Fear / Loathing / Reality

[Shaggy Hiker]

If it creates an industrial base and turns your city into another Atlantis, the rest of the country would not see much downside.

Why would a change to green industries remove the industrial base? Would we produce fewer machines if the machines ran on electricity rather than gas? Would we produce fewer machines if they ran more efficiently?

As for the science, I figure it takes about a year of immersion to be fairly well versed in it unless you cram like a student before an exam. I don't have the time to get to that level on climate change. Heck, I don't have the time to get to that level on another fish species. Therefore, the best I can do is read what is readily available, weigh the motivations of the writers, and base an opinion on that. What I see is that there is not a balanced table. The VAST majority of climate scientists are convinced of the science. A portion are not. It's not 50-50, though, but rather 90-10 or better. That is fairly strong evidence that the science is sound. Without any strong reason to say otherwise, I will go with the majority.

The other question is what steps should be taken to remedy the situation. The ones I hear are ones that would take us forward to new technology, rather than back to old technology. That's progress in the right direction as far as I can see.

[Lord Orwell]

while this argument is interesting, the original posting seems to make a grevious error:
Global warming and the hole in the ozone are two completely different subjects.

The hole in the ozone is not caused by global warming. It is caused by centrifugal force which is why it is at the poles. It exists because there isn't enough ozone because of all the damage chemicals caused it. However if the ozone was completely gone this wouldn't change the surface temperature of the planet a single degree. However radiation would eventually kill every living creature on the planet.

Global warming is not caused by the hole in the ozone. The hole lets in radiation, not heat. Greenhouse gases cause global warming, not ozone.

And yes it can be proven we are accelerating global warming, which by the way does not prevent an ice age but in fact eventually causes one because once the water levels hit a certain threshold the ice caps start spreading.

(incidently the guy never said the hole prevented global warming. He said it would accelerate without it)

Think of this: What was the climate like when the dinosaurs lived? http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/thick_atmosphere.html. If a pterodactyle was alive today or even the bugs they had, flight would be impossible for them. Plus the oxygen content was about 32%. http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6652,3390333 Our planet has acutally lost a lot of the atmosphere to space in the last 65 million years. I don't see that kind of difference being cyclical. You are looking at one detail of a complex system and saying "this is a pattern" when it in fact may not be. Even in chaos, patterns can seem to exist. http://home.clara.net/heureka/books/synchronicity.htm
I challenge you to come up with a naturally occurring phenomena that releases trapped co2 from coal/oil/etc. This is the real impact man is having. Not to mention some surface sublimation in places where oil was pumped out in the past and was not replaced with water.

Finally, while i think obama is in fact doing a good job, ask yourself if you've ever had to rethink a decision based on new information. He isn't all-knowing. He has a team of advisors. He was against offshore drilling until it was made clear it was "safe" ... and of course no system is full-proof but how many spills have happened over the years having it shipped to us? Exxon Valdez anyone? Wrecked tankers have become such a cliche that they've been spoofed in cartoons such as futurama.

[capsulecorpjx]

Excessive human carbon emissions and Global Warming, in my view is unstoppable politically.

But on the bright side, even the worst case scenario won't wipe out the Human species, it will just collapse our current civilization.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

If it kills off what's left of our industrial base and turns my city into another Detroit

What has happened to detroit is nothing to do with climate change and if the industrial base continues it decline in your city then that wont be down to climate change either. Its happening in every developed country around the world as all the companies realised they could make most things cheaper in China !

So basic market economics is killing of the industrial base in developed countries, but new green energy requires new technology and some quite advanced engineering and manufacturing processes that China and other less developed countries cant do, this could possibly even help and re-energise manufacturing in developed countries.

It seems to me that for developed countries high tech manufacturing is they way to go, as they have an advantage in having a far more skilled workforce.

[dbasnett]

while this argument is interesting, the original posting seems to make a grevious error:
Global warming and the hole in the ozone are two completely different subjects.

The hole in the ozone is not caused by global warming. It is caused by centrifugal force which is why it is at the poles. It exists because there isn't enough ozone because of all the damage chemicals caused it. However if the ozone was completely gone this wouldn't change the surface temperature of the planet a single degree. However radiation would eventually kill every living creature on the planet.

Global warming is not caused by the hole in the ozone. The hole lets in radiation, not heat. Greenhouse gases cause global warming, not ozone.

And yes it can be proven we are accelerating global warming, which by the way does not prevent an ice age but in fact eventually causes one because once the water levels hit a certain threshold the ice caps start spreading.

(incidently the guy never said the hole prevented global warming. He said it would accelerate without it)

Think of this: What was the climate like when the dinosaurs lived?... I don't see that kind of difference being cyclical. You are looking at one detail of a complex system and saying "this is a pattern" when it in fact may not be....
I challenge you to come up with a naturally occurring phenomena that releases trapped co2 from coal/oil/etc. This is the real impact man is having. Not to mention some surface sublimation in places where oil was pumped out in the past and was not replaced with water.

I just copied and pasted what I read. It seemed pertinent.

The chart I posted was for 500K years, short in the eyes of the planet. Sorry you don't see the cycle, and if it isn't long enough then the ones the "YOU are killing the planet" scientist must really make you angry.

So are you saying there are not cycles? Is it a cycle that it gets cold in the winter and warm in the summer.

If you want to speak in general terms about naturally occurring phenomena causing a change in the environment then what is the impact of volcanoes?

MY OPINION - There is no evidence that if we had zero impact, no coal, gas (fill all of your favorite causes in), we would stop what I perceive to be a short cycle of flooding / ice ages. Of course my predictions are as worthless as the rest because I too am not a god.

Do you remember how much of what science "knew" went in the "boy that was stupid" pile when Voyager toured the planets?

[dbasnett]

Mr. Obama will not get my vote because he is incumbent, but if I changed my mind about my new political affiliation I would not vote for him because of this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/201005...npoorlyadvised

[NeedSomeAnswers]

MY OPINION - There is no evidence that if we had zero impact, no coal, gas (fill all of your favorite causes in), we would stop what I perceive to be a short cycle of flooding / ice ages.

Actually there is a quite a bit of evidence and most scientists agree that we are speeding up Global warming. The difficulty is in determining exactly what effect and how fast.

You are saying that there is no evidence, but what evidence do you have that there is no evidence ?

Also you say you perceive the earth natural warming and cooling cycles to be short, why ? from what i have read from what we know there have only been 5 Ice Ages in Earth past 2.4 Billion years the last one some 20,000 years ago and you think that's short ?

By all accounts there are Vast amounts of time between each Ice Age, and also what makes you think we are due for one now ? it could be another 10,000 , 20,000 , 50,000 years until the next Ice Age for all we know.

What evidence do you have that we are anyway near another Ice Age ?

[dbasnett]

Actually there is a quite a bit of evidence and most scientists agree that we are speeding up Global warming. The difficulty is in determining exactly what effect and how fast.

You are saying that there is no evidence, but what evidence do you have that there is no evidence ?

Also you say you perceive the earth natural warming and cooling cycles to be short, why ? from what i have read from what we know there have only been 5 Ice Ages in Earth past 2.4 Billion years the last one some 20,000 years ago and you think that's short ?

By all accounts there are Vast amounts of time between each Ice Age, and also what makes you think we are due for one now ? it could be another 10,000 , 20,000 , 50,000 years until the next Ice Age for all we know.

What evidence do you have that we are anyway near another Ice Age ?

What evidence proves we are speeding it up? How much? If you hit the ground at terminal velocity or terminal velocity - 1 fps DOES it really matter?

When you look at those charts(the same ones I have referenced twice) that show those 5 ice ages, pay attention to the scale at the bottom. 450K years compared to the Earths age is a small time span.

Just like everyone else I have none, zero, nada, evidence about tomorrow, or the next day, or the next.

[homer13j]

If it creates an industrial base and turns your city into another Atlantis, the rest of the country would not see much downside.

Atlantis? Hiker, please...

I find your scientific skepticism to be wildly erratic. In certain cases you demand concrete, irrefutable proof before you'll believe anything and in other cases you'll buy into an idea simply because there is a consensus. And it seems the amount of skepticism you display is based entirely on the political ramifications of the subject at hand. It's okay, we all have our biases...

Why would a change to green industries remove the industrial base?

I keep hearing the term "green industries" yet nobody can tell me exactly what they are. What goods do they produce? What services do they perform?

The VAST majority of climate scientists are convinced of the science. A portion are not. It's not 50-50, though, but rather 90-10 or better. That is fairly strong evidence that the science is sound. Without any strong reason to say otherwise, I will go with the majority.

Consensus is not science.

Dbasnett's flat Earth analogy is perfectly apt in this case. Just because a majority of scientists once believed the Earth was flat did not make it true.

What has happened to detroit is nothing to do with climate change

I never said it did. But I can give you a perfect example of the damage done by laws intended to "save the planet."

Over the last 15 years Arcelor-Mittal Steel has been forced to shut down several of their older-style blast furnaces in Cleveland and Gary as they no longer conform to the EPA's ever-increasing restrictions on industrial emissions. A-M didn't stop making the steel, of course, because the world demands it. They simply transferred production to their facility in Indonesia where there are no such restrictions on the amount of pollution they can release.

So the new environmental laws that were supposed to reduce the amount of pollution actually increased it and transferred it to another part of the globe. These news laws also had the additional unintended consequences of costing those two cities more than a thousand jobs and the loss of business has seriously eroded the tax bases of both cities. In Cleveland that tax burden has now been shifted onto those of us left here who still have jobs causing many of us to seek a better life elsewhere.

This is what I meant when I said I fear for my city's future. And the Democrats in currently power have promised even tougher environmental laws and punitive taxes on heavy industry all in the name of "saving the planet." Safe to say things around here are not looking good...

What evidence proves we are speeding it up?

Like I said before, the only "evidence" are enormously complex computer models that can never hope to come close to the complexity of the real thing and are based on limited data. Garbage in, garbage out. Or in this case it should be Garbage in, Gospel out.

One more thing: No scientist ever received a lucrative government grant for saying "everything is fine."

[techgnome]

So the new environmental laws that were supposed to reduce the amount of pollution actually increased it and transferred it to another part of the globe. These news laws also had the additional unintended consequences of costing those two cities more than a thousand jobs and the loss of business has seriously eroded the tax bases of both cities.

I'd argue that the company executive's inability to change their business model to conform with the laws is more of a direct factor. They could have cleaned it up (this is an assumption, as I am not familiar with this specific instance), the plant could have been upgraded. But someone at some level decided that in the interest of profits (or what ever), it was cheaper to build a new plant somewhere else. I'm not saying the EPA and the laws are right or fair, simply making the point that the laws themselves don't drive a business out. The businesses to it to themselves too by determining to either follow the law or not. For what ever reason, A-M decided they didn't want to invest in their existing plant/employees or community and bailed.

-tg

[capsulecorpjx]

...
Consensus is not science.

Dbasnett's flat Earth analogy is perfectly apt in this case. Just because a majority of scientists once believed the Earth was flat did not make it true.
...

So even with
1) At least 90% of Scientists who say Global Warming is accelerated significantly by Humans, with decades of climate data to back it up.
2) That the world's oil reserves are being evaporated into the atmosphere as CO2, and hard science that says excessive CO2 will trap heat ...

you aren't convinced?

Then is it possible to have evidence that would be beyond a reasonable doubt for you?


Also I don't think it's fair to call the Flat Earth proponents scientists, more philosophers. This flat earth theory was accepted during a time before the Scientific method was accepted, when people thought the world was made of four elements, without any proof or testing of their theories.

If you want a better analogy, you should use the time when Scientists didn't believe in the floating-continents theory.

[homer13j]

But someone at some level decided that in the interest of profits (or what ever), it was cheaper to build a new plant somewhere else.

So what? The whole purpose of business is to turn a profit. If they don't the business dies.

Either way A-M had to build new furnaces. An enormous task regardless of location. They simply made the business decision to build in a far less restrictive environment. You may find it easy to blame the company for this, but I don't. Especially when the end result is exactly the opposite of what our government insisted would happen.

[homer13j]

you aren't convinced?

Convinced that a few decades of spotty data is an accurate basis for centuries worth of predictions about something as vast and incomprehensibly complex as a planet's atmosphere? No.

[capsulecorpjx]

Convinced that a few decades of spotty data is an accurate basis for centuries worth of predictions about something as vast and incomprehensibly complex as a planet's atmosphere? No.

Well like I said, it doesn't really matter who's right or wrong.

India, China and America are not cutting back.

But at least China is cutting back it's population.

[dbasnett]

Wait a minute;

"So even with
1) At least 90% of Scientists who say Global Warming is accelerated significantly by Humans, with decades of climate data to back it up.
2) That the world's oil reserves are being evaporated into the atmosphere as CO2, and hard science that says excessive CO2 will trap heat ..."

Please site sources for your information. 90% ??? Maybe you should go back and read the first post in this thread. Or a short recap:

1985 - Science blames man for ozone hole, predicts gloom and doom.
1989 - Ozone depleting chemicals are banned
Today - The hole is smaller than the peak of 1990.

"Now the bad news: The ozone layer has also thinned over the North Pole. This thinning is predicted to continue for the next 15 years due to weather-related phenomena that scientists still cannot fully explain, according to the same UN report . And, repairing the ozone hole over the South Pole will take longer than previously expected, and won't finish until between 2060 and 2075. Scientists now understand that the size of the ozone hole varies dramatically from year to year, which complicates attempts to accurately predict the hole's future size.

Interestingly, recent studies have shown that the size of the ozone hole affects the global temperature. Closing the ozone hole actually speeds up the melting of the polar ice caps, according to a 2009 study from Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research."

Scientist know a lot, and tomorrow some of what they knew will turn out to be BS, because they will know more.

[dbasnett]

@capsule - Why are you so eager to live in fear, or is it that you need to have the hope? I like my freedom, and feel that I am responsible enough to have it. And what if I am correct, that it is very likely to happen no matter what? Not only will you have wasted your time, but your children, or their children, will need to do the real work of planning how to re-locate the low lying areas.

I don't like politicians / scientists trying to subtlety control me. I have had enough hot air blown up my skirt. Until we all decide to pull our heads out of our ..... it is never going to stop.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

What evidence proves we are speeding it up? How much? If you hit the ground at terminal velocity or terminal velocity - 1 fps DOES it really matter?

Well what evidence we have does seem to show that The increased C02 in our atmosphere is heating it up at a greater rate, and we can show that it is us that is pumping this extra C02 into the atmosphere.

When you look at those charts(the same ones I have referenced twice) that show those 5 ice ages, pay attention to the scale at the bottom. 450K years compared to the Earths age is a small time span.

450k Years compared to the time we have had civilisation on Earth is incredibly small whcih is what we should be measuring it by there has only been 1 Ice Age in the whole of Human History, and also you seem to be assuming we are on the verge of a new Ice Age where is your evidence for this ?

On Wikipedia (which is where your chart comes) it says - "Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now"

You seem to be saying because we have Ice Ages which could happen in 50,000 years time then we shouldn't really care what we pump into the atmosphere now as it wont matter.

[dbasnett]

What I have said over, and over, and over, is that it is cyclical. Global warming, global cooling.

I have also said that it is my opinion that the chart says it happens no matter what we do, so having the political / technological community manipulate me out of fear is not happening. It is no wonder why they do it, look at the number of you that just keep ignoring the actual information they give you. Since when did the Earth care that we were on the face of the planet? Tell that to the volcanoes in the North Atlantic.

When I point out recent examples of science changing what it knows, or admitting it didn't fully understand the problem, that is just ignored.

Keep hoping that man can control nature, a joke only a fool believes. As I write this the Osage River is out of its banks, the Missouri River is on the rise, and the Earth is not listening to my pleas to stop. If it doesn't stop soon I'll have water in the house. Last night they were predicting clear and sunny today. Hmmm or should I believe what I felt when I walked out on the deck, or interpret the information they give me?
http://radar.weather.gov/radar.php?r...101111&loop=no

If there is some point other than man can control nature, please make it, otherwise don't bother, I am a skeptic.

[FunkyDexter]

NOBODY HAS EVER SERIOUSLY BELIEVED THE EARTH WAS FLAT!!!! Sorry to shout but, honestly, this is a myth. The ancient Babylonians knew it was round and the ancient greeks (namely Pythagoras) even calculated it's circumference. Nobody thought it was flat in the dark or medievel ages either and by the renaissance we were happily sailing round it. And the church has never claimed it was flat either, although they did claim that the sun and planets revolved around us. The only people who've ever claimed it was flat are the flat earth society and they're just idiots who wish they had something useful to say. As an example of how science can be wrong it holds no more water than a sieve.

No scientist ever received a lucrative government grant for saying "everything is fine."

No, but plenty have recieved hefty pay-checks from vested interests. I've never seen any figures on it but I feel pretty confident in saying that, as a scientist, you would stand to make considerably more money denying global warming than you would by advocating it. Oil companies would be queueing up to give you grants.

Please site sources for your information. 90% ???

I used to see the 90% figure quoted on wikipoedia. It's not there any more because it's been replaced by this:-

With the release of the revised statement[88] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change

so that's 100% of creditable bodies then. OK, so Wikipoedia's not the best source but there's plenty of references you can check from there if you wish.

Also, a word on scientists. Scientists, in the main, do not consider themselves to be the authorities on anything. They don't tell us what to do, they don't set policy and they don't generally view themselves as Gods. Instead they just report the facts as they see them and leave the rest of that stuff to the politicans. Usually politics lags behind science as politicians have to sell change to their electorate and it's notable that politics is still lagging behind on climate change - scientists are recommending measures far more pronounced than those you'll hear advicated by politicians at present. Yes, scientists can, like everyone else, be susseptible to corruption and may tailor their results to fit the views of one interest or another but this is actually quite rare and also exists on both sides of the debate.

cyclical

Yes, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist on either side of the fence who disagreed with that. That's not, and never has been, the point of the debate though. What's at debate is whether man is significantly affecting that cycle. If we are (which I'm inclined to believe given the overwhelming scientific consencus) then it's a pretty safe bet that that's a bad thing. We can't be sure of that, no, but common sense should tell you that changing the enviroment in which we evolved and are therefore genetically suited to, is probably not going to turn out too well for us.

Does that mean that we shouldn't be preparing for a future where the natural cycle of temperatures impacts on us? No. We should be preparing flood defences, storm defences and all the like. But does it mean that we should blithely go on as we are, consuming energy and pumping out pollutants at a rate utterly unprecendented in all of human history? Equally, that's a big No, I'm afraid. The difference is that the sort of measures we should be preparing against an ice age future can be defered because those affects are going to be felt slowly. The measures we should be traking to minimise our impact on the environment, on the other hand, should be taken now because the damage is being done now.

[dbasnett]

Somewhere buried in the post was the point of contention: "Does that mean that we shouldn't be preparing for a future where the natural cycle of temperatures impacts on us? No. We should be preparing flood defenses, storm defenses and all the like. But does it mean that we should blithely go on as we are, consuming energy and pumping out pollutants at a rate utterly unprecedented in all of human history?"

So we agree, I think???, that the flood is coming regardless? Or are you holding out hope that man can control nature. If we agree then do we have a plan for what to do with all of the people living in coastal areas that are going to be flooded? No government I have heard of is saying it is going to happen no matter what we do, nor have I heard anything like that from the scientific community.

Could everyone please stop making it seem that I advocate pollution, CO2 emissions, dependency on carbon fuels, etc.

1 - I believe in global warming
2 - I don't think the overall, big picture, impact we have on the environment is going to make a dramatic difference. So the flood comes 100 years earlier, so what? One hundred years in human terms is huge, but in earth years it is the blink of an eye, hardly dramatic. What is important, and I am an expert in this, is knowing when. I am going to be a big polluter the next few days because I need things to help me prepare for the flood. And I will be making hourly observations, trying to predict how much stuff needs to be moved, and where does it need to go. Mo River, Osage River


I am deeply sorry that I used flat earth. The best, most pertinent, example was in post #1, we know, we fixed, we thought we knew but now it looks like we didn't know as much, and maybe the fix is contributing to global warming, but we will know tomorrow.

I don't know how any one that believes that the Earth is a chaotic system would profess a claim on man's impact on that system. 500K years of data in a 14B year system doesn't seem to me to be significant.

[Xanith]

No, but plenty have recieved hefty pay-checks from vested interests. I've never seen any figures on it but I feel pretty confident in saying that, as a scientist, you would stand to make considerably more money denying global warming than you would by advocating it. Oil companies would be queueing up to give you grants.

Not sure if you are aware that there are trillions of dollars on the line if climate change legislation passes? What will be set up is a global carbon exchange in which trillions of dollars of “air” are traded. Money will be siphoned from the so called “rich” countries and given to poor countries in a redistribution, share the wealth scheme. So there is a huge amount of money on the line if climate change restrictions are enacted. Big business is in climate change, Enron is the original company that wanted the carbon exchange set up, and companies like GE are pushing heavily for it because they have a lot of money to gain.

So I think you are incorrect in your assessment in thinking that you would make more money denying global warming, it could easily be argued that you have more to gain if you support it. After all if global warming is true you have to make global changes that affect the way we do business, if it isn’t true then you really don’t have to do anything. So climate change = global control and regulation, no climate change = status quo.

X

[dbasnett]

You are not saying that big business and government would perpetuate a myth for money are you? They wouldn't do that would they?

Just on the off chance that the US Congress passes a retro-active law to make BP pay more than it has to by law today, you don't think the law will be challenged and likely overturned do you? Congress looks good, BP doesn't have to pay, all is well.

[dbasnett]

How confident should I be in the scientific prediction displayed here???

http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydro...,1,1,1,1,1,1,1

[NeedSomeAnswers]

My word i dont think i have read something so biased and just plain wrong as that last post Xanith !

What will be set up is a global carbon exchange in which trillions of dollars of “air” are traded

Says who ? and even if it were true what is your point ?

Money will be siphoned from the so called “rich” countries and given to poor countries in a redistribution, share the wealth scheme

What's that got to do with anything !

So there is a huge amount of money on the line if climate change restrictions are enacted. Big business is in climate change, Enron is the original company that wanted the carbon exchange set up, and companies like GE are pushing heavily for it because they have a lot of money to gain.

Yeh right are you telling be the big oil and gas companies are supporting climate change restrictions or green technology ? because i can tell you right now they have no interest. Oil is probably the most lucrative business you could be in why would they want to get out of it. Just look at the current BP oil spill. BP have had £20 Billion wiped of there share price £20 BILLION and it has barely touched the sides.

So I think you are incorrect in your assessment in thinking that you would make more money denying global warming, it could easily be argued that you have more to gain if you support it.

You are talking nonsense, and anyway what self respecting scientist would publish false data to support something they knew to be false. they would be ripped apart in peer review. It just doesn't make sense. Scientists are not politicians many Scientists work for universities and independent research organisations they dont have an agenda to push and they dont do it for the money ! Only corporate backed Science has an agenda and that is in the minority.

The reason most governments and sceptics dont want to believe man made climate change is because of vested interests. You do not see those who dont believe in man mad climate change bring out any evidence at all basically just there opinion.

If any of you can show me some creditable Scientists out there that dont believe in man made climate change and have a good explanation on why then i will happily eat my words.

I am not fanatical but i have never heard anything from climate change deniers that even remotely challenges any of the science. The only thing i hear back is Science is not infallible you know ! well yes we do know this science is imperfect by its very nature. One of the very bases of Science is that our knowledge changes over time and what we know to be true know may not be in the future. This does not mean that Science is either useless or wrong in assessing climate change though !

If it did then i would suggest that science is also useless at most things maybe we should just ditch it all together as its so unreliable i mean what have we ever learnt from Science !

Xanith your whole post seems to be far more about how corrupt the system is and they will bring in loads of stuff to give money to poor countries and big business on the back of climate change. Well to me that is far more an indictment of the political system then anything to do with climate change or scientists.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Atlantis? Hiker, please...

Ok, how about Atlanta. Would that be peachy (subtle pun on the peach tree state there)?

I find your scientific skepticism to be wildly erratic. In certain cases you demand concrete, irrefutable proof before you'll believe anything and in other cases you'll buy into an idea simply because there is a consensus.

True enough. Some subjects I have enough first hand knowledge to form an opinion, while on others I don't.

And it seems the amount of skepticism you display is based entirely on the political ramifications of the subject at hand. It's okay, we all have our biases...

We certainly do all have our biases, and mine are no secret. However, we simply haven't covered enough topics for the broader base of my skepticism to be displayed. On the other hand, I doubt we are going to get into any discussions on population modeling, crayfish science, or any of the other areas where I believe chaos theory dismantles the 'given wisdom'.

I keep hearing the term "green industries" yet nobody can tell me exactly what they are. What goods do they produce? What services do they perform?

Two that impact my local area are: Windmills and solar cells. This states largest manufacturer was Micron, until its outdated plant became non-competitive in the memory market (it was based on a technology that got fewer chips per silicon wafer), so it moved production to other states. However, it still has an R&D footprint and a large silicon processing plant. They keep suggesting that they will move that to solar cell production for which the market can currently absorb all the production that exists. Were they to do that, they might, once again, become the largest employer in the state of Idaho. Of course, that wouldn't mean much to you, since the whole state has less people than your city, but it's a start.

Consensus is not science.

True, but science requires more investment of time for any one subject than we car reasonably expend. At some point, consensus must take the place of science for those who are not willing or able to invest the time needed to do the science.

[Shaggy Hiker]

@capsule - Why are you so eager to live in fear,

Fear? We'll all be dead before anything too significant happens anyways. This isn't an issue of fear, it's more an issue of the direction we want to start moving.

Not only will you have wasted your time, but your children, or their children, will need to do the real work of planning how to re-locate the low lying areas.

If we are off oil, then we have gained even if you are correct.

I don't like politicians / scientists trying to subtlety control me.

Yeah, climate change is as subtle as a fart in a bathesphere.

[Shaggy Hiker]

How confident should I be in the scientific prediction displayed here???

http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydro...,1,1,1,1,1,1,1

Reasonably confident, though they could have improved the data by putting error bars around it. Hydrography isn't quite as chaotic as weather in general, because there are several stage gauges at various places. The volume passing the tributary stage gauges contributes to the volume passing downstream point X, and the relationship is relatively simple. Given sufficient upstream measuring points, the problem becomes about as difficult as predicting the weather an hour from now, which can be done with great accuracy, even though predicting the weather 24 hours from now is much less accurate.

When I lived in the Florida Keys, we had a map of the Atlantic on the wall. As soon as a storm was named, a pin was added. As each update came in, a new pin was added. If the storm headed towards a slot between Cuba and the Bahamas, we were going to get hit. Of course, by the time it reached that slot, it was almost ontop of us, so it wasn' some kind of magical prediction.

[dbasnett]

Reasonably confident, though they could have improved the data by putting error bars around it. Hydrography isn't quite as chaotic as weather in general, because there are several stage gauges at various places. The volume passing the tributary stage gauges contributes to the volume passing downstream point X, and the relationship is relatively simple. Given sufficient upstream measuring points, the problem becomes about as difficult as predicting the weather an hour from now, which can be done with great accuracy, even though predicting the weather 24 hours from now is much less accurate.

When I lived in the Florida Keys, we had a map of the Atlantic on the wall. As soon as a storm was named, a pin was added. As each update came in, a new pin was added. If the storm headed towards a slot between Cuba and the Bahamas, we were going to get hit. Of course, by the time it reached that slot, it was almost ontop of us, so it wasn' some kind of magical prediction.

It was bait. I do have faith in the prediction. Short term prediction, based on long term data is OK by me. Long term prediction based on short term data, not so OK.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I seem to be making up for missing a couple days.

In a general sense, I agree with what Xanith was saying. Any carbon exchange will have a significant economic impact. Some people will get REALLY rich from it, while others will not. I doubt we will shift more money to poor countries than we already do, but it's all just speculation until somebody comes up with a bill that can pass. Frankly, despite recent moves, I doubt it will happen.

I expect Congress to produce a whole bunch of hot air, which can be blown up DBs skirt (why DO you wear a skirt? Are you scottish?). Meanwhile, actual change is currently happening, and it is happening at the local or regional level. I expect more incentives for alternative energy, because some electric companies have determined that it is cheaper to give rebates for home solar, and so forth, than to build new power plants and transmission lines (doesn't matter if it is nuclear or not, people generally oppose having new power plants or transmission lines built in their area...go figure). There are also incentives for green power, which is leading to the rows of windmills springing up all over the NW.

Won't mean a thing, though, since our population keeps right on soaring.

[dbasnett]

Uh, you see, uh, its like this... What did Johnny Carson as the Great Carnack sp? tell Ed McM. "May a crazed pole vaulter charge up your sisters hoop skirt".

[Shaggy Hiker]

He really said that? Seems a bit risque for the old guy. Cool.

[dbasnett]

He really said that? Seems a bit risque for the old guy. Cool.

I loved Carnack. Carson was actually funny, never been a fan of any of the players since, maybe Stewart.

[Lord Orwell]

Mr. Obama will not get my vote because he is incumbent, but if I changed my mind about my new political affiliation I would not vote for him because of this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/201005...npoorlyadvised

i don't ask the doctor who gave birth how to raise my kids. In other news, i don't ask a guy who rode in a space ship how nasa should operate.

[dbasnett]

I am sure the Russians, Japanese, or Chinese will be glad to take us up if we need to go.