the normal BS they were fed for years and years from career politician officers, let alone from the CEOs masquerading as "government".

What decreasing resources?

Things like fossil fuels, fisheries, mountaintops, tropical forests, etc. We may not be in a crisis situation yet, but we're definitely using up more natural resources than we replace (at least, for some resources).

Decreasing supply leads to higher prices

Well, that's not entirely true. Even if one accepts the simplified economic model of supply and demand, demand plays just as much a role in the price of things as supply (perhaps more).

Also, consider the (hypothetical) scenario where solar energy becomes cheap, efficient and effective. Suppose it's even cheaper than other sources, like fossil fuels. In this case, manufacturers of other energy sources will need to reduce their prices to compete. But that doesn't mean that there are more fossil fuels. It means that there are more energy sources.

So, ultimately, I'd say that the relationship between supply (of any one given thing) and price is more complicated than that.

yet the cost of most basic materials is going DOWN not up

Hmmm... I'm not sure whether that's true or not. Gas prices certainly are going up.

But, take fossil fuels, for example. Oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness may create a larger supply of fossil fuel on the market. This may lead to lower prices in the short term. But the total amount of fossil fuel on the planet is definitely decreasing (which is why they want to drill in Alaska in the first place).

There may be enough resources to sustain our current population and rate of consumption, but if we continue to use up our resources and continue to grow in population, at some point that no longer will be true.

So, I stand by my statement. :-)

Ugh. As I understand it, this is similar to the problem with mountaintop removal strip mining. In this case, mining companies remove entire mountaintops to mine the coal deposits under them. Not surprisingly, many environmental (and other) groups are trying to get this practice to stop.

One of the best arguments I've heard against this type of mining is that, eventually, the mining companies are going to have to find alternatives. Eventually, they will run out of mountains they can mine. So, they might as well start looking for those alternatives now and possibly save some mountains in the process. Not surprisingly, this doesn't go over well with the mining companies.

In cases like this (and with the fisheries), the main problem is the short-term self-interest, I think. The delusion is just a way to justify that self-interest.

Yes, but most will not ignore signed treaties simply because they're inconvenient.

Softwood Lumber?

The US-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement expired in April 2001 as stated in the original document and has not yet been renegotiated.

Were you aware that a NAFTA tribunal recently rebuked and fined the Canadian Government because it "improperly threatened, abused and deliberately misled Pope & Talbot" (A US lumber company?)

Why is Canada's breaking of its treaties relevant to this discussion?