Spinning wheels of Global Warming

Andre

In the early days of Global Warming, the "capo di tutti global warming capi", Stephan Schneider, made his world famous public appeal to commit noble cause corruption:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...etroitNews.pdf
It's likely that this appeal is one of the most successful in the history of manking condering the statements for instance in the new Summary for Policy makers of the IPCC without an assessment report which has to be amended to reflex the summary. So, the doubts are to be surpressed. Here a first example:

http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc...s_3/14_1.shtml

However:

Emphasis mine, after all the command of the guru must be obeyed

More to follow

Andre

Swindle is a big word, I'd say but some think not:

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...dle/index.html

So did you watch Al Gore's "inconvenient truth" and would you also go and watch this?

eaboujaoudeh

unfortunately not only scientists feel the change in climate, animals and humans also notice the changes that is happening around them. besides u don't expect me to believe that removing half the worlds trees and increasing the use of fossil fuels would not have a dramatic effect on nature? that is not a made up scenario, this is our life now.

Andre

That's not the point at all. But most certainly the strong dominance of Homo urbanus and the devastating effect on nature is worrying and should have the utmost attention, but using scientific fraud in an attempt to correct that is even worse.

Why, because with incorrect information we are bound to do the worng things. What would it help to sequestrate carbon and send solar radiation defectors into space at the moment that a new little ice age would start?

What would happen with the trustworthiness of environmental science when nature makes it fully clear that there is no antropogenic global warming? Whe simply should not accept the fraud.

The next scam attempt is exposed by Roger Pielke Jr here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...g_science.html

denverdoc

Solar radiation shields in space? I'm aware of thoughts re sequestration, hopefully the engineers would consider an on/off switch. Even if its a matter of scientists crying wolf, and a waste of $$ who cares?

This is a pointless argument IMO--one can do nothing and hope the claims are grossly exaggerated, or we clean up our act. Even if wrong re AGW, we have a cleaner world for having done so and can use the oil for better purposes than propelling a cargo fraction of 5 percent around town or using coal for generating electricity. I think this point has been like a dozen times on the various threads. Until a really cogent argument can be made for inaction....

eaboujaoudeh

btw...with the price of such a shield that i think eventually we will need something like that. we still have a chance by planting millions of trees all around the world, and stopping population growth, India is trying to stop its population growth, and i think all the world should be forced to follow. planting trees and stopping population growth...thats the solution...and of course deminishing polution, recycling...

denverdoc

Priceless. Of course any such shield should be a really big billboard with Exxon-Mobil ads using solar wind to drive some really cool lights.

Seriously, after Rachel Carson's book in the 60's and the understanding that there are limits to growth, and that carrying capacity is a really, really fundamental concept, the US was striving for zero population growth--that was about a 100 million ago, must all be illegal Mexican immigrants.

Even more seriously, I don't hear anything about curbing pop growth these days, why not? Is it against someone's religion?

eaboujaoudeh

no religion that i know off has something against curbing pop growth. besides religion is translated according to the needs of the religious men...we should ask them to translate some paragraphs in religious books in the way that would save the earth :)

russ_watters

I've never heard about the US attempting to curb its population growth. The US is among the most able to handle a larger population and we certainly haven't made any attempt to cut off immigration. Here are our historical rates: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/cohn.immigration.us

The only other place in the world where population growth is all that high right now is Africa and frankly, AIDS is going to stop that.

Regardless, curbing population growth won't do anything, since the world's economy will continue to grow and energy usage along with it. To cut pollution (either for global warming or just so people can breath outside without masks) requires making smarter choices about energy production. The easy place to start is by building a hundred nuclear plants in the US and reprocessing our spent fuel. That would allow us to close half of our coal plants and reduce our air pollution by about a 10%. It would take 20 years, but it really would be easy to do. I focus on coal because coal has a lot of other nasties in it that we should really get rid of, whereas natural gas and oil burn much cleaner. If you are a global warming proponent, then, my suggestion only helps a little bit.

Cutting carbon dioxide emissions significantly just isn't a possibility without a paradigm shift in the way we make and use energy. Carbon dioxide is one of the primary - and most desirable - products of combustion of hydrocarbon fuels.

Evo

You're probably too young to remember. It was an environmental activist group formed in the late 60's called Zero Population Growth. They changed their name a few years a go to "Population Connection". Here's a blurb about it.

Population Connection is an organization in the United States, formerly known as Zero Population Growth. They adopted their current name in 2002. Zero Population Growth was originally founded in 1968 by Paul R. Ehrlich, Richard Bowers, and Charles Remington, in the wake of the impact from Ehrlich's best-selling book, The Population Bomb.

According to an ad in the paperback edition of that book: Zero Population Growth Inc. is an organization which has been formed to bring the crucial issue of over-population to the attention of the general public, and more specifically, to the attention of our legislators (both state and federal): the ultimate goal of ZPG being to form a lobby group to press for legislation to implement far-reaching birth control programs, repeal of archaic legislation that runs counter to these objectives, and to press for allocation of funds for more research into population problems and research for better methods of contraception. In addition, ZPG will press for tax laws that, instead of offering incentives for having more children, will emphasize the need for population control."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Connection

russ_watters

I never get tired of hearing that Ok, but I guess the point is, was it ever a significant movement? At it's peak, that group had a membership of 35,000, a drop in the bucket compared to some major environmentalist groups.

Lawmakers, from time to time, will target immigration for economic and political reasons, but I've never heard of a major push to curb population growth.

Evo

No, it was never anything major in the US. It seems they have since changed their focus to third world countries.

denverdoc

I don't think it is properly characterized as a single environmentalist group, but more as an idea that gained considerable traction at the time. Certainly neither of my parents were a member of the group.

I do remember a college lecture ca. 1975 (evolutionary biology, irc) in a large auditorium that had three giant blackboards spanning it and a professor walking the length while drawing a horizontal line as he went, and then at the end an upwards spike, saying it would take 40 miles of horizontal blackboard to fairly represent the scale of human population growth. Obviously made an impression, guess they don't teach that sort of thing anymore.

edward

In the 1960's it was frequently referred to as the "population explosion". Evidently the earth can support a lot more people than was predicted at that time. Changes in agricultural development have increased the food supply.

On thing is for sure, we will be running out of naturally produced foods such as seafood. I read an article that said by 2048 seafood will have virtually disappeared.

denverdoc

I don't remember the numbers, but when you consider that a good number are starving as we speak, that we are running out of ground water at an alarming rate, the AGW issue, and the dependency on petro based agriculture, maybe they weren't far off, as in we have reached the plateau on the s curve and lest we find a way to reduce pollution, may be on the downward side soon. The oceans are just another symptom.

light_bulb

what do you say to everyone when it comes time to ration food? say you live in new york where the daily food supply has to be trucked in twice a day, ouch.

eaboujaoudeh

ration food? why? just shoot everyone who can't afford to buy it :P.

Well i think its dumb when you have african countries with overpopulation and starving to death, and still insist on bringing thousands of children,eventually they will self destruct, they already are half way there.. Rationing food will never occur, cause the earth always used to FIGHT over resources, and that is already what's happening in some countries, Israel invaded southern Lebanon because of the water there....I think overpopulation has to be stopped at any cost, water is not enough, food is not enough, too much pollution, too much heat, its a plan to suicide if we don't stop it now./