__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Assuming that the problem exists, how else could something be done about it, other than through politics?


And now a big economical movement is effectively brainwashing another generation into believing there's really no problem with exploiting the environment without a care?

__________________
"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." -George Bernard Shaw

Here is a nice well referenced link on sea level change:

http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/dougla01/dougla01.html

In the political arena the scientific evidence ceases to be as important as political considerations. The link I noted above about the climate models demonstrates one example. The evidence for the Sun's role in climate change has been around for a long time and certainly during the last 10 years solid evidence has been accumulating - but where is this evidence in the textbooks? Where is it in the political discussions about global warming? Its not there. Whether intentionally or through ignorance on the part of those writing the textbooks, the scientific evidence for a Sun-climate connection is not being included in science classes. So students are not getting it in school, and they're certainly not getting it from politicians, celebrity advocates or the media. If not brainwashing then then certainly unbalanced presentation of the scientific evidence.

Economic movement - You have to do a cost-benefit analysis. You can't just say - "No drilling for oil, No SUV's" without expecting negative impacts upon national economies. That in turn hurts individuals and ultimately the ability of nations to deal with real environmental problems. Until economically viable alternatives come along (such as hydrogen fuel cells or others) you have to use the the technology available to keep the economy going. When businesses make money they invest it in research and development (at least responsible businesses do). That's one way new technologies develop. Sure people can make responsible choices to cut down on fossil fuel usage - choices that save money and cut down on pollution, but the global warming movement in the political arena sees no limits on restrictions to everyday life that should be imposed based upon a theory which at this moment has scant evidence in its favor.

I've never seen anybody that would be considered mainstream on either side of the political aisle advocating exploitation of nature. That's a classic mischaracterization of those that advocate a common sense approach to dealing with environmental issues.

The political edge goes to environmentalists on this one. Its simple to say "We must rapidly eliminate fossil fuels to prevent global warming, sea level rise and dramatic climate changes."

It takes a little more discipline to listen through an explanation of evidence for the Sun-climate connection and then discussion as to what it means in the context of global warming theory.

But if you make such an argument you're quickly labeled as someone that advocates "exploiting" nature. Well nobody wants to be labeled as someone who is against nature. But in fact its not a for nature or against nature choice. It boils down to differences of opinion regarding what the actual risk to nature is and how those risks should be handled.

If there is a genuine divergence of opinion among specialists - I admit that I know next to nothing about environmental studies - then I agree that all legitimate explanations should be given equal ground in schools.

However, I'm very skeptical about this whole new trend of saying that "there's nothing wrong with the environment after all". Maybe that's the result of new and better research (And, if that's the case, I'm sure it will find its way into schools eventually. There's a certain inertia in any curriculum.)... or maybe it's just another kind of propaganda. It's no secret that in the sixties influential tobacco companies payed for studies that "proved" that smoking was good for your health.

Let me also note that environmentalists's "propaganda" didn't help them much when the time came for Clinton and Bush to make important decisions regarding the environment.

__________________
"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." -George Bernard Shaw

You'd have to be an extremist to say there are no environmental problems. I'd say there are two things at work here. First, the environmental movement of the 60's and 70's certainly had plenty of serious environmental problems to push. But since that time numerous laws have passed and as would be hoped for those laws have resulted in better environmental conditions. I'm certainly not saying that environmental protection is not an important issue. What was happening up until the environmental movement of the 60's was certainly not good. Second, with regard to some issues, environmentalists may have been wrong - or based their views on scientific studies that were wrong. Its certainly happened with some endangered species which have been listed based upon population studies that turned out to be incorrect.

I've stated my major concern with the global warming issue above: In sum - no compelling evidence that its happening, unreliable computer models, and a complete failure to acknowledge the growing body of evidence for the Sun-climate connection.

Actually, I think there is a tremendous scientific opportunity for the global warming advocates. I imagine that with continued satellite measurements it should become possible to predicted how much the Earth should warm/cool based upon changes in solar output. If it can be shown that there is a warming occuring that significantly exceeds what can be accounted for by the Sun, then you would have possible evidence that the greenhouse gases are affecting temperatures. However, without looking at that angle, any measured warming cannot be declared a result of greenhouse gases, because the Sun may be the reason for the warming.

I fear what could happen is in fact there may be some warming due to a warming Sun (recent solar activity seems to indicate that trend) and global warming advocates will point to that warming as evidence for their theory when in fact it might have very little to do with greenhouse gases. A population that has not seen the Sun-climate evidence will be easily convinced by that argument.

I don't like that kind of activity either - but I don't think exxon is behind the Sun-climate studies.

That depends upon what you mean by important decisions. I know Clinton was very successful at setting aside large tracts of land which are no longer accessible to the public. Nor is there new oil drilling Alaska. Every time they bring up the issue in congress the environmental activists throw a fit and it never gets passed. They love to talk about the Caribou population, but I've read a research report which documented an increase in a Caribou herd from 5000 to 27000 after the pipeline was put in. In contrast the herd that was nowhere near the pipeline or any drilling dropped from 180,000 to 120,000 animals. The irony of that report is that despite the actual number counts, the author of the study writes the report in a tone that makes it sound as if the caribou have been devastated by the pipeline.

Unfortunately, I don't have the stats, nor do I know where to find a reference, but I had heard on either TV or radio there was also a concern about the impact on the Inuits with the oil drilling, and the research result they gave stated that the new oil fields would be damaging to their lifestyle.

Boy, there are no easy answers.

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

I checked on that and it turns out that the Inuits WANT the oil drilling to help their economy and health (economy is so poor they don't have good sewage). Here are two links:

http://www.evworld.com/databases/sho...=news010402-03

http://www.turtletrack.org/ManyVoice...3/Drilling.htm


I wonder what the news report you saw/heard was all about when the people themselves are asking for the drilling. If the global warming issue was balanced in the media with the Sun-climate science this issue could be more reasonably evaluated.

Someone did a op ed: in our local student newspaper about this:
(I am giving a entire quotation because the site really, really sucks at archiving. Just look at their archives to see my point.)

"Drilling in Alaska will harm wildlife:
Editor: I am writing this letter in response to the substantial misinformation that Sheri Valera in her Monday column, “Drilling won’t harm nature,” and drilling proponents tout as reasons for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As someone who worked in the Alaska coastal plain this past summer, I cannot let these inaccuracies stand unchallenged.

She begins by stating that the area of the Arctic Refuge being proposed for drilling is “desolate tundra … uninhabitable for animals and humans.” Drilling proponents repeatedly assert this statement as fact, but it is absolutely false. The drilling site is replete with wildflowers, musk oxen, caribou, grizzly and polar bears, 135 species of birds and numerous other species.

She pleads that “only 2,000 acres…is needed” (for drilling?). However, these 2,000 acres only represent the area needed for drill pads, not the roads, pipelines, production facilities, barracks and other infrastructure needed for drilling.

Why do drilling proponents have to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when they already have the drilling rights for the entirety of the rest of the arctic coastal plane? Furthermore, why drill in the pristine arctic refuge when the Bush administration has already opened many other national forests, wildlife refuges, and other federal lands to resource extraction? It makes you question whether this issue is motivated by energy
independence or politics"

From: http://www.alligator.org/edit/opinio...t/opinion.html

--------
Just thought the coincidence of the two subjects coming together at the same time (here and there) was surprising. :-)

The biggest producers of greenhouse gasses world-wide aren't the highly industrialized countries, where clean-burning fuel-efficient cars and pollutions controls on factories and power plants are firmly in place. They're the 3rd-world countries, the "developing" nations, where in order to be competitive with the more prosperous countries (and to have "luxuries" like reliable electricity and indoor plumbing) they have to cut as many corners as they can. That means burning coal in their power plants without emission control devices in place, driving gas-hog smoke-spewing older cars because they're more affordable, and clearing out new farmland by slash-and-burn because it's the least labor- and equipment-intensive method of clearing land.

Trying to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by imposing more limits on the high-tech nations is like fixing a sinking boat by carefully patching the 2-inch hole in its bow while ignoring the 7-inch hold in its stern.

This is untrue (well, except for Brazil) - scroll to the bottom of the page. Though I do understand the third-world countries are catching up fast as they industrialize without the benefit of the EPA or pollution-control laws.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

While this does make sense, the amount of acid rain and air pollution is greater in developed countries like: N.E. U.S. and Canada, Europe, East China, s.e. Australia, and India. The only third world countries that have a significant amount of air pollution are: Brazil, West africa coast, and the middle east.

From Allen, John L. "Student atlas of world politics" 5th ed. 2002. University of Wyoming. Map on Pg. 84.

Dang! ToSeek beat me to it. :-) Well it is good to be verified right?

degruss: "I know Clinton was very successful at setting aside large tracts of land which are no longer accessible to the public."

BEEP! False. You should have written, "...no longer as accessible to resource extraction industries." Wilderness lands remain accessible to the public--I access them quite regularly. No one keeps me out. On the other hand, certain spectacular areas--like Steen's Mountain in southeastern Oregon--have been (partially) removed from use as leased cattle-grazing lands, and some areas have been closed to timber harvest. Public access remains unhindered, however.

Bush, as a corporate shill, will try to reverse this. It's bad policy, though--most of the high-altitude timberlands in Oregon have such a short growing season that timber production runs on a 200+ year cycle and the land is, quite frankly, more valuable for recreation than for logging. These lands should be removed from the extraction industries' roster. And most open-range cattle ranching is simply subsidization of a preferred lifestyle--feedlots produce more beef more cheaply. "Open range" usually translates to giving ranchers preferred access to public lands (cow crap in alpine meadows) at ridiculously low leasing rates just in order to preserve the ranchers' "romantic western lifestyle." That's stupid.

But to the topic: I really hate to see the alpine glaciers in Oregon disappearing, but they are. The topographic maps from my father's time--the 1950s--show glaciers and icefields that no longer exist on the ground. Global warming and rising sea level are factual. We have to try to find the cause, and if we can't remedy it then we have to model the changes as best we can and try to act proactively to adjust our society. Here in Oregon, developers are marketing beach homes built on sand spits a few feet above current sea level--how stupid is that?!? It doesn't matter whether the Sun or CO2 is the culprit, these properties are going to be in the surf in a few decades.

We urgently need to understand planetary CO2 cycling, short-term luminosity changes in the Sun, and the effects of changes in cloud-cover and polar snow- and ice-caps on global climate. Climate has been a crucial determining factor in man's past, and despite our hubris it will continue to be so. The Green's prodding is useful because it makes recalcitrant, business-comes-first types like the current Prez of the USA bow to public pressure and give at least some attention to global climate change.

Dstahl. Thanks. I should have said "less accessible to the public - or perhaps more restricted access". Clinton did create quite a few national monumuments. Here are a couple of links that illustrate what I was thinking about:

http://www.envirofront.org/Issue_Ref...%20Access.html

http://www.house.gov/resources/press...dlessareas.htm

I'd be happy if extremists positions on both sides of the spectrum had less influence on the discussion. There are those out there that would be happy if we all went back to the Hunter-gatherer days (or the even more extreme "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement"). Then there are those that will fight any requirements to reduce pollution emissions - no matter what the science might say.

The common sense approach is to find the balance between the environmental impact and the economic impact. In order to do that it will become necessary to acknowledge the evidence for a Sun-climate connection because its becoming apparent that the Sun is a variable in this global warming issue. I still argue that you cannot demonstrate global warming is caused by greenhouse gases without establishing the contribution from the Sun first.

It is possible to be Pro-business and Pro-environment. Extremists on both ends seem to take the position that you're on one side or the other.

[deleted by DStahl as rampantly off-topic and perniciously political--sorry.]

A local community, concerned about mining companies' plans to strip mine sand and gravel right up to people's backyards, incorporated to give itself some control over the situation. The mining companies threw money at the state legislature and got bills introduced that would retroactively negate this community's land use control. These bills are so narrowly written that they would only affect this community, even though the state is (supposedly) forbbidden to do so.

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/...aper/editions/
friday/metro_state_4.html

Dang! Someday I've gott to learn BBCode ops: Copy and paste the whole link. :roll:

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Can you direct us to the source of this info? I may be wrong but, it seems that mainstream theories say the contrary. A chart:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environ...cfm?pageID=965

Um ... uh oh ...

Oh darn.

Now I remember.

I'd read an article somewhere predicting that, as the various 3rd world countries all tried to play catch-up with the fully industrialized nations, they would turn to burning coal, driving cheap-and-dirty cars, etc.. It was a speculative piece that was looking toward where we should be directing preventative measures to keep greenhouse gas emissions down in the future.

Somehow, I conflated this with the present situation. ops:

:: nitpick ::

Um ... should India really be on the list of "developed" countries? My understanding is that most of India is pretty squalid. (Not as squalid as, say, Mexico, and most of said squalor in India is primarily due to overcrowding, but still.)

I always thought if it as developed (I.E. not thrid world). I knew it was not anywhere like us, but i just thought of the cities and local towns and not doing as bad as the thrid world countries.

Hmm...Must of gotten the wrong impression. I guess i was biased from the large amount of smart richer people here from India.

Thanks. So move India to the other list. I guess you can say the same about the majoroty of china then too.

Ok. In fact, the developing countries exhibit a higher rate of growth in CO2 emisions, and that´s worrisome. But, so far, the "developed" countries account for most of the greenhouse effect substances in the atmosphere.

{edited to fix spelling}

You´re right. Labeling countries as first, third, or Nth world is to simplify things. The division of the world into only three categories of nations doesn´t seem to be reasonable. The world is far more complicated, and such things are not so easy to define.

How can we label "third world" a nation capable of setting Asia on fire?

C'mon Kaptain. It's easy enough. Just read the BBcode FAQ. The basic form is exactly the same as using italics or bold. just substitute "url" for the "i" or "b" in the brackets. You can even use the little button above the edit box to do it for you. Just highlight the link and click on it.

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/...o_state_4.html

8)

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

It's an odd phenomenon is global warming.

It is happening. That much we do know.

However, we have multiple explanations.

The Sun may be getting warmer, but we have very thin evidence for this. However, we must not equate lack of evidence with lack of effect. We do not fully understand the Sun's effect on our climate other than the climate can and will buffer it. How effective this buffer is in the short term remains unknown.

CO2 levels may be rising. We are pumping a hell of a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere and it's not well determined how much the Earth can sink. CO2 is a known and proven agent that will increase temperatures. With a small increase in temperatures, we get more water vapour up there and that increases temperatures too. Increased temperatures themselves cause more forest fires. Two positive feedback effects that may lead to a runaway. But again, we do not know enough to make valid assertions.

The position of the scientist and the intelligent mind here is to evaluate what we do know against the best estimates as to what we don't.

Some very good minds argued, in the 1950s, that any lunar landing was doomed to failure due to a kilometer thick layer of dust on the lunar surface. They were proven inaccurate, but their argument was very sound. It's the same here. One side will be proven inaccurate, but we just don't know yet.

__________________
"We want a few mad people now. See where the sane ones have landed us!" - George Bernard Shaw

Well, if you look at the growth rate for third world countries in Argos's link, it's pretty scary: on the order of 40-70%. So they're catching up fast.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.