Re: Re: global warming-- consensus?

October 21, 2003

In a message dated 10/21/03 6:49:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Can't find the exact wording and referenced documentation online right now

> from Noam Chomsky's, Understanding Power. IIRC, all technological,

> scientific, medical, and agricultural research is funded with the Pentagon

> budget.

Huh? That's wierd. I've read/heard Chomsky numerous times in numerous

places mention that much of the R & D passed on to private industry is conducted

by

the Pentagon, but never heard this. Certainly most medical research isn't

carried out by the Pentagon. Is he saying that the grants the gov't gives to

researchers come out of the pentagon budget? What on earth is the reason for

that?

If anyone ever wondered why the military piece of the pie chart is

> so big in the IRS manual, there you go.

What IRS manual are you referring to?

It seems that an awful lot of misinformation is thrown around about the

military budget. The most irksome is that people who want to use an inflated

image

of the military budget as propaganda against military spending use the

portion of the national debt that is paying off money that was spent by the

military

in the past, which is rather deceptive, since this includes two world wars

and the cold war, none of which are currently being carried out, and implies

that our military spending is outrageously high during a time of peace, when in

fact our military spending is currently much lower than the figures factoring

in the debt payments show.

I'm not really in favor of big military budgets, but it's not really a fair

comparison to compare our military " budget " (factoring in our military debt

being paid off) to other countries' military budgets, considering the enormous

cost of the Cold War, and the obvious fact that countries who weren't major

participants in the Cold War had major material and safety benefits from the

U.S's

expenses on nuclear weapons, given the clear danger of having one unchecked

nuclear power.

If you find the Chomsky quote please clarify.

Thanks,

Chris

October 21, 2003

Chris-

Was this actually addressed to me?

>,

>

> > >and the powers that be are funding some " anti global warming "

> > >research (no one wants to refit all those coal fired power plants).

>

>Actually, since all research is funded in some way, reading the

>research is at least 90% of the game, unless you have some aversion

>to having an informed opinion.

-

October 21, 2003

Can't find the exact wording and referenced documentation online right now

from Noam Chomsky's, Understanding Power. IIRC, all technological,

scientific, medical, and agricultural research is funded with the Pentagon

budget. If anyone ever wondered why the military piece of the pie chart is

so big in the IRS manual, there you go.

Wanita

At 10:09 PM 10/21/2003 +0000, wrote:

>> >and the powers that be are funding some " anti global warming "

>> >research (no one wants to refit all those coal fired power plants).

>

October 22, 2003

>Perhaps most importantly is that your belief that nearly everyone

>agrees is false. Most of the scientists involved in global warming

>research and conferences are not actually atmospheric scientists, but

>scientists brought in from other fields to research the

>*implications* of global warming.

What I was saying is that most scientists agree the climate

is currently getting warmer ( " global warming " ). There is

ample evidence for this, from the recent high temps this

summer to the melting ice packs. The disagreements

have to do with the implications and causes (which is what

most folks are currently arguing about here too).

Even Singer's arguments argue that the current warming

is just a natural part of variation and he doesn't argue

that the ice pack isn't melting (he says it is part of a warming

trend that has been going on since the last ice age). Actually

there was a mini-ice age about 200 years ago, which stopped

about the time we started burning coal a lot -- coincidence

or otherwise is up for grabs. We used to have 6 foot ice

packs where I live in the winter, now we get no snow. The ice

on the Alaska rivers breaks up earlier each year (which they

have been measuring for over 100 years, because they bet

on it each year). There are countless measurements that

all add up to: it's been getting warmer for the last 100

years or more. THAT is the part I don't think is too controversial,

unless you are defending a political platform.

However, if we aren't SURE that increasing C02 is causing

this, is that a good reason to just keep dumping C02

and not at least work on some better fuels? I mean, it's

a pretty heavy downside risk, and the only upside I can

see to it is for the oil guys and energy manufacturers.

Maybe one side is being too alarmist, but the other side

seems to be burying their heads in the sand.

-- Heidi

October 22, 2003

In a message dated 10/21/03 11:57:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> There are countless measurements that

> all add up to: it's been getting warmer for the last 100

> years or more. THAT is the part I don't think is too controversial,

> unless you are defending a political platform.

That's only true if you take an average. Actually it's been getting warmer,

colder, and warmer, with no directl correlation to fossil fuel burning.

> However, if we aren't SURE that increasing C02 is causing

> this, is that a good reason to just keep dumping C02

> and not at least work on some better fuels?

Umm, yeah, cause CO2 is non-toxic and probably harmless, and perhaps helpful,

while there are innumerable toxic things dumped in the ocean and everywhere

else. It's a matter of opportunity cost. If CO2 doubling won't make the

coastal cities uninhabitable, or any other major climate change that will cost

lots

of money to adjust to, we reap more bang for the buck by cleaning up toxic

stuff.

I mean, it's

> a pretty heavy downside risk, and the only upside I can

> see to it is for the oil guys and energy manufacturers.

Are you serious? It's a pretty neutral risk, and there are clear benefits

and drawbacks from both a warmer climate and increasing CO2. Especially from

increasing CO2 while not gettting a significantly warmer climate. Also, last I

knew, most people who aren't " oil guys " use looooooooooots of oil.

> Maybe one side is being too alarmist, but the other side

> seems to be burying their heads in the sand.

No, there's just lots of science to debate, and one side seems to have a

monopoly on talking about it.

Chris

October 22, 2003

Chris-

> > >Actually, since all research is funded in some way, reading the

> > >research is at least 90% of the game, unless you have some aversion

> > >to having an informed opinion.

>

>Yes, but I quoted the wrong piece of text.

My question was only whether you were being deliberately insulting, and the

answer is that you were.

I have not actually delivered an opinion on global warming to date here on

the list except to make a couple oblique comments, so I'm doubly

disappointed in you.

>I meant to quote your

>reply to that piece of Heidi's text, where you say following the

>money is 90% of the game. It isn't really, because all research is

>funded.

Of course all research is funded -- and it's always instructive to keep in

mind where that funding comes from. If you're really suggesting that

funding has no effect, take another look at the astounding longevity of the

lipid hypothesis.

That said, there are two basic issues at hand: whether we're experiencing

global warming, and whether human activity has played a role in that

climate change. On the first count, I think there can be little reasoned

dispute. Overall, the planet is warming up substantially. (The objection

that because some areas have cooled a bit global warming can't be occurring

is spurious, because while some areas have in fact cooled, the planet's

climate is an extremely complex system, and to assume that every element

must move equally in the same direction at the same time during an overall

shift is absurd.) The question of human involvement is more uncertain, but

it's hardly limited to CO2 emissions. (And atmospheric CO2, BTW, is up a

third. A THIRD!) Deforestation, for example, or more properly changes to

the planet's overall respiration capacity, is another possible candidate.

>It seems to me the approach I'm taking is a much better way of

>determining the truth than " following the money. "

Since you don't know what approach I've taken, this is merely a straw

man. (To be clear: all I said was that it's important to follow the money,

and if you're going to argue that following the money should never be a

component of an examination of issues, then prepare to lose, and badly.)

-

October 22, 2003

In a message dated 10/22/03 4:45:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> The weather cycles every 5 years or so, but the cycles have been getting

> increasingly warmer.

No, the mid-century saw a steady T decline for something like 17 years. I'm

pretty sure Singer mentions it in the op-ed I posted. If not, I'll post some

info later.

It's kind of like the stock market, goes up and

> down but there are steady trends.

No it isn't. It's more like there are several trends-- also like the stock

market, but it is not within one trend, but rather incorporates several.

I suppose one could say we are

> not in a bear market right now because the stocks have been

> going up since 1930 and some stocks are doing well now.

This could actually be a reasonable statement in a variety of scenarios,

depending on what you mean and depending on the level of detail of your

analysis.

In terms of its aptness as an analogy for global warming, it is both a good

one and a bad one depending on what level to which it is taken.

> The " correlation " part IS controversial.

The whole theory of global warming rests on the correlation between CO2 and

increased T. If not, I don't see how the term " global warming theory " has any

meaning.

It reminds me a lot

> of the " supposed correlation " between long cancer and smoking.

> I talked to SO MANY smokers who just didn't believe it, and of

> course the studies didn't prove it (often depending on who funded

> the study) but smoker after smoker died of lung cancer in my

> circle. Correlations are tricky -- sure, maybe the woman would

> have died of lung cancer if she hadn't smoked 3 packs a day,

> I sure can't prove it.

I think this is a pretty bad analogy to global warming, but in terms of

smoking there are a variety of factors to consider, one being that correlations

appear to exist in some countries and not others, which may have something to do

with how the tobacco is cured, may have something to do with interactions with

the diet, etc. I think for a given person, a given diet, and a given

tobacco, smoking almost certainly increases the risk of lung cancer, but at the

same

time, it's quite clear that you can smoke and not get cancer, and that you can

get cancer and not smoke. There's too much contradicting evdidence too.

Rather than making the simplistic statement, " Smoking causes cancer, " more

research should be investigated with interactions with diet, the supposed

relation

to method of curing, etc.

Anyway, as to this analogy and global warming, I don't think it helps the

discussion much. It's much easier to test the correlation with CO2 and average

global T in the *past*, since we have records over this century and there is

only one earth, far fewer earths than there are smokers. If this analogy offers

anything, it would be to take it a step further and say that predicting the

global temperature in 50 years based on current knowledge is comparable to

predicting whether a given person will contract lung cancer within a given

period

of time if she or he smokes, with what we know about tobacco and cancer.

> >Umm, yeah, cause CO2 is non-toxic and probably harmless, and perhaps

> helpful,

> >while there are innumerable toxic things dumped in the ocean and everywhere

>

> >else. It's a matter of opportunity cost. If CO2 doubling won't make the

> >coastal cities uninhabitable, or any other major climate change that will

> cost lots

> >of money to adjust to, we reap more bang for the buck by cleaning up toxic

> >stuff.

>

> Most of the alternatives aren't toxic. My house is unheated, doesn't make

> CO2 or

> any toxic anything, the sun heats it. If I added some solar panels (which

> could

> be made cheaper if we worked at it, and probably will get cheaper) I

> wouldn't need

> much electricity at all. Some houses have their own windmills. The

> anything-into-oil

> machines don't make CO2, or anything toxic at all. Reducing our dependancy

> on foreign oil would make it less necessary for us to dump depleted

> uranium and other heavy metals onto the soil of other countries.

These are all great ideas. I have NO IDEA why you seem to think (if I'm

interpreting you correctly, forgive me if not) that industry opposes these

alternatives, and that the researchers who disagree with global warming are

somehow

their tools. For some reason a lot of leftists have some conspiracy theory

about fossil fuel alternatives R & D being suppressed by industry. That is so

opposite of the truth. The energy industry is pushing the gov't to do MORE R & D

and subsidize these kinds of projects, because right now they aren't profitable

enough to run on their own, so they are trying to get research subsidized so

it can become a self-supporting industry in the next decade or two.

Just look at the news, and you'll find that the main opposition to wind power

and whatnot comes from a)environmentalists and regular people, who can't

stand living near them, and push local gov'ts to get rid of them or not allow

them.

>

> Most of the alternatives would cost little to implement too. Our house

> was built on a low-interest loan, to be self-heating, and it is. A whole LOT

> of low-interest loans etc. could be done for the cost of one nuclear

> power plant. Changing the building codes a little would make much

> easier to heat houses. Straw-bale houses cost little to build, but are

> hard to get past the inspectors ... why not study technologies like

> that and come up with better building strategies?

Sure, why not? I don't disagree with this-- and in fact this stuff usually

DOES happen. For example, an alternative to CFCs replaced CFCs in the 90s,

even though we never really had hard evidence that human CFC use was causing

ozone depletion. (rock-hard evidnece that atmospheric chlorine depletes ozone

for

sure, but unclear whether the primary factor was/is the increase over natural

atmospheric chlorine by human use or rather the stratospheric cooling that

took place, since the reaction by which chlorine depletes ozone is dependent on

certain things freezing in the atmosphere, which happens cyclically, which is

why the depletion took place in antarctica)

And of course, your house is set up the way your house is. I agree building

codes should make lots of things lots easier.

> Sorry, in my mind the ONLY beneficiaries of our current oil-dependence

> are the oil sellers. It's not just the C02 -- the smog isn't good either.

> Coal burning plants (the ones they are fighting to keep) create

> acid rain too.

ALL RAIN IS ACID RAIN. Rain is naturally acidic because it mixes with CO2 in

the atmosphere and generally has a pH just as low as it does when mixed with

SO2. Granted, SO2 can be a big problem, depending on some factors, but this

is a toxic effect of the gas, not an effect of the acid. I agree that we

should find less polluting ways. Some of that has already been done. SO2 has

decreased a LOT, partly due to the increased reliance on... OIL! Also partly

due

to higher smokestacks, etc. Most SO2 damage has declined a lot, with mostly

positive and some negative effects.

I agree that less polluting methods should be applied to the extent they can

be, and I think they will, regardless of who does and doesn't believe in

global warming. It doesn't change, though, whether or not the global

temperature

will increase 2 degrees or not.

But right now you're arguing that we should replace oil dependence with

dependence on better forms of energy. I think most people think that's a good

idea

(even some oil companies, who are also involved in other methods of energy

production, some of whom can't wait to get in on some of the technologies you're

talking about). Raising oil taxes, on the other hand, would hurt a lot more

people than the oil companies.

> >Are you serious? It's a pretty neutral risk, and there are clear benefits

>

> >and drawbacks from both a warmer climate and increasing CO2. Especially

> from

> >increasing CO2 while not gettting a significantly warmer climate. Also,

> last I

> >knew, most people who aren't " oil guys " use looooooooooots of oil.

>

> We use lots of oil because we have to. Some people heat their house

> with oil. I don't. I don't miss it at all. If I could use something else

> in my car, I would!

Well, so would I. That doesn't mean the cost to me is equivalent to what it

would be (and we don't really know yet). But it does mean that both you and I

make a conscious lifestyle decision to use oil, and we don't have to. You

and I don't HAVE to drive a car. Heck, you work in your home! I could move to

the city so I'd be closer to school, I could choose not to go to school, etc.

So yes, we CHOOSE to materially benefit from oil usage.

And why a neutral risk? It is only a neutral risk

> in some people's theories -- it is controversial, and the people on

> one side of the controversy have lots of evidence on their side.

People on both sides. And these are predictions, so there aren't any

complete pools of evidence.

> And most of the C02 producing technologies are ALSO very dirty,

> expensive, and due to run out of fuel pretty soon anyway.

That's a good reason to develop other technologies, but not a very good

reason to believe in global warming.

>

> >>Maybe one side is being too alarmist, but the other side

> >>seems to be burying their heads in the sand.

> >

> >No, there's just lots of science to debate, and one side seems to have a

> >monopoly on talking about it.

>

> Monopoly? I haven't seen that at all. Of course most of the stuff I

> read tries to show both sides (I like those kinds of magazines). Now

> if you go to talk radio I'd say it's all on the OTHER side. But like

> I say, even the Administration is saying the warming is a reality,

> so the talk IS shifting towards " warming " being real. Causes will

> be controvsial, I think, til the oil runs out, then the oil producers

> will suddenly have an " aha " experience and start selling hydrogen

> or something.

Bad choice of words. I concede this point.

Chris

October 22, 2003

>That's only true if you take an average. Actually it's been getting warmer,

>colder, and warmer, with no directl correlation to fossil fuel burning.

The weather cycles every 5 years or so, but the cycles have been getting

increasingly warmer. It's kind of like the stock market, goes up and

down but there are steady trends. I suppose one could say we are

not in a bear market right now because the stocks have been

going up since 1930 and some stocks are doing well now.

The " correlation " part IS controversial. It reminds me a lot

of the " supposed correlation " between long cancer and smoking.

I talked to SO MANY smokers who just didn't believe it, and of

course the studies didn't prove it (often depending on who funded

the study) but smoker after smoker died of lung cancer in my

circle. Correlations are tricky -- sure, maybe the woman would

have died of lung cancer if she hadn't smoked 3 packs a day,

I sure can't prove it.

>> However, if we aren't SURE that increasing C02 is causing

>> this, is that a good reason to just keep dumping C02

>> and not at least work on some better fuels?

>

>Umm, yeah, cause CO2 is non-toxic and probably harmless, and perhaps helpful,

>while there are innumerable toxic things dumped in the ocean and everywhere

>else. It's a matter of opportunity cost. If CO2 doubling won't make the

>coastal cities uninhabitable, or any other major climate change that will cost

lots

>of money to adjust to, we reap more bang for the buck by cleaning up toxic

>stuff.

Most of the alternatives aren't toxic. My house is unheated, doesn't make CO2 or

any toxic anything, the sun heats it. If I added some solar panels (which could

be made cheaper if we worked at it, and probably will get cheaper) I wouldn't

need

much electricity at all. Some houses have their own windmills. The

anything-into-oil

machines don't make CO2, or anything toxic at all. Reducing our dependancy

on foreign oil would make it less necessary for us to dump depleted

uranium and other heavy metals onto the soil of other countries.

Most of the alternatives would cost little to implement too. Our house

was built on a low-interest loan, to be self-heating, and it is. A whole LOT

of low-interest loans etc. could be done for the cost of one nuclear

power plant. Changing the building codes a little would make much

easier to heat houses. Straw-bale houses cost little to build, but are

hard to get past the inspectors ... why not study technologies like

that and come up with better building strategies?

Sorry, in my mind the ONLY beneficiaries of our current oil-dependence

are the oil sellers. It's not just the C02 -- the smog isn't good either.

Coal burning plants (the ones they are fighting to keep) create

acid rain too.

>I mean, it's

>> a pretty heavy downside risk, and the only upside I can

>> see to it is for the oil guys and energy manufacturers.

>

>Are you serious? It's a pretty neutral risk, and there are clear benefits

>and drawbacks from both a warmer climate and increasing CO2. Especially from

>increasing CO2 while not gettting a significantly warmer climate. Also, last I

>knew, most people who aren't " oil guys " use looooooooooots of oil.

We use lots of oil because we have to. Some people heat their house

with oil. I don't. I don't miss it at all. If I could use something else

in my car, I would! And why a neutral risk? It is only a neutral risk

in some people's theories -- it is controversial, and the people on

one side of the controversy have lots of evidence on their side.

And most of the C02 producing technologies are ALSO very dirty,

expensive, and due to run out of fuel pretty soon anyway.

>> Maybe one side is being too alarmist, but the other side

>> seems to be burying their heads in the sand.

>

>No, there's just lots of science to debate, and one side seems to have a

>monopoly on talking about it.

Monopoly? I haven't seen that at all. Of course most of the stuff I

read tries to show both sides (I like those kinds of magazines). Now

if you go to talk radio I'd say it's all on the OTHER side. But like

I say, even the Administration is saying the warming is a reality,

so the talk IS shifting towards " warming " being real. Causes will

be controvsial, I think, til the oil runs out, then the oil producers

will suddenly have an " aha " experience and start selling hydrogen

or something.

-- Heidi

October 23, 2003

>I suppose one could say we are

>> not in a bear market right now because the stocks have been

>> going up since 1930 and some stocks are doing well now.

>

>This could actually be a reasonable statement in a variety of scenarios,

>depending on what you mean and depending on the level of detail of your

analysis.

>In terms of its aptness as an analogy for global warming, it is both a good

>one and a bad one depending on what level to which it is taken.

Exactly the point. It's all about levels of detail. The climate is

SOOO complex you can argue about it forever.

>> The " correlation " part IS controversial.

>

>The whole theory of global warming rests on the correlation between CO2 and

>increased T. If not, I don't see how the term " global warming theory " has any

>meaning.

I suppose it depends on the context. Like said, there are two

levels to the conversation, and " global warming " is used for both.

>I think this is a pretty bad analogy to global warming, but in terms of

>smoking there are a variety of factors to consider, one being that correlations

>appear to exist in some countries and not others, which may have something to

do

>with how the tobacco is cured, may have something to do with interactions with

>the diet, etc. I think for a given person, a given diet, and a given

>tobacco, smoking almost certainly increases the risk of lung cancer, but at the

same

>time, it's quite clear that you can smoke and not get cancer, and that you can

>get cancer and not smoke. There's too much contradicting evdidence too.

>Rather than making the simplistic statement, " Smoking causes cancer, " more

>research should be investigated with interactions with diet, the supposed

relation

>to method of curing, etc.

Sure. It gets real complex. But, if my kid started smoking, you can

bet I'd try to get her to stop before she got addicted. I can look at the health

of smokers, the stink, their wrinkly skin, the cost, the junk they stick

in cigarettes -- and I can say " kid, DO NOT smoke! " .

>These are all great ideas. I have NO IDEA why you seem to think (if I'm

>interpreting you correctly, forgive me if not) that industry opposes these

>alternatives, and that the researchers who disagree with global warming are

somehow

>their tools. For some reason a lot of leftists have some conspiracy theory

>about fossil fuel alternatives R & D being suppressed by industry. That is so

>opposite of the truth. The energy industry is pushing the gov't to do MORE R & D

>and subsidize these kinds of projects, because right now they aren't profitable

>enough to run on their own, so they are trying to get research subsidized so

>it can become a self-supporting industry in the next decade or two.

I don't think ALL industries oppose them, but the current political

climate is that initiatives to develop alternatives keep getting

shot down, most often by the Right. And the current gov't has

been using the " lack of global warming " to ease restrictions

on coal burning power plants and such. And to back out of

Kyoto. Basically any kind of restrictions on air pollution are

regarded as a threat to industry, it seems. I wouldn't be surprised

if the industry wants more R & D, but the gov't doesn't want

to fund anything it seems at the moment except military

actions (and those are underfunded too).

>Just look at the news, and you'll find that the main opposition to wind power

>and whatnot comes from a)environmentalists and regular people, who can't

>stand living near them, and push local gov'ts to get rid of them or not allow

>them.

Most of the opposition comes from ignorance, which some good

PR could change. Our house stood on the market because no one

understood how it could work, which was sad. It's a great house.

Wind farms ARE a bit invasive, but most of the other alternatives

are not. They take leadership to get going.

>Sure, why not? I don't disagree with this-- and in fact this stuff usually

>DOES happen. For example, an alternative to CFCs replaced CFCs in the 90s,

>even though we never really had hard evidence that human CFC use was causing

>ozone depletion. (rock-hard evidnece that atmospheric chlorine depletes ozone

for

>sure, but unclear whether the primary factor was/is the increase over natural

>atmospheric chlorine by human use or rather the stratospheric cooling that

>took place, since the reaction by which chlorine depletes ozone is dependent on

>certain things freezing in the atmosphere, which happens cyclically, which is

>why the depletion took place in antarctica)

Right. That's what I'm saying about C02. Might hurt, might not -- but we're

going to run out of oil eventually and it's a poor choice of fuels on

multiple levels. It would be better to stop railing against " global warming "

(as some folks are doing) and look into alternatives.

>> Sorry, in my mind the ONLY beneficiaries of our current oil-dependence

>> are the oil sellers. It's not just the C02 -- the smog isn't good either.

>> Coal burning plants (the ones they are fighting to keep) create

>> acid rain too.

>

>ALL RAIN IS ACID RAIN. Rain is naturally acidic because it mixes with CO2 in

>the atmosphere and generally has a pH just as low as it does when mixed with

>SO2. Granted, SO2 can be a big problem, depending on some factors, but this

>is a toxic effect of the gas, not an effect of the acid. I agree that we

>should find less polluting ways. Some of that has already been done. SO2 has

>decreased a LOT, partly due to the increased reliance on... OIL! Also partly

due

>to higher smokestacks, etc. Most SO2 damage has declined a lot, with mostly

>positive and some negative effects.

Declining S02 has negative effects? How? And yes, a lot of this stuff

is declining, because of good environmental controls, which are

being challenged, again by the Right. And I'm not sure of the chemistry,

but the swath of " acid rain damage " generally follows the coal-burning

plants, so whatever they are doing to the rain is fairly nasty.

>I agree that less polluting methods should be applied to the extent they can

>be, and I think they will, regardless of who does and doesn't believe in

>global warming. It doesn't change, though, whether or not the global

temperature

>will increase 2 degrees or not.

It may or may not. That's controversial. The temperature of the planet,

in theory, depends on the mix of gases, and that mix is changing.

Humans likely have a lot to do with that change, between chopping

down trees and emitting C02.

>But right now you're arguing that we should replace oil dependence with

>dependence on better forms of energy. I think most people think that's a good

idea

>(even some oil companies, who are also involved in other methods of energy

>production, some of whom can't wait to get in on some of the technologies

you're

>talking about). Raising oil taxes, on the other hand, would hurt a lot more

>people than the oil companies.

So far I haven't mentioned raising taxes. Emission controls have proven

effective over the years, though industry ALWAYS says it will drive

them out of business. Shoot, I remember when the car companies

said they'd never sell cars if they were forced to put in seat belts. Then

they said the same about emission controls. Cars smell a lot better

than they did when I was a kid, and they are still selling well.

>Well, so would I. That doesn't mean the cost to me is equivalent to what it

>would be (and we don't really know yet). But it does mean that both you and I

>make a conscious lifestyle decision to use oil, and we don't have to. You

>and I don't HAVE to drive a car. Heck, you work in your home! I could move to

>the city so I'd be closer to school, I could choose not to go to school, etc.

>So yes, we CHOOSE to materially benefit from oil usage.

Most people DO have to drive a car, in our society. It's a big

problem for the poor. I didn't in Europe, but here there isn't

a real decision. I do use it as little as possible. There is this

thing called " infrastructure " that determines a lot about

your life. None of us exist in a vacuum.

> > And most of the C02 producing technologies are ALSO very dirty,

>> expensive, and due to run out of fuel pretty soon anyway.

>

>That's a good reason to develop other technologies, but not a very good

>reason to believe in global warming.

No, but it's probably a good reason to cooperate with other countries

in pushing for change.

-- Heidi

October 23, 2003

In a message dated 10/22/03 11:43:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

Idol@... writes:

> If you're going to casually use the term " global warming " to mean only

> " human-caused global warming " , then shouldn't you at least accept the

> common usage of the term " acid rain " , which is universally taken to mean

> " extra-acidic rain caused by pollution " ?

Good point. But from what I've seen, pollution doesn't make rain more

acidic, it just makes it toxic.

That said, that's semantics and I should have considered the use of the term

to mean " polluted rain " rather reasonable, and I shouldn't have made the

statement nearly as emphatic, which I apologized for.

Chris

October 23, 2003

Chris-

If you're going to casually use the term " global warming " to mean only

" human-caused global warming " , then shouldn't you at least accept the

common usage of the term " acid rain " , which is universally taken to mean

" extra-acidic rain caused by pollution " ?

>ALL RAIN IS ACID RAIN.

-

October 23, 2003

Chris-

>Good point. But from what I've seen, pollution doesn't make rain more

>acidic, it just makes it toxic.

I admittedly haven't done any fresh research on this in several years, but

at one point I looked into the issue exhaustively, and " acid rain " did in

fact seem to be a very fair and accurate term.

>and I shouldn't have made the

>statement nearly as emphatic, which I apologized for.

Must be all the extra sugar from those blueberries making you a bit touchy.

-

October 23, 2003

In a message dated 10/22/03 11:56:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I admittedly haven't done any fresh research on this in several years, but

> at one point I looked into the issue exhaustively, and " acid rain " did in

> fact seem to be a very fair and accurate term.

It actually is a pretty accurate term, I think, in a way, but I don't think

the damage has to do with the acid so much as the pollutants. Normal rain is

usually very acidic, as low as 5 often. Rain affected by industry is sometimes

considerably lower, as low as 3 sometimes. But sometimes this is because

it's " polluted " with, say, HCl, in which case it has little or no harmful

effect.

But if the rain is polluted by say, SO2, it might be more acidic or it might

not be, but it will be toxic. And the groundwater might even end up being

*less* acidic, according to one article I read, for a reason I don't understand

(and the author didn't seem to either).

Granted, I have done next to no research here either, but the stuff that I've

read makes a lot of sense to me. You've probably done lots more reading in

the area. But it makes perfect sense to me that HCl would produce a much more

acidic and much less harmful effect than SO2, and it makes sense to me that pH

of SO2 rain would be similar to non-polluted, because I would expect the SO2

to be displacing some of the CO2 effect, neither of which are strong acids.

The soil system should be able to buffer acid rain, but afaik it doesn't have

any effect of SO2. SO2 as a gas blown over plants has a negative impact on

growth and reproduction and I get the impression has been solidly demonstrated

to

be phytotoxic, so it seems reasonable that a more apt term than " acid rain "

would be " polluted rain " or " toxic rain. "

That said, Heidi's use of " acid rain " was normal, accepted, and reasonable,

and I didn't mean to give the impression that it wasn't, but I was

mischanneling some annoyance about some other subjects ;-)

> >and I shouldn't have made the

> >statement nearly as emphatic, which I apologized for.

>

> Must be all the extra sugar from those blueberries making you a bit

touchy.

Nope, haven't had much in that department lately. I must be sugar-deficient

;-)

Chris

October 23, 2003

>Good point. But from what I've seen, pollution doesn't make rain more

>acidic, it just makes it toxic.

Sulfuric acid isn't more acidic than water? Sheesh, here I wore

those silly glasses in chemistry class for nothing!

-- Heidi

October 23, 2003

>

>That's kind of my point. I haven't yet reached a conclusion about

>the relative probability that we will face problems from global

>warming, but I'm quickly reaching the conclusion that it can be

>argued from reasonable and scientifically credible standpoints from

>both sides " forever " or for a very long time.

Ok.

>

>But it becomes meaningless to say " most scientists agree with global

>warming " or " I don't believe in global warming " or any such statement

>without attributing one theory or umbrella group of theories in a

>specific sense to the term. Generally " global warming " is used to

>refer to the specific theory that greenhouse gasses produced by

>humans are direct contributors to the slight warming trend we've seen

>recently, and that within the 21st century as we see the expected

>doubling of CO2 levels we will see significant increase in

>temperature on the order of 2 degrees, or, some believe, more, which

>will have significant environmental impacts, usually considered

>harmful by global warming theorists.

I read a lot of science magazines, and they seem to refer to both.

The political debate and the science debate are quite different!

>There's something to be said for scientific integrity, though. If a

>researcher believes that a current scientific theory is popular but

>invalid, she by all means should come out and say so. Science is in

>large part for practical use, but it is also about the pursuit of

>knowledge.

When I hear a scientist truly acting with honor, I respect them. So far

most of the anti-global-warming science (except for yourself) has come

from folk that I feel are rather obviously politically motivated. Like, they

work for a right-wing thinktank.

>

>Well, if you're a rose it does. SO2 kills some fungal pests and

>whatnot, so plants like roses who are more or less resistant to SO2

>were better off in terms of fungal disease during the high SO2

>period, which has an aesthetic benefit in terms of parks and

>whatnot. However, I don't think any reasonable person would say this

>outweighs the negatives of SO2.

Hee hee. I like that one. Personally I think roses are about the most

decadent human-dependent lifeform on Earth, apples being a close second.

Now my blackberries don't get fungus no matter what, and they are in

the same family. My goats like both of them, but the blackberries are

far bigger and more productive.

>In part, but it also has declined considerably just from the use of

>oil. Some environmental controls have helped, some have hurt, and

>some haven't done much of either except drive station wagons off the

>market.

You mean oil vs. coal? I'd tend to agree there. Station wagons may be out, but

SUV's are IN -- sheesh, they are more than half the vehicles in most parking

lots around here. Granted, it is hard to drive anything else in the country

except maybe a pickup truck. Now, I do have an SUV, and a pickup truck, and

a 50'mph Honda, truth be told. But what is weird is, most of the SUV's now

are BIGGER than ours. HUGE. I liked Switzerland better, where I could walk

to the train station and just hop on a train, which was far bigger and would

drive itself while I read a book or ate lunch.

>Mostly polluting it with specific sulfur and nitrogen compounds. It

>really has nothing to do with acidity. I apologize for the capitals,

>they weren't to yell at you, I was just taking out my frustration of

>all the acid/base pseudo-science I've been encountering lately. Most

>plants do well with acidic groundwater, much of acidic groundwater is

>due to organic acids, good soils will buffer overly acidic rain, rain

>mixed with SO2 is generally NOT more acidic than natural rain, and

>some studies have found groundwater, unlike the rain in the air, to

>have an inverse correlation between acidity and SO2 concentration,

>which is kind of weird. I agree that coal burning isn't very good

>for the environment. Just mining it isn't so great either.

Ok, now this is odd. When I was in Chem 101 and you mixed S02 with water, you

got sulfuric acid, which was rather darn acidic. I agree that the acid/base

pseudoscience

is frustrating. When acid rain hits evergreens (like we have) it kills them. Our

soil

is always acidic, which is fine by me (and the blueberries) though some plants

don't like it.

What I actually meant was my value judgment on the desirability or

>lack thereof of polluting fuels has nothing to do with my scientific

>judgment of the validity of the global warming theory.

>

>Humans probably are responsible for the CO2 excess. Methane is less

>clear. The temperature more specifically has to do with solar

>luminosity, infrared radiation of the earth, the earth's " albedo " and

>the heat capacity of the surface. Exactly how much and how gases fit

>into the albedo is up for grabs and heat capacity is debatable. I

>think everyone agrees that gases to figure in somehow, but there are

>a whole host of other factors, lots of feedback systems, etc, so how

>the mixture of gases factors into the general relationships that

>everyone agrees on is not so clear. We're probably more or less

>agreeing here.

Agreed.

>I know you haven't, but you keep mentioning that the implications of

>the global warming theory are harmful to business and not consumers,

>and I'm raising the point that global warming folks *want* more taxes

>on fossil fuels, which is an example of how it could hurt consumers.

There are lots of proposals, and I'm not sure which ones I support. If I had

a few million dollars handy, I'd build an " anything into oil " plant here and

start recycling garbage and selling oil. There was a big deal not long ago

about the new sewage plant (no one wanted). Now if it produced oil ....

>They were certainly wrong about the seat belts, and I'm not sure what

>their argument was, but sometimes it's true. The CAFE standards can

>probably be blamed for driving station wagons off the road. Now they

>want to target SUVs, which are more or less a response to the

>essential elimination of station wagons. The whole thing is absurd

>because the only main effect is to limit consumer choice for no

>reason. There are still plenty of low-mileage trucks, so if you get

>rid of SUVs or station wagons, what if those people just drive

>trucks? Or what if those people decide they need to have every mom

>drive her own kid to soccer cause they can't fit all the people and

>stuff in one car? Then they end up driving more vehicles instead of

>one and using more gas.

Well, I agree with this one. I'm not sure why you say station wagons are

driven off the road -- I thought vans and SUV's replaced them -- but

but when you have kids the whole scenario changes. I used to drive a

50 mph Honda (I still have it, runs great) but it can't handle kids. I believe

oil, or hydrogen, or electricity, can be produced cheaply enough that we

can drive bigger cars, though I'd love to see big train stations too.

> > Most people DO have to drive a car, in our society.

>

>In order to get where they choose to go.

Like, a job. Personally, all politics aside, I can't hire someone

without a car. They can't get here!

>True, but people generally choose to live in a certain

>infrastructure. Good luck finding poor people who will say they only

>drive a car to get to work and would otherwise want to forgo the

>pollution.

Well, I was one. I didn't get my license til I was 25, and didn't get a car til

long

after. I TRIED to do without, having lived in Switzerland where it was

truly an option.

>I didn't say anything in opposition to global warming, but if this is

>a direct reference to Kyoto, it's my understanding that none of the

>countries actually agreed to the treaty anywya, except maybe Romania,

>iirc, or something like that, and Bush, while I really, really,

>really don't like the guy, was essentially just admitting what no one

>else would, and taking the heat for getting out of a doomed treaty.

>

>Also, if the climate change theory is bad science, conferences that

>are based on other sciences with other purposes should be agreed to.

>That's an if, of course.

True. If I was in the debate, and I'm not, I WOULD dialog regardless with the

other

folks involved. If the globe is getting warmer and it is NOT human, that is

rather worse, I think. Probably not fatal, but our economy is rather fragile

and easily disrupted. We had the highest temps on record for 1,000 years

this year, and now record rains. This is a major issue: if it is human caused,

we need to stop it. If it is natural, we need to take major steps to adapt

to it!

-- Heidi

October 23, 2003

In a message dated 10/23/2003 4:55:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> >In part, but it also has declined considerably just from the use of

> >oil. Some environmental controls have helped, some have hurt, and

> >some haven't done much of either except drive station wagons off the

> >market.

>

> You mean oil vs. coal? I'd tend to agree there.

Yes.

> Station wagons may be out, but

> SUV's are IN -- sheesh, they are more than half the vehicles >in most parking

> lots around here.

That's, in part, because of the senseless rules associated with the CAFE

standards where station wagons are " cars " and SUVs are " trucks " and therefore

have different minimum gas mileage requirements.

Granted, it is hard to drive anything else in the country

> except maybe a pickup truck. Now, I do have an SUV, and a pickup truck, and

> a 50'mph Honda, truth be told. But what is weird is, most of the SUV's now

> are BIGGER than ours. HUGE. I liked Switzerland better, where I could walk

> to the train station and just hop on a train, which was far bigger and would

> drive itself while I read a book or ate lunch.

Me too. And no one in front of you driving too slow, no one on your tail.

> Ok, now this is odd. When I was in Chem 101 and you mixed S02 with water, you

> got sulfuric acid, which was rather darn acidic.

Yeah, but if you mix CO2 with distilled water the same thing happens. Rain

water tends to be around pH 5, which is rather darn acidic.

>I agree that the acid/base pseudoscience

> is frustrating. When acid rain hits evergreens (like we >have) it kills them.

Because it's acidic or because it's loaded with SO2? What's the pH of the rain

water, and does rain water mixed with CO2 to the same pH do the same thing?

HCl?

> Our soil

> is always acidic, which is fine by me (and the blueberries) >though some

plants don't like it.

True, but most plants, especially those useful to humans for food and whatnot,

prefer moderate acidity.

> > Well, I agree with this one. I'm not sure why you say station wagons are

> driven off the road -- I thought vans and SUV's replaced them -- but

> but when you have kids the whole scenario changes.

This is in part, anyway, because it is much less costly to make a van or SUV

that fulfills CAFE standards for trucks than it is to make a station wagon that

fulfills CAFE standards for cars.

> Like, a job. Personally, all politics aside, I can't hire >someone

> without a car. They can't get here!

But those people can work somewhere else where they can get to, or can move

somewhere where there are jobs closer to where they live. Lots of people make

the deliberate choice to have a long work commute because it allows them to make

city salaries with non-city living costs and living environments that maximizes

their effective disposable income and gives them living conditions more suitable

to their tastes.

> >True, but people generally choose to live in a certain

> >infrastructure. Good luck finding poor people who will say they only

> >drive a car to get to work and would otherwise want to forgo the

> >pollution.

>

> Well, I was one. I didn't get my license til I was 25, and didn't get a car

til long

> after. I TRIED to do without, having lived in Switzerland where it was

> truly an option.

They are few and far between. People with less money tend to be less

environmentalist, in my experience.

> True. If I was in the debate, and I'm not, I WOULD dialog regardless with the

other

> folks involved. If the globe is getting warmer and it is NOT human, that is

> rather worse, I think.

Not really, because then there's no indication we will see the high temps this

century that are predicted based on the assumption of a doubling of CO2

concentration.

Probably not fatal, but our economy is rather fragile

> and easily disrupted. We had the highest temps on record for 1,000 years

> this year, and now record rains.

Notice that the converse of this is 1001 years ago it was just as hot as it is

now. Humans have been around a lot longer than that, and in recorded history

humans did a *LOT* better when it was warmer and a *lot* worse when it was

colder.

> This is a major issue: if it is human caused,

> we need to stop it. If it is natural, we need to take major >steps to adapt

> to it!

Or we could adapt to it if it is human caused. I don't see any basis for the

value judgment that somehow human-induced climate change is bad whereas

" natural " climate change is justified because nature has some sort of " right " to

change her climate, which seems to be an implicit assumption. There is no such

thing as a " natural climate. "

I think basically what determines whether we need to stop it is whether it will

have more bad effects than good. I think it depends how much it warms, but a

warming of, say, a degree, would probably have more positive effects than

negative.

Chris

October 23, 2003

Heidi-

>I believe

>oil, or hydrogen, or electricity, can be produced cheaply enough that we

>can drive bigger cars, though I'd love to see big train stations too.

Doesn't the anything-into-oil technology produce lower-grade oil? Would

cars be drivable (and efficient) without some kind of re-engineering, or at

least retuning? Also, hydrogen is only cheaply producible at this point

from fossil fuels, and since the existence of agricultural waste in current

quantities depends on sufficient (incredibly high) fossil fuel inputs, I

don't think anything-into-oil is going to be anything like the whole

solution. If the entire country abruptly switched to biodynamic

agriculture, yields would plummet even as soil fertility would start being

restored. Nor is hydrogen, even when stored as a liquid, anything like as

dense an energy source as oil -- probably not even nearly as dense as the

oil produced by the anything-into-oil technology.

-

October 23, 2003

Dya want a bigger car or one that will get you there quicker and safer? By

switching over to personal mono-rail'ish vehicles, (lightweight 4pax max ) and

having them public rather than private (eliminate parking hassels) you may be

surprised at the bennie's.

Computer dispatching and coordination keeps the vehicles always moving and

ready on demand. Overhead rail eliminates ground cross overs which are accidents

waiting to happen. The 'stations " dip down to ground level so you have no stairs

or elevator. These stations are on side spurs so that traffic can continue

along. This means that you have point to point travel rather than having to make

stops at each station. Since they only take 3-6 pax max, there is no waiting for

a full load to make them efficient. They dont move from a que in a station if

there is no one riding.

The speed that could be atttained since there is no stop and go for crossings or

loading/unloading at inbetweenstops can make almost any point in a medium size

grid no more than 15 min apart at most. Speeds of 100-150 mph possible through

comfortable acceleration.

Bridges, tunnels etc are far more cost effective since there is more traffic

passing and less structure. System can pass through building easily enough

because of small 'footprint " , and stations can be at the actual interior

destination rather than a parking lot.

No more 6 laned highways in each direction using up valuable space. Two rails,

would easi;ly handle 12 lanes of traffic and far less expensively and quicker to

build without gridlock or highway creep at rush hours.

Now you can use any form of energy you wish for generating electricity, since iy

doesnt have to be contained in the vehicle. No fuel tank, less dangerous all

around.

whacha think?