June 12, 2007 7:08 AM
Seeing red on Denver's green plan
Once a Rocky story on Denver's Climate Action Plan was bannered on Drudgereport.com, the city - and reporter Stuart Steers who wrote today's followup - were barraged with responses calling it "crackpot" and accusing the city of embracing a radical environment agenda.
The plan includes several controversial ideas, including making residents who use large amounts of electricity and natural gas pay higher utility fees, boosting insurance rates for people who drive long distances and mandating that homes be energy efficient before they can be sold."We've gotten a bunch of phone calls, but nothing like a good snowstorm," said Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.
E-mails to the city and the Rocky from around the country called the plan "crackpot," "loony" and even "stupid." Hickenlooper said the proposals are just ideas.
"According to most polls, 70 percent of the people in Colorado recognize there is global warming," he said.
EARLIER:
Denver aims to be a national leader in reducing gas emissions, pushing alernative energy, beefing up recycling and changing building codes to promote conservation, reports Stuart Steers.
But the proposal also contains some ideas that may be unpopular, such as penalizing heavy users of electricity and natural gas and basing auto insurance premiums on the number of miles traveled.But the proposal also contains some ideas that may be unpopular, such as penalizing heavy users of electricity and natural gas and basing auto insurance premiums on the number of miles traveled.The ambitious goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 4.4 million metric tons by 2020, the equivalent of eliminating two small coal-fired power plants or taking 500,000 cars off the road.
Mayor John Hickenlooper has made the "climate action plan" a centerpiece of his second term in office. More than two dozen people from business and community groups met for several months with city staff to hammer out the plan. Many of them fear Colorado will be slammed hard by global warming, with more droughts and forest fires.
Are you willing to pay higher prices if you're a heavy consumer of electricity? Should insurance rates be based on miles driven? Should carpoolers and drivers of hybrid vehicles get parking priority?
June 11, 2007
8:45 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
In a general sense, I'm for the most radical changes we can bear. That said:
Higher premiums on higher electricity use is probably a good idea, although the rates should be offset if that consumption is of renewable sources, like if a manufacturing plant uses a lot of energy, but has made a deal with Excel that all of this energy comes from one of the windfarms.
As for higher premiums for longer commutes: I support this in principle, but I think implementing it will create huge blowback. I mean, if these blogs are anything to go by, all the fearful, resentful Republicans choose to live the farthest away from the city, and are not entirely coincidentally the most skeptical in general of global warming and energy reforms. So this will strike some as a huge political slap in the face, rather than an incentive to use mass transit or participate in urban infill. (Right, kids?)
There are also other mitigating factors that have nothing to do with fear or selfishness. How many people work in Boulder but can't afford to live there? How many people would LIKE to live in, say, Whittier, which is close to town and relatively affordable, but has shitty schools (Manual, anyone?)? How many people commute to work long distances but are using their suburban space to grow gardens, do green renovation, put up a solar array, etc. ? (Well, not many on that last one, but the potential's there.)
June 11, 2007
9:01 AM
benn writes:
I agree with your sentiments Dirk. I am all for the most radical changes that we can handle... but we need to make sure that we are providing the rights changes and doing it properly. It is more then just climate change, it is the fact that we have moved over the oil peak. We have passed the threshold whereby we (the Earth) will never have more oil then we did a couple of years ago, therefore it is all down-hill, and it is going to become very inefficient to continue to live in an oil-based culture.
Interestingly enough, I am a person who works in Boulder, but can't afford to live there. I used to commute in, then I realized that I was wasting my time and my money. I have started riding the bus, and I think it is the best choice I have made in a long-while. Hopefully they continue to develop the rapid transit bus system up the corridor.
June 11, 2007
9:10 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Good point, Benn. Regardless of your thoughts on global warming, peak oil is just as pressing a problem. Not to mention the whole energy independence thing, etc. (which reminds me, as a quick plug: call your reps not to support the liquid coal bill before Congress; I support using coal in gassification plants and such, but NOT for more dirty liquid fuel).
I too have used the Boulder bus quite a lot. It's pretty convenient if you live close enough to the route, and WAY more relaxing than driving. It doesn't even take all that much longer. I guess in about 8 years when they've built the passenger rail up there is when it will REALLY be good.
June 11, 2007
9:35 AM
Tony Mountain writes:
Ever hear the phrase "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar?" How about tax breaks and incentives for individuals who use LESS energy/carbon instead of penalizing those who use more? That would even make republicans happy - tax breaks! Make change easier for more people and more people will change.
June 11, 2007
11:14 AM
David (R) writes:
From the article, "... and basing auto insurance premiums on the number of miles traveled."
From my view, I agree with Tony - why penalize people rather than offer incentives to attract the desired result? I live east of Parker and have since 1983, so that we could have horses, not because I'm a Republican, which I'm not :)
But for the past year or so I've been beating the drum for state and federal legislators and the governor(s) to introduce something that would entice employers to not just "let" their folks work from home if they can, but actually to encourage them to.
My commute is roughly 120 miles per day to the Springs and back, and even at 40+ mpg, it wastes fuel, as I could easily do my job from home 4 or 5 days per week.
It seems to me that encouraging removal of cars from the road brings many positives. I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why my insurance company should profit from my commute more than they do, in the effort to reduce emissions, though.
June 11, 2007
12:05 PM
NW writes:
I would favor giving incentives for people to use less energy rather than penalizing those who use more.
Am I missing something or do auto insurance companies already charge higher premiums to those with longer commutes (those honest enough to say their actual commute distance)?
June 11, 2007
12:45 PM
jay writes:
I find it amazing that people have such reactions to being asked to sacrifice something in order to aid the global warming initiatives. Makes me wonder how much longer we would be in combat operations in Iraq if we asked for similar sacrifices for the war from those without family members or friends in the sand box.
June 11, 2007
12:47 PM
Corbin Todd writes:
This thing scares me. I'm all for helping resduce the effests of global warming, but I don't like giving more power to the insurance companies. I also feel that this should be a ballot issue, not something that just the city counsel can vote on. I also doint think that anyone should recieve any kind of parking priority either. I feel as though there are good ideas here, but I just feel it needs to be refined a lot more. Don't penalize those that do live in the suburbs and have to drive to the city to work. I think that if the mass transit system was expaned, and more efficient then it might not be a bad idea.
June 11, 2007
12:51 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
"Are you willing to pay higher prices if you're a heavy consumer of electricity? "
No. How about letting them build more nuclear plants.
"Should insurance rates be based on miles driven? "
No. My insurance rates should be based on my safety record.
"Should carpoolers and drivers of hybrid vehicles get parking priority?
Yes, and there should be more parking spaces at the Mineral station, so more people can actually use the Light Rail.
Raise all the parking rates in Denver and use the money to build more park and rides and run more express buses.
June 11, 2007
12:53 PM
benn writes:
Yea,
Good points all around. Incentives would be better received as compared to penalties. I would probably take advantage
David, you also bring up an excellent point about working from home. I have been trying to get my employer to allow me to work from home for awhile now, as I can do everything that needs to be done from my home office.
They have argued that people who work from home are less productive. In addition they think that the team mentality is damaged as you aren't 'connected' to your coworkers.
I don't know, I think it is bogus and everyone would be much happier and save money if they could work 2-3 days a week from home.
:shrug:
June 11, 2007
1:26 PM
David (R) writes:
Jay said, " .... sacrifice ..."
If sacrifice is actually needed, let's get to it. But if we can accomplish things with incentives, let's look at those. My first concern though is that it's the people of "Denver" that would be affected. That's nice, but how about a state-wide initiative?
Benn - it's the old style management mindset that says you have to be in the office or you must be screwing off. And they tend to hold onto that old outdated view despite the fact that they don't ever come around to see what I'm doing even when I am here. They get so much more out of me when I start at 6 or so at home, and I'm still working at 5 or 6 that evening, plus, I am working during the 3 hours I'd be commuting! Somewhere on the 'net there are a few links showing studies that have been done showing all the benefits.
All -
I've also mentioned this before, but if you can afford a few hundred dollars, you can find a nice solar panel, deep-cycle marine battery, 500 to 1000 watt inverter setup that can handle some of the electrical chores around your house. For example, I run my 35" TV, my notebook PC, and the fridge on one such system. Then I have a second one for interior lights, stereo, and wireless telephone.
And, I've mentioned this before too, but get signed up for a nearly free full solar system for your house - you simply pay a flat electric bill, that won't increase for the next 2, 5, or 25 years, your choice - go to the link to check it out, and watch the video, by clicking "PLAY" on the right.
http://renu.citizenre.com/index.php?c=1172857638
If you do sign up, let me know and I'll give you a number to put in that will reduce the amount I pay on my bill each month for the referral - and you can do it too, up to the full amount of your flat monthly payment.
June 11, 2007
1:37 PM
benn writes:
That is an interesting program David. What I wonder is if they don't earn more money then they let on. As I understand it, if you provide energy to the grid, then the energy company must pay you for that energy. Thus I wonder if they install those panels, and since they own and operate the panels, then the energy companies pay them for the excess energy they produce, rather than the home-owner.
Any thoughts on that?
June 11, 2007
1:48 PM
Gears writes:
This idea would mostly penalize the families who have only working parent. My wife currenlty stays at home to take care of our children. So naturally our house would use more electricity than a two working parent home. Since she stays at home money is tight so to afford a home we have to live farther out from where I work (downtown Denver). I would love to live closer to my job but I simply can not afford a home in Denver.
Basically I am going to be penalized because my wife and I want to stay at home with our children. When our children are in full time school it would become a moot point, but until then all it will do is make it even more difficult for us to make ends meet if not impossible.
Has anyone taken this into account?
June 11, 2007
1:50 PM
Gears writes:
This idea would mostly penalize the families who have only working parent. My wife currenlty stays at home to take care of our children. So naturally our house would use more electricity than a two working parent home. Since she stays at home money is tight so to afford a home we have to live farther out from where I work (downtown Denver). I would love to live closer to my job but I simply can not afford a home in Denver.
Basically I am going to be penalized because my wife and I want to stay at home with our children. When our children are in full time school it would become a moot point, but until then all it will do is make it even more difficult for us to make ends meet if not impossible.
Has anyone taken this into account?
June 11, 2007
1:53 PM
David (R) writes:
Hi Benn -
I think I know enough about it at this point to give more info about it. Most home solar systems use panels to feed into batteries which store the electricity until you need it. Then it draws it through a sine-wave inverter that converts the DC into AC and supplies your needs on demand. Many of these systems can be "grid tied", meaning that you can indeed sell AC back to the grid. If you produce more than you're using, your meter will actually run backwards, and you can get a check instead of paying in.
The system from CitizenRe, based on the documentation I've gotten with my signup package, seems to indicate that there are no batteries for storage. So, for example, when you're gone to work, your panels are merrily generating electricity and converting it into AC and feeding it back into the grid, making your meter run backwards. Now, when you get home, and start using the power, the meter runs forward. Their overall plan is to at least "break even", by installing enough panels to handle everything you use. You still pay the bill, but it's to CitizenRe. If there's a surplus, they get it from the power company, and if there's an overage, they pay the power company, and then come install another panel on your house, again, at no cost to you.
During the daytime, if a majority of people were using the CitizenRe system, the power company's would be able to greatly reduce their output, and mainly need to run at night. But the thing I really like is the guaranteed rate for 25 years - you know that power is going to go through the roof in that time frame.
I may be wrong on this, but I don't think so. I am number 602 in Colorado for the system and just got a usage agreement that I compeleted and sent back. They say they're hoping to install in the state by the end of the year.
June 11, 2007
2:12 PM
benn writes:
Sounds very appealing. So, really I should never know if I am using grid power or solar power? It seems to make sense.
I will consider it as I am moving into my new house this week, I would love to stop paying Excel.
June 11, 2007
2:14 PM
benn writes:
One last question... they say they calculate your monthly energy use so your panels aren't producing anymore then necessary. What happens if your energy needs change? Do they come out and reevaluate your use? If you need to change your use, do you expect that they redo your rate?
Hehe, sorry, I am sure these questions are better aimed at the company itself.
June 11, 2007
2:45 PM
David (R) writes:
Benn -
No worries. I am very happy to pass along any info on this because any interest can generate positive results. It makes me chuckle a bit when I see these ads that talk about "Let's save the planet", when it's really about "Let's save ourselves" - without the planet being healthy we won't be here long.
Anyway, there is some method they have of staying in communication with your system. In fact, after I got signed up, I have an account on their site that I can go to and it will show me current usage, historical usage, system health, and a bunch of other information in real time.
So if you start using twice what you were when the agreement was drawn up, they will add panels accordingly, but I'm not sure if it reflects in your bill or not. It seems like it would be easy to apply a per unit charge but I'm not sure how it works in view of the "flat charge" concept. I just went and signed on to the account, and it shows:
Terms: 9.9¢ - 25 year(s)
so I think what it's saying is the 9.9 cent per unit, guaranteed for 25 years. So if I double my usage my bill would double. But at least it won't go above that price per unit.
June 11, 2007
2:57 PM
Nick writes:
This is ridiculous! This needs to be voted on by the people not thrown at us. The people should decide the importance of “global warming.” Not everyone believes that global warming is such a serious issue. Anyone that has studied both sides of the issue would have a serious problem with this proposal. Just because you’ve watched Al Gores bias documentary does not make you an expert. The climate hasn’t always been the same, ever heard of the ice age? I have to work farther out to get a decent paying job to pay off my student loans. There is no way I can afford a hybrid car. So now I’m penalized twice, this is a joke.
June 11, 2007
3:03 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
David(R),
That sounds higher than what I am paying, are you counting on escalating rates to make it worthwhile?
June 11, 2007
3:11 PM
benn writes:
Hogar,
I've been reading about it, and it looks like you are locked in at whatever the current rate is. So if I signed up today, it would be 9.2 cents for 25 years (or 1 or 5 years depending on your contract).
Thanks for the indo Dave, it makes sense, and if it is something I sign up for, then I will get your referral number so you can get the break :)
June 11, 2007
3:15 PM
kmpk writes:
Unfortunately the leaders in Denver have bought into the "MAN MADE" global warming nonsense. You poor unfortunate citizens in Denver won't make a bit of difference because your sacrafices will not change solar activity which is the primary cause of the planet warming. You poor fools wake up and tell your leaders.
"ITS THE SUN STUPID"
"ITS THE SUN STUPID"
"ITS THE SUN STUPID"
600 to700 years ago th planet was much warmer than it is today. Why was that.
"IT WAS THE SUN STUPID"
June 11, 2007
3:16 PM
chargrove writes:
I'm afraid I don't get the part about those who use more electricity or natural gas paying more. Uh...if you use more, you are paying more already. Rates are outrageous as it is. This will do nothing but hurt the working class individual. How about this: let's look at more options for GENERATING power efficiently instead of having a third world mentality in the 21st century. Wow, what a concept.
June 11, 2007
3:17 PM
David (R) writes:
Hi Hogar -
It might be higher than your per unit rate because I'm on a co-op called IREA, where we also receive a "patronage" rebate that will come off the per unit rate I pay CitizenRe, effectively bringing it to approximately 7.3 - which I think is a bit under most non-co op power companies in the state.
But over the course of the next 25 years I would think the per unit charge could even double if someone isn't on the price guarantee type of deal. Just a few years ago, I was paying 98 cents a gallon for gas at Costco in Park Meadows - and this morning $3.15 a gallon in Castle Rock on my way in to work. While easy availability of coal should reduce that sort of thing from happening to electricity, consider the potential impacts of possible environmental regulations on the price per unit, and maybe 9.9 is a blazing bargain. Time will tell.
Benn - terrific!
June 11, 2007
3:30 PM
David (R) writes:
Chargrove -
What they mean is that they would charge a percentage higher rate for higher consumption.
So if you use 2000KWh a month, your rate migh be 10 cents per KWh, but if you use 5000KWh per month, maybe they whack you 15 cents per KWh to discourage consumption.
I know several extremely wealthy people, and they make more on bank and bond interest in a month than I make in a year. They aren't going to change their lifestyle because their $600 electric bill will go to $1000. That's one of the reasons that I believe reducing consumption through incentives for the majority of people is a far better idea.
There are the three "R's" of environmental consciousness: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle - the first one, reduce, is the hardest one to accomplish for two reasons - people don't like to "cut back" on what they currently do, because they feel like they're losing something. The other reason is that our society and companies don't like us to reduce what we're using - they're always trying to get us to take more of everything; thus, they earn more money. But reducing consumption is generally considered the best and most productive of all conservation methods.
June 11, 2007
3:55 PM
K writes:
Gears,
I feel you. I am a work-at-home mom taking care of a toddler AND elderly relatives who use expensive, energy draining equipment to stay alive.
My husband is in sales. He calls on 5-8 customers every day. Our car insurance payment is almost equal to our car payment every month.
We have trouble making ends meet now. I can't imagine what would happen if we paid more for the energy use and the driving. So, who's going to take care of us when we can't afford to work? And the elderly relatives?
June 11, 2007
4:02 PM
Liam writes:
The question is not "Should you pay to cut emissions?"
it's: "Should you pay for your emissions?"
June 11, 2007
4:31 PM
I'm in line with the rest of the nitwits writes:
As you all recently saw, Europe had found the greatest tax bandwagon ever. Governments like it because those in power now will never see the results of their flaccid efforts. To those of you that think this is getting too expensive then get in line at the Kool-Aid stand. Life is just about to become more expensive in the tax department. C'mon, let's get one for the Gipper. It's time to unload this planet.
June 11, 2007
4:31 PM
C.W. writes:
The climate drastically changes back and forth over time (Greenland got its name from the Vikings for a reason), but one thing sure doesn't change: Man's compulsion to blame himself for these changes so that he can feel like he has control over that which he doesn't. Primitive man blamed a lack of offerings to his gods for any unusual weather. Medieval man blamed his own sinful behavior for provoking droughts, floods, etc from a wrathful God. So the modern environmentalist believes that nature is punishing us for our wicked, polluting ways; and he will engage in the same futile attempts at redemption as his ancestors did. Nothing new here. People still trying to feel in control of the uncontrollable with the comforting illusion that they are to blame for the problem. So chill out, Denver, and don't let your leaders take you for a ride with these environmental scams (because they sure won't be suffering from any of the restrictions that they will try to impose on you!).
June 11, 2007
4:37 PM
kmpk writes:
This is a sick joke that is turning into a nightmare. Here it is folks radical environmentalism in it purest sickest form. This religion called "MAN MADE" global warming is taken on a life of its own. STOP IT AND STOP IT NOW. SOME OF THE BIGGEST PROPONENTS OF MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING HAVE DONE A COMPLETE 180 AS TO WHY THE EARTH IS WARMING. THEY"RE SAYING
"ITS THE SUN STUPID"
Denver's reaction is BIG BROTHER Government at its worse. STOP IT NOW.
"ITS THE SUN STUPID"
June 11, 2007
4:39 PM
Anonymous writes:
Wouldn't Hickenpooper's restaurants be subject to these consumption fees?
It's bad enough to sin against the environment for one's own use, but to sin against the environment to make money, well that's just, sinful!
I look forward to the $15 CricketBurger!
June 11, 2007
4:52 PM
jdub writes:
Good luck Denver. Under Hickenlooper, you now all get to pay for a "green office" bureaucracy. The money waste will be mesmorizing.
June 11, 2007
6:15 PM
jay writes:
I see the Deniers and the 28%'ers (or 20%'ers on this issue) have joined forces.
Global warming is real ladies.
Man is contributing.
80% of the country believes this.
You have to ask yourselves why you don't considering that the VAST majority of peer-reviewed scientists disagree with you.
Science isn't evil.
Believing in the science doesn't make you a liberal...it just makes you well informed.
June 11, 2007
6:23 PM
rob writes:
What about all the illegal aliens and homeless who can't afford a hybrid vehicle I think we should give them rebates as well it is not their fault. Lets also give them instate tuition and then wonder why going to college costs so much.
I never thought my Democratic party would become so Totalitarian.
Double plus good brother mayor
June 11, 2007
6:28 PM
jay writes:
I'm a Fascist if you're a Democrat.
June 11, 2007
6:34 PM
ScottyDog writes:
We are fast loosing our Liberty and Freedom in America. in the name of Environmentalism.
Welcome to the totalitarian do gooders in Denver that intend to tell us all how to live on unproven consensus science called man made Global Warming. I think they should have to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that any of the measures would improve the environment.
They have no authority to do what they are proposing without changing numerous laws on the books including the US Constitution.
If this plan goes forward, I will be moving ASAP to get out of the Russia of the Rocky Mountains.
June 11, 2007
6:36 PM
MikeB writes:
Congrats to Denver, Portland, Seattle and other cites who are willing to be responsive to their residents and pay up for their environmental excesses. I hope these actions satisfy the need to atone for their reckless excess emissions. Thanks for taking a local stand, taking the high road, and doing what your conscience says is right. Most of all, thanks for not insisting the Feds subject the rest of the country to this senseless quest to override the effects of the sun and amend the laws of physics.
The big cities with their dense population and air inversions have been driving environmental issues for years. If you city folks want clean air pay up- or move. Don't lean on the rest of the country to pay for problems. Our air is clean in the red states...
June 11, 2007
7:31 PM
kmpk writes:
Jay,
You are a colossal example of the sheep mentality that has bought into this "MAN MADE' global warming farce. The media and governments are driving this farce. Governments (as demonstrated by the city of Denver) see this as a revenue generating proposal. The UN is also looking to cash in on this also. You can take your "MAN MADE" global warming and peddle it on Mars. Mars polor ice caps are also melting.
Eventually all you idiots will be exposed. Yes its warming but
"ITS THE SUN STUPID"
And I do classify you as "STUPID"
June 11, 2007
7:46 PM
jay writes:
Yup...you got it....it's all a conspiracy by the gov't and the media to make money.
Your tinfoil hat will keep those evil scientists and climatologists from stealing your brain though.
Wow.
If you have credible, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that will refute the majority of scientists with whom I side...please provide it...or at least have the intellectual honesty to tell us why you've chosen to disregard the science on this matter.
June 11, 2007
9:03 PM
I'm in line with the rest of the nitwits writes:
It kinda sounds like some of you are catching on. Environmentalism has been part of the Liberal/Democratic base just as the religious wackos side with the Republicans. It looks like Denver is in the process of paying back those Liberal voters. Now the Republican voters as pissed off. It really makes no difference since your all a captive pack of rats that have no say in their future. Kinda grim isn't it? Not much different from hundreds of years ago when the king was supported by the serfs. Taxation and social engineering go hand in hand. The media is not part of this...they just report what is happening in the Great Looney Bin called America. You will know that this is all a farce when they tax the feedlots for cattle emissions and teenagers for nocturnal emissions. By the way...who has given local government the authority to tax an unproven science? Oh yes..the voters. Al Gore up for a Nobel and if he wins he'll run for President. I just laughed so hard I emitted an emission.
And you sorry SOB's voted for these guys. Either live with it or head for the Kool-Aid stand. I'm not guilt free either. I voted for Bush. Twice! I'm double F#@$%ed.
June 11, 2007
9:41 PM
kmpk writes:
Jay,
There are thousands of scientists that don't agree with Man Made Global Warming. This is by no means settled science. Listed below is a link that is a petition signed by thousands of man made global warming skeptics with their credentials listed.
This so call global warming movement isn't settled science it politically correct science.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
June 11, 2007
10:04 PM
Jane White writes:
What a load of crap!
Thanks, Hick!
Furthermore, how in the hell\
is Denver going to control
trash pickup[ in alleys, parks?
Give us a break. I want to sell
my home and I have to make
it green? I commute to make
a living, and I have to pay MORE
for insurance?
June 11, 2007
11:22 PM
Average American writes:
Communism has found a new home. Its in the mile high city.
June 12, 2007
2:28 AM
Anonymous writes:
Are you willing to pay higher prices if you're a heavy consumer of electricity? Should insurance rates be based on miles driven? Should carpoolers and drivers of hybrid vehicles get parking priority?
There is no denying it . Global warming is real and its accelerating. All nations except us acknowledge its real. 25% of carbon gasses are from cars. And this war is about oil. Its time to use the internet and speed the use of video conferencing. RTD needs to be electric and we need an EAST WEST link. We should be a nation of electric cars. recharged by wind and people should walk to work.
slim jim
June 12, 2007
8:09 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
This may seem radical at first, but then so do most forms of action when compared to the status quo of inaction. Global Warming is real, and we need to deal with it.
I already pay less for car insurance because I take the bus most days. I see nothing wrong with asking people who consume more to pay more.
Most innovative ideas seem radical at first. Consider open heart surgery, space travel, satellite gps navigation systems to name just a few.
June 12, 2007
8:32 AM
I am not here writes:
If people like Al Gore are so concerned about the amount of "hot air" on the planet, why won't they shut up?
June 12, 2007
8:43 AM
David (R) writes:
I have read so much on global warming, and that includes both sides of the issue - it exists, or it's all part of a cycle of climate change.
But as a father of three, a very concerned, conservative, and compassionate person, and someone who holds our natural resources and life-sustaining planet in extreme reverence, let me say that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the planet, and leave it as able to support life for future generations as we can.
If global warming is real, we have a responsibility to act. If it isn't real, yet the thought that it does speeds our development of clean fuels, green vehicles and lifestyles, and a planet that will recover from many years of our abuses, aren't we still headed down a "good path"?
Won't much good come from doing what we can to reduce CO2 emissions, including new sources of clean power? Aren't there many untapped technologies that will emerge - thousands, according to the most brilliant scientific minds.
If everything we did in life, we did because it was good for our family, good for our city, good for the Earth - maybe we'd enjoy life more, be more patient and courteous to each other, and have a chance to see how precious this all is. Either way folks, we have nothing to fear from improving things in an effort to stave off "global warming" - either real, or perceived.
June 12, 2007
8:44 AM
zaugg writes:
There was an news item on last night about an environmental effort to save(?) the coral reefs off the coast of Florida 35 years ago. They used hundreds of thousands of tires in a FAILED effort to solve a non-problem. Now, we the taxpayers, are having to cleanup the mess that seemed like a bright idea at the time.
Global warming is now a 'religion' of the left. Question their real motives (income redistribution) and beware.
June 12, 2007
8:45 AM
Anonymous writes:
I see the winds of partisan politics have been blowing here for a bit.
Im quite amazed at the lack of logic on this topic, as it is by no means dificult to separate the relevant from the irrelevant on this issue.
I see several people have decided that man made global warming is a hoax, and they base this belief on the fact that there is not 100% scientific consensus. I would ask, as you sit there calling anyone concerned with the issue a "communist", do you notice that your position is as unstable as those who believe in man made global warming without reservation? While you use "there isnt consensus" to back your arguments against them, do you realize that it is just as valid to use that same point against your conclusions?
Asside from all of that, it has become very apparent that we as a nation need a "Manhattan Project" like effort to secure clean, renewable energy. The reasons for this go beyond the possible horrors of global warming, and they are myriad. Continued ignorant and immoral reliance on oil is nothing short of complete folly, and there is no need to rely on "communism" to come to that conclusion. Simple logic will suffice.
June 12, 2007
8:58 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
David(R),
I agree 100% that we need to be good stewards of the earth. The problem is discerning just how that plays out in a practical sense. I fear that Global Whining is going to have a whole host of unintended negative consequences.
The 'Silent Spring' legacy
Before Carson completed her book, DDT played a vitally important role in the eradication of mosquitoes carrying malaria in Western nations, and was making progress in other nations around the globe.
The success was so great that DDT's discoverer, Paul Herman Muller, earned a Nobel Prize in Medicine--and the National Academy of Sciences declared in 1970: "To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable."
Today, hundreds of millions of people--mostly African children under 5 years old--get seriously ill, and more than a million die, every year from malaria, in large measure because many nations stopped using DDT.
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/052007/05272007/286975
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34823.html
Rachel Carson has the blood of millions of children on her hands.
How many more will die at the hands of Al Gore's Inconvenient Myth?
June 12, 2007
9:00 AM
bill writes:
Gee people...
The "science" is NOT in to say MAN MADE warming is happening. The earth has warmed and cooled for EONS - 10,000 yrs ago much of the Northeastern U.S. was covered with over 1 mile of ice, there has certainly been waming since then. In the 70's it was "the next ice age" itis CYCLICAL... not even close to enough data to say warming is man caused. To all you in the religion of man caused global warming, with your pastor Algore, explain one thing to us .... why for eons can the earth warm and cool on its on (see sun spots) but this current POSSIBLE warming is man caused ?? Makes absoulutly no sense at all. There are thousanda of doubting scientists,, why do you think algore says the argument is over ? Because he can't face real facts.
Should we conserve, and wean ourselves from a dependency on hydrocarbons ? No question about it... yes. But giving the Looney Left MORE control over our lives because they "feel it is best for us" is STUPID....
There is documented warming on Mars right now. If Mars is warming (see sun spots) does it not makes sense the Earth could be warming as well ? Man made global warming is an idiotic religion..
bill
June 12, 2007
9:00 AM
bill writes:
Gee people...
The "science" is NOT in to say MAN MADE warming is happening. The earth has warmed and cooled for EONS - 10,000 yrs ago much of the Northeastern U.S. was covered with over 1 mile of ice, there has certainly been waming since then. In the 70's it was "the next ice age" itis CYCLICAL... not even close to enough data to say warming is man caused. To all you in the religion of man caused global warming, with your pastor Algore, explain one thing to us .... why for eons can the earth warm and cool on its on (see sun spots) but this current POSSIBLE warming is man caused ?? Makes absoulutly no sense at all. There are thousanda of doubting scientists,, why do you think algore says the argument is over ? Because he can't face real facts.
Should we conserve, and wean ourselves from a dependency on hydrocarbons ? No question about it... yes. But giving the Looney Left MORE control over our lives because they "feel it is best for us" is STUPID....
There is documented warming on Mars right now. If Mars is warming (see sun spots) does it not makes sense the Earth could be warming as well ? Man made global warming is an idiotic religion..
bill
June 12, 2007
9:26 AM
David (R) writes:
Good points all, and we're not going to settle it here - I mean we have thousands of scientists on each side of the issue, some believing that it's happening as a result of cars/coal/etc, and others believing it's cyclical and natural/sun-spot based/etc - so if they can't agree, how will we?
It is important, as Hogar and others point out, that we pay close attention because whether or not global warming is real, governments can, and do, use things like it to press agendas that may not be in line with the will of the people. Keeping it channeled for positive outcomes is the challenge, regardless of the validity of the cause.
June 12, 2007
9:32 AM
Anonymous writes:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003744089_kilimanjaro12m.html
This is a good article proving the moron left wing moon bats wrong. Enviros are nothing more then dogmatic zelots that hate god so much they cling to a faith that has even less proof then there is of god. Dont fear the science, there is a mental condition for you whackos, you just refuse to listen to the doctors
June 12, 2007
9:38 AM
Brett writes:
If there was any merit to the global warming trend there would be more then just lip service from the lib tars in control of congress and the senate. The whole world does not agree, in fact the only countries that do are leftist socialist regimes, how about that, yet every other nation says to piss off they want to develop their economies. And again, all the lib tard leftist douche bag nations that are on nuts side, they dont want to do anything, its screaming at america to do it. Global warming is nothing more than an anti capitalist movement taking natural events and trying to destroy our economy over it. More proof why a preemptive attack and mass killing of lib tards must commence NOW
June 12, 2007
9:54 AM
Anonymous writes:
Are you willing to pay higher prices if you're a heavy consumer of electricity?
How much higher a price? Who would be considered a heavy user? Would this penalize people who charge their electric cars at home?
Should insurance rates be based on miles driven?
This is already the case... would insurance companies take this as a opportunity to further gouge consumers? If a major portion of your driving is out of state what effect will that have on rates?
Should carpoolers and drivers of hybrid vehicles get parking priority?
No, I think handicapped people should have parking priority.
Pretty vague trial balloon, I'll wait to see what Hick actually comes up with.
June 12, 2007
10:04 AM
Nicole writes:
Overpopulation is the biggest problem when it comes to global warming. Denver wants to take 500,000 cars off the road. How many thousands of Californians are moving into the Denver area every month? Colorado's population growth is exploding.
There are no easy answers to global warming, but this plan is insane!
June 12, 2007
10:05 AM
Anonymous writes:
anonymous at 9:32 .... that article doesn't really "prove" anything .... it says that the professor wants people to know that this one peak out of many is losing its snow for reasons other than global warming, but that he believes most others are a result of global warming ... I don't think we have enough conclusive data to make a call one way or the other yet, but agree that whatever we do to reduce pollution and come up with green energy will be good no matter what the issue with global warming is
June 12, 2007
10:20 AM
Fred writes:
I'm for anything that makes people think twice about waste and pollution. Consensus or not on the global warming issue, I have to question everyone here who rallies against this plan: What are your motives?
Seems to me you just can't handle taking responsibility for your wasteful lives. Parents have to keep their kids in line, clearly people who use terms like "stupid" and "libtard" have not matured enough to be part of the process.
Your Liberties and Freedoms all have limits. You are not free to kill your neighbor, nor may you have the liberty to fill our air with your waste. Sorry to make it so blunt but, I don't give a *(&# about the science. It's clear that pollution exists and no matter what it's global impact is, it's time to put a limit on the local waste.
June 12, 2007
10:25 AM
jay writes:
kmpk,
I've seen that debunked list of scientists before. It is always amusing to see that those 20% of folks who still don't believe that GW is real resort to deception and smoke and mirrors to attempt to validate their position....while the other side sticks to credible, PEER-REVIEWED scientific evidence.
This site debunks your list as well as some other gw skeptics and their supporters.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
Here are the highlights about your myth:
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.
Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.
Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.
I'll ask the skeptics again...why are you choosing to ignore the conclusions of the best, peer-reviewed minds in the field and instead take the word of politicians and lobbyist groups?
Has someone convinced you that you will become a bleeding heart liberal if you believe the science of things like gw and stem cell research?
June 12, 2007
10:29 AM
NW writes:
I'm fine with most anything that would help the environment and keep people on the planet a little longer.
However, since this would cost people more money, etc., I think we ought to be able to vote on it. The concept of a Democracy is not to have the government make decisions of this magnitude on our behalf.
What's wrong with making it a ballot issue?
June 12, 2007
10:37 AM
robert zimmerman writes:
> How many thousands of Californians are moving into the Denver area every month?
Not very many.
According to http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pops/pops08.htm
the net migration to Colorado from other states in the years 2001-2006 was about 22,000, or 4,400 per year. If half of those people came from California, that amounts to around 200 per month, which is hardly an infestation.
June 12, 2007
10:53 AM
John writes:
Hickenlooper will not burnish his legacy on MY back. The UK has instituted draconion laws regarding mandatory "retrofits" for older residences and it is causing them HUGE problems. Lawsuits, improperlly performed retrofitting, foreclosures. Also, Hickenlooper can only effect these changes in Denver. If he creates new "mandatory" laws regarding insurance and housing, it will only be applicable to residents of Denver -- Aurora and Highlands Ranch and others will most certainly opt out causing a "flight" of people OUT of Denver. That will be your legacy Johnny boy.
And punishing people for driving more miles is absolutely a "regressive" tax. Richie Rich with his Mercedes in Cherry Creek will travel less miles than Joe Lawnmower guy, but who do we penalize? The poor guy of course!
I am not opposed to new regulations going forward on automobiles or housing, but it is simply stupid to make those changes retroactive to existing residences or cars which will simply diminish value in those assets. Hickenlooper will have his legacy - Single-handedly destroying our economy and housing market.
June 12, 2007
11:16 AM
JC writes:
I disagree on raising insurance rates based on miles driven. Increasing the TAX on fuel ($2+/gallon) will have the same effect. The price of gas has increased ~$2/gallon in the last 6 yrs and most people haven't changed their driving habits b/c the increase was gradual. The tax must be significant to change behaviour.
I do agree that requiring people to meet energy efficient standards when they sell their home is a good thing. However, should the homeowner bear 100% of the cost of those upgrades? At some point we have to hold the Builders responsible for building these inefficient homes. True the home buyer has the ultimate decision on whether or not to buy a home, but builders typically buy up large tracts of land, clear all of the trees, and build energy inefficient homes on the land.
It's very profitable for the builders, especially in the suburbs where land is cheap. The builders don't pay for the highways to/from the suburbs, they don't pay for the additional highways required when traffic gets too bad, they don't pay for the environmental impact (pollution) caused by all of the commuters, not to mention the inefficient building practices that are driven by focusing on profit. It is thought to be cheaper to place things like construction waste in a landfill rather than recycle them.
In economics, all Costs are Variable over time. The same can be said for all materials beign Biodegradeable over a long enough period of time. You and I will not be around long enough to see many things turn back into the earth, but eventually they will.
In the case of scrap wood & materias from building houses, most builders would just send it to the landfill. There is a small cost (to the builder) for dumping a truckload of scrap wood in a landfill. The real cost is that the scrap wood could have been shredded and used to make mulch. Instead, the mulch will need to come another source (e.g. live trees). This cost is paid by the homeowner (or maybe the builder IF landscaping is included with the house). Also, land is needed for the landfill, and this represents a larger cost since the land cannot be used for farming or living for a long time. Today, corporations (like the one that I work for) are able to mfg and sell products without paying for the ultimate disposal of those products.
Action: Raise the cost of landfills -> Result: Reduce waste, & increase recycling efforts
Action: Tax corporations that mfg products that will end up in a landfill -> Result: encourage recycleable products & reduce waste
If a company makes or sells a product that is recycleable, then they should pay x% of tax to cover the cost of recycling the material.
And if they sell a product that is not recycleable, then they should pay y% of tax to cover the cost of clearing land, building a landfill, and the opportunity cost of not using that land for something else like farming. It would be easy to structure the taxes so that recycling is financially beneficial. Also, this would be a level playing field regardless of where the product is manufactured (US vs. China). Same taxes apply based on where it is sold (and eventually dispossed of).
June 12, 2007
12:49 PM
Anonymous writes:
If you really, honestly and truly believe that people are the root cause of global warming and that global warming will be catastrophic, the only thing that you can logically argue to drastically reduce the effect of people on the environment is to drastically reduce the number of people on the earth.
You will have to ask yourself the question of what is more important; the sanctity of human life or mother earth.
June 12, 2007
12:51 PM
Zaugg writes:
JC- When I read your comment, all I see is TAX blah, blah, blah, TAX some more blah, blah, blah, more TAX some more blah, blah, blah.
TAX. Spend. Government.
Just say No.
June 12, 2007
12:58 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Recycling has been around for all of history, but we have gotten better at it as the economic benefits have been more clearly delineated, as well as the improved technologies to implement it.
http://www.recycling-revolution.com/recycling-benefits.html
Forcing arbitrary fees on people needs to be examined very carefully before it is implemented. Early implementations of mandatory recycling programs were not cost effective because they were not implemented properly.
June 12, 2007
1:20 PM
KW writes:
jay wants someone to show him "scientific, peer reviewed evidence" showing the global warming crowd are wrong.
First we need to strike the word evidence considering the these scientists have NEVER supplied any evidence. We have reports, questionable computer models, over $2 billion in grant money being funneled in to these guys but still no credible evidence.
Hence the need for a "concensus."
I have a partiucular scientist I like to quote. And jay, feel free to explore this guys credentials as he is considered the foremost authority in his field.
As Bill Gray of CSU puts it....
The only facts are that we need to pollute less and find alternative energy sources but lets keep our heads about us here people.
June 12, 2007
1:20 PM
Hicky writes:
This is going to be great for Denver!
I'm so sick of watching middle class Denverites dumping gas on the ground, running their AC with the windows open, and laughing cause their Xcel bill is only $300 in January.
Wasteful middle class should be paying more. Since energy is already so cheap and all.
But don't look at my restaurants!!!
June 12, 2007
1:27 PM
TRB writes:
This is hilarious!
Maybe the solons in the city of Denver will next come up with a plan to kill 'manbearpig'!
What idiots!
June 12, 2007
1:28 PM
TRB writes:
This is hilarious!
Maybe the solons in the city of Denver will next come up with a plan to kill 'manbearpig'!
What idiots!
June 12, 2007
1:29 PM
TRB writes:
This is hilarious!
Maybe the solons in the city of Denver will next come up with a plan to kill 'manbearpig'!
What idiots!
June 12, 2007
1:29 PM
kmpk writes:
Jay,
One thing is clear, you are a bleeding heart liberal. Their are very many reputable "Man Made" Global warming skeptics. It unfortunate that this argument or debate has entered the relm of political correctness(A LIBERAL CONCEPT).
If you don't think that governments around the world see this as a potential avenue for taxation and another way to control peoples lives you are one sad sack of human debris.
Listed below is another listing of very reputable scientist that believe this farce has gone too far.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming030307.htm
I'm sure that you'll find someother smart thing to say to smear these skeptics as well. Those with a politically correct agenda are very good at smearing those that take opposing views.
Remember Greenland was named for a reason. Much of it used to be green and much warmer than it is today.
"ITS THE SUN STUPID"
June 12, 2007
1:40 PM
Anonymous writes:
I think much more publicity and attention needs to be focused on this:
http://www.vhemt.org/
June 12, 2007
1:43 PM
KW writes:
Canadian economist named Ross McKitrick proposed a carbon tax plan marvelously designed to make people on both sides of the global warming debate happy.
If CO2 emissions exceed an agreed upon level, companies will be taxed at an escalating rate. On the other hand, if CO2 emissions fall below said level, the companies receive a tax credit.
June 12, 2007
1:47 PM
NW writes:
Gotta agree with KW this time....
If this is such a great proposal, let's vote on it.
June 12, 2007
1:58 PM
Shaggy writes:
The only thing this plan has is a feel good feeling behind it, kinda like when you throw a couple bucks at a homeless person or helping a little old lady cross a busy street.
Thats all it is.
Put it this way, even if Denver or all of Colorado for that fact, didn`t have electricty, no cars, no gas, no power what so ever, not even solar power, hell even if Colorado didn`t excist , we wouldn`t make the tiniest bit of difference in global warming.
We wouldn`t even make it on the Scientific variance accuracy test of plus or minus .000001% list.
Not to say we shouldn`t have energy efficient houses and cars, but that should be for personal reasons ,
This is just another way for Dickenlooper and tax Ritter to steal more money from us.
June 12, 2007
2:21 PM
Golden writes:
...beware the whims of the masses.
June 12, 2007
2:30 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
KW,
Great link. Bill Gray can expect the Gorestopo to make sure he does not get to spread his evil lies. ;-)
Proof that the government cannot be trusted with the purse strings of research.
June 12, 2007
2:46 PM
jay writes:
Hey KW...thanks for providing another skeptic that has been debunked very efficiently.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
You're not doing the 28%'er cause very much good with these kind of "sources".
kmph,
Thanks once again for proving that there is no debate about global warming...but rather simply dissent among those who find the truth politically or theologically inconvenient....such as your chosen "skeptic" James Inhofe. You would have had to try much harder to find less credible sources on climatology than the ones in your post. If I may....I suggest you google their names and global warming in the same search and see where that gets you.
In the meantime...here is Inhofe's rhetoric neatly debunked as myth:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=97
I know the 28%'ers don't have a leg to stand on in regards to this subject, but I must confess that I expected a little more...
June 12, 2007
2:47 PM
KW writes:
Gorestopo? Pretty funny Hogar.
I have read that Bill G lost his funding when he began speaking out against the alarmists on global warming. He now is completely funding his studies with his own money.
Now that's a man with dedication to his studies rather than these GW scientist who will say whatever it takes, hoping to retain more grant money.
June 12, 2007
2:58 PM
kmpk writes:
Jay,
Wow. You are one sharp dude. I guess its even politically incorrect for a politician to disagree with you
"MAN MADE" global warming zealots.
I guess Al Gore isn't a politician that low and behold is making money selling bogus carbon credits.
Your obviously upset that your theory is imploding on itself because people are starting to see it for the sham that it is.
Once again you go right on believing your politically correct version you refer to as science. The Earth is warming for this reason
"ITS THE SUN STUPID(JAY)"
June 12, 2007
3:23 PM
Robyn writes:
David: Upon what do you base your assumption that people don't do everything for the best now ?
You sound like an elitest who thinks he knows what is best for everyone. People already make the choices that are best for them. Why does the city get to decide what is best for everyone else ?
The science is weak, and the opportunity costs of implementing C02 reductions are not going to be cheap.
The poor and elderly will be hit the hardest and all for a reduction in C02 that will have no statisitcal effect on climate. Especially with China and India building 100 coal fired power plants each year for the next 10 years.
And that's assuming they can even fortell future climate accurately. It's a waste of money, and the poor will be hurt the most.
June 12, 2007
3:41 PM
jay writes:
kmkp, you said,
"Your obviously upset that your theory is imploding on itself because people are starting to see it for the sham that it is."
With 80% of the country on my side of this "debate"...who do you think is "seeing it for the 'sham' that it is"?
Are all 28%'ers (20%'ers in this instance) as delusional as you are?
June 12, 2007
4:08 PM
KW writes:
Nice link jay. A global warming alarmist website??? Their job is to stoke the fires my friend. Unfortunately all they provided about Gray is opinion. Nothing more. And of course they don't like the guy because he debunks them.
Now you can do better than that, can't you? At least put a little more effort into it.
June 12, 2007
4:17 PM
KW writes:
jay - You're a poll man. Here's a good gallup poll showing most americans aren't buying into this hype either. And since it's a poll, that must prove it to you, right?
June 12, 2007
4:23 PM
jay writes:
KW...from your article:
"One has to wonder why Americans don't demand more political action on global warming when surveys routinely find them saying they believe it is happening and are generally worried about it"
Furthermore it goes on to say that while most Americans believe in global warming...they don't believe it will be a serious problem for decades.
This in no way refutes my position.
But hey...hang in there buddy....at least you're trying.
That was just one site that debunked Gray....google "bill gray" and "global warming". There are many sites that debunk Gray's myths.
June 12, 2007
4:37 PM
KW writes:
jay - Gray is the foremost authority in his field. Someone just claiming that he is wrong isn't any more accurate about this than you are.
Show me some scientific, peer reviewed evidence showing he doesn't know what he's talking about and maybe then you'll have a leg to stand on.
Or not.
June 12, 2007
4:48 PM
jay writes:
I'll do you one better. Show me where Gray is at least nationally peer-reviewed.
If he's not, your need for clarification should dissolve, no?
June 12, 2007
4:57 PM
KW writes:
No jay. He's the foremost authority in his field. Do you need help with the spelling?
June 12, 2007
5:08 PM
jay writes:
Too easy.
"He's the foremost authority in his field. Do you need help with the spelling"
I don't...but apparently you need help with identifying the field in which Gray is the "foremost authority".
According to Wiki Gray's specialty is forecasting hurricanes, not global climate change. Furthermore:
"Gray believes that the current warming in the past decades is a natural cycle, driven by a global ocean circulation that manifests itself in the North Atlantic as the Gulf Stream. Warm water and cool water essentially rise and fall in a rhythm lasting decades. But when pressed on his theory of how thermohaline circulation has caused recent warming of the planet and will soon cause cooling, he concedes that he HASN'T published the idea in any peer-reviewed journal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray
Thanks for playing.
June 12, 2007
5:20 PM
David (R) writes:
Robyn -
Are you talking to me with your post at 3:23?
If so, let me say that I think we have enough people on here who are into calling each other names. I am no elitist by any measure.
And I would disagree heartily with your assertion that people already do what is best for themselves. Many people may do what they think is best for them, while unintentionally poisoning themselves, others, or their environment.
While I am for as absolutely little government intervention and control in the lives of the governed, part of the usual responsibility we charge government with is protecting society from others, and from ourselves.
If you had read all my posts, you would have found that I am not yet satisfied completely with the arguments and "proofs" from either camp. This middle ground stance pisses off several of my "there is no doubt of global warming" friends to no end. While I believe that our climate is warming, as can be seen in recent weather records, I feel that there are many variables, each of which can affect the others, and much more work must be done to try and understand these causes and interactions.
You may also have noticed that I stated that either way, if we reduce pollution of the planet, and gain a deeper appreciation of our home, we would reap rewards accordingly.
Hardly controversial or argumentative statements. However, you are entitled to your opinion.
June 12, 2007
6:49 PM
ScottyDog writes:
Recycling-Another Feel Good Measure
Remember when we were all told to separate the trash and especially sort the newspapers so that they would not pollute the earth. It takes more energy to make recycled paper than to use virgin pulp grown on tree farms.
Yet another example where the whole program was a scam that benefited only the politicians that gave recycling jobs to relatives and increased fees at waste management Inc so they could make big bucks on sorted Trash pickup. Recycling costs taxpayers 8 Billion dollars a year in subsidies!
The only recycling that works is aluminum cans.
The latest proposal in Denver will not be any different.
Penn & Teller BS has a great program on recycling and proves that most of it is just a big fraud:
Penn & Teller: BS! – Season 2, Epsisode 05 - Recycling
"It's the ultimate "feel-good" activity. But here's the truth: recycling garbage is one of the most wasteful activities in America”
“The recycling industry creates pollution, has to be subsidized by the government because it's not cost effective, and is completely unnecessary.”
“Contrary to popular belief, our landfills are not running out of space - we have enough room to last for thousands of years! So how did the bullshit of recycling get started? We've tracked down the faceless bureaucrat who's responsible!" J. Winston Porter, a pencil-pushing cubicle dwelling Bureaucrat at the EPA who lied to congress telling them we were running out of land fill space.”
June 12, 2007
7:51 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
KW,
The Gorestopo learned their peer review techniques from Stalin. Shoot one and the rest fall in line.
June 12, 2007
9:20 PM
David Hakala writes:
"When government mandates the stick on private industry it concerns me. I'm not sure you have to manipulate markets to bring about desired results," says Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz (who gets a nod for being the only council member to vote against Denver's smoking ban.)
Denver's government already manipulates the trash pickup market by providing service at no charge. Private firms do indeed charge variable rates based on trash volume and kind. You should support such a change in Denver's trash pickup service in order to restore government neutrality in this market.
The free market is a wonderful thing, but it is not perfect. One of its greatest shortcomings is that it allows private entities to shift some of their costs to others without the latter's permission. It is a legitimate government function to prevent such unilateral cost-shifting between private entities. Self-checkout stations at supermarkets are an example of cost-shifting from the store to the customer. I always have the option to make an employee scan and bag my groceries, so that's OK. However, I do not have any option to make a company pay for its own pollution. That's your job.
I don't know how the mayor plans to implement mileage-based insurance in Denver. Insurance rates are already mileage-based, in part. But his idea has merit. Those who drive more pollute more and consume more. They also have more accidents, and cause accidents without being directly involved in them. Perhaps Denver could encourage cleaner and less dangerous alternatives to driving, and reduce cost-shifting by uninsured motorists, by imposing an insurance premium on each gallon of gas sold in the city. The money could be used to compensate victims of uninsured motorists within the city limits.
Likewise, I have no idea how the mayor could give parking priority to energy-efficient vehicles or carpoolers. Only attendants at gated parking lots could identify qualifying vehicles. Denver has too many parking lots.
Heavy users of electricity and natural gas drive higher marginal costs of production. It is appropriate to discourage waste among heavy users by imposing higher marginal costs upon them. Broadband Internet access costs more than slower dial-up access, and it's more expensive to provide it. The social benefits (read: taxable income) that heavy users of resources produce are irrelevant in the cost equation. I pay more for broadband whether I use it to earn $100K or nothing.
Energy-efficiency standards for new construction and resold buildings make as much sense as any other building code provision. They protect the buyer as well as the community. They maintain property values and taxes.
I hope that Faatz will consider the mayor's proposal in its complex entirety, and not dismiss or oppose it based upon a simpleminded opposition to any government action.
June 12, 2007
9:31 PM
jay writes:
Hogar and KW,
I find it amusing that the peer review process is so threatening to the right wing. If one has strong, valid, credible positions, there is nothing to fear from peer review, but would rather encourage it. I guess if peer review routinely exposed my sources as ridiculous I wouldn't be a fan of it either. That being said, I'm not sure "spite" is a valid argument for disregarding this extremely accurate method of validating scientific theory.
dictionary.com--
peer review
–noun evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in the same occupation, profession, or industry.
merriam-webster--
peer review
Function: noun
Date: 1969
: a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field
wiki---
Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field. The peer review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields.
The process of peer review is considered critical to establishing a reliable body of research and knowledge. The peer-review process is often considered in the scientific community to be a certification of validity.
June 12, 2007
10:03 PM
kmpk writes:
Jay,
It is a sham
"IT IS THE SUN STUPID"
And it has become political correct science.
It is not settled science. There is doubt now and people are starting to see through it.
"MAN MADE" global warming is imploding as a theory.
The Earth will cool again but not because of what man does but because the Sun will start to play nice again. You and everyone of your ilk are nothing more than scare mongers.
Go sell your man made global warming to the martians and the SUV's they're driving. They might take offense to you calling it man made however.
I'll say it really slow for you Jay
"ITTTTTSSS THEEE SUUNNNN STUUPIIID"
June 12, 2007
10:19 PM
Gary writes:
People in Denver have to understand that Hickenlooper's plan has nothing to do with global warming. He wants a major tax increase to finance all of his social engineering schemes and he wants to enhance his credibility with the left-wing fringe of the Democratic Party well in advance of the convention in 2008. Citizens of the City and County of Denver will be sacrificed to further Hick's career.
June 12, 2007
10:28 PM
jay writes:
kmkp, you are certainly entitled to your opinions...there is nothing wrong with following your heart or emotions...but personally I think I'll side with the following academic institutions that have all endorsed the position that global warming is a real occurence and man is contributing to it:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusion:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
You seem like a very passionate guy on the subject kmkp...but it certainly appears that the experts disagree with your conclusions. Why would you disagree with the majority of scientists in the field who say you are wrong? I understand that the right wing spin machine has made believing in science an admission of "left wing" or "liberal" leanings...but come on...you don't want to endorse emotion over logic, political loyalty over credible data...do you?
June 12, 2007
10:42 PM
kmpk writes:
Jay,
All those institutions are all fighting over the same grant money that sustain their existance. And yes, these days its the politically correct institutions that come into the grant money.
And we all know "MAN MADE" global warming is the politically correct argument.
June 12, 2007
10:48 PM
jay writes:
You got it kmkp...it's all a vast conspiracy.
Don't worry, your tinfoil hat will protect you.
June 12, 2007
11:06 PM
kmpk writes:
Jay,
You don't need to where a tin foil hat to realize that its all about the money. You go ahead and put your faith in Al Gore and his carbon credits and that other upstanding institution the UN to solve a problem that can't be solved through government regulation.
You can't regulate solar activity. Hows your theory going with the martians and their melting icecaps. We all know that their global warming must be caused by the SUV's they are driving on the red planet.
You are the cartoon poster child of scientific political correctness.
June 13, 2007
7:13 AM
Anonymous writes:
Scotty DOg says:
Penn & Teller BS has a great program on recycling and proves that most of it is just a big fraud
Dude, you may want to expand your reference materials beyond the scope of late night comedians...Maybe that is why you failed in the medical coding program at Parks College.
June 13, 2007
8:20 AM
robert zimmerman writes:
> “The recycling industry creates pollution, has to be subsidized by the government because it's not cost effective, and is completely unnecessary.”
Earlier this year, the City of Denver estimated that landfill disposal costs $50 per ton and that recycling costs $25 per ton.
How is that not cost effective?
June 13, 2007
9:29 AM
KW writes:
Sorry to have to set you straight again jay but you seem to crave the attention.
Wiki says:
So, as you can plainly see, Professor Gray isn't just a hurricane forecaster (and if that isn't extremely climate related I don't know what is), he also heads the atmospheric science center at the university. Are you complaining he doesn't have enough knowledge on this subject?
From ABC News:
Like I said, foremost authority in his field.
And you really shouldn't disect a quote when you use it as a reference. When you feel the need to stoop that low you've already lost the argument. So I'll give you the quote from wiki without loping off the end:
Try and keep it truthful next time jay. What little creditbility you have left is waning.
June 13, 2007
10:20 AM
David (R) writes:
Instead of the present urinary olympics competition we seem to have going on, maybe we can look at things from a bit of a different view?
I say this because there are many scientists on both sides of this issue who disagree with each other - and as I mentioned yesterday, if they can't agree, how will we be able to agree? Can we actually discuss some of the science that is being used to base the global warming assertions? For example, I'll start with one:
CO2, or carbon dioxide, is generally listed as the main culprit that is causing global warming, or GW. So, the sources I've seen listed for this include:
1) Animals and humans exhaling
2) Automotive emissions
3) Natural creation by the oceans
4) Decomposition of leaves, grasses, and other plant matter
5) Cow flatulence (I kid you not)
There are others, but these are the ones I recall being the "biggies". Notice that there are several (the majority) on this list that we can really do nothing about - #s 1, 3, 4, and 5. Now, the oceans have been around for billions of years. How about the plants? Hundreds of millions, if not billions as well. Fairly recent research shows that plant life on the North American continent is far greater than it was a thousand, or even a hundred years ago, probably due to reforestation efforts and peoples migration to new locations where they transported their lifestyles and foliage.
In the last few hundred years, the population of the Earth has gone from, what, a billion perhaps, to more than six billion now? (I don't know the actual numbers) In that time, we've also seen the rise of industrialization on a mammoth scale, the introduction and elevation of the automobile, jet airliners and private planes, harnessing nuclear power, and the widespread use of electrical power plants based in coal, natural gas and propane, nuclear, and some oil-derived.
There are a number of other inputs that have to be considered in the analysis - the shift of Earth's magnetic field, unusual escalations in solar activity, mans ventures into space that pierce the delicate upper atmospheric layers, the number of thermonuclear and conventional armaments that have been detonated, the extensive usage of asphalt and various building materials that attract and retain heat, damming rivers for various purposes, mans encroachment into wilderness areas and the rapid extermination of numbers of animal species, and this list could go on for quite some time.
Can anyone, even scientists who almost always specialize in a specific area, begin to unravel the interplay in literally hundreds of variables? Perhaps they can, but even if so, what do we have to compare current research results to? A mere few hundred years, at most, of verifiable data, such as weather records, with most all of the data prior to that time coming from speculation and assumption, which may or may not be correct.
So my biggest question is, where is all the data stored, along with the sources, assumptions, and exclusions, and who performs all the primary analysis and cross-analysis between inputs?
June 13, 2007
10:21 AM
ScottyDog writes:
Scotty DOg says:
Penn & Teller BS has a great program on recycling and proves that most of it is just a big fraud
RE:
“Dude, you may want to expand your reference materials beyond the scope of late night comedians...Maybe that is why you failed in the medical coding program at Parks College.
Posted by on June 13, 2007 07:13 A”
I have never attended Parks College. or failed any college class. (BS and MS at Cal Poly magna cum laude) In this case, Penn and Teller have it right. The only recycling program that works is Aluminum and the rest are subsidized with tax dollars.
BTW, that is why Recycled disposal is $25 a ton but that does not include tax subsidies. The national average is $150 a ton with the subsidy of sorting, bailing, trucking, fuel and eventual disposal when there is no market for the materials.
June 13, 2007
10:28 AM
robert zimmerman writes:
> BTW, that is why Recycled disposal is $25 a ton but that does not include tax subsidies. The national average is $150 a ton with the subsidy of sorting, bailing, trucking, fuel and eventual disposal when there is no market for the materials.
You misunderstood or I didn't say it clearly. Denver pays $50/ton to landfill stuff and $25/ton to recycle stuff. Obviously, both of those numbers, by definition, are not only tax-subsidized, but are entirely funded by taxes.
June 13, 2007
10:34 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Jay,
The problem with peer review is that it has metastasized outside the realm of science. If I publish the present temperature of earth, it would need to be evaluated based on a recognized standard for arriving at that figure. Where do you take the measurement? When do you take the measurement? How often do you take the measurement? Even after you have agreed on those parameters, would the information actually be relevant, because you are not measuring in all places at all times? So even if all the scientists agree on where, when and how often, they have no way of proving that their information is relevant.
So if just arriving at a temperature is so difficult, how can they ever hope to prove that any activity is going to have a given effect on the climate. And as there are no do overs in life, they can never prove that any course of action actually had an effect on the climate.
Math, Physics, Chemistry and Biology all deal with things that can be observed and repeated. Climatology can certainly be observed and using technology like doppler radar, we can hopely improve our odds of avoiding bad weather, but the idea that Al Gore can tell me what temperature we are going to have in 100 years is beyond laugable.
Dae Hakala,
Great comments.
June 13, 2007
10:49 AM
David (R) writes:
By the way, for those of you pondering electric cars, here are my three faves, in order of my preference:
(you'll have to put the "h" back on the front)
ttp://www.teslamotors.com/index.php
ttp://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero/
ttp://www.zapworld.com/
Each of the first two beat the Viper in 0-60, although they are very expensive. The third is affordable for almost anyone, and they make fuel and electric versions.
June 13, 2007
11:03 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
David (R)
GM seems to be very serious about the future of electric vehicles. I can't wait to see what the Gorestopos find to complain about when GM is all electric.
http://kww.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/12/chevy-sequel-boss-wants-to-remove-cars-from-the-environmental-de/
June 13, 2007
11:50 AM
David (R) writes:
Hi Hogar -
I will be really glad when we have electric cars and can charge them via solar - that will be a big improvement.
And I wasn't very clear on the electric car price issue for the zap cars - they have multi-fuel versions that are affordable for most folks, but the electric versions are still pretty costly, mainly an effect of R&D recovery and battery costs.
June 13, 2007
1:17 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
David(R),
What I can envision is charging stations where you pay for parking and a charge at the same time. It could also be incorporated into interstate food/hotel stops to all cross country trips without a lot of hassle.
June 13, 2007
1:31 PM
jay writes:
KW,
My bad...you can use your non-peer reviewed, hurricane forecasting specialist as your source on global warming...I think I'll side with the folks whose specialty is actually global climate change...and who are already peer-reviewed and not "working on it".
Hogar,
As I mentioned before, if your positions are solid and valid, you have nothing to fear from the peer review process.
David,
I think you are pretty level headed most of the time and sometimes just need more credible info in order to evolve your understanding of a subject. Sorry in advance for the length of this post, but I think it's important to put this "debate" in perspective and shed some light on who indeed is fueling the "dissent". I've hijacked a few blurbs from various sites to give you a hand. In addition...see the list of accredited institutions that I listed below how have endorsed similar conclusions. For instance, two of the most well respected scientific organizations on the matter the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have endorsed the conclusions contained in this accredited, peer reviewed report.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Many folks who would use politicians and talk show hosts for their "sources" on global warming are led to believe that there is a debate among scientists about its validity or even a lack of scientific consensus on the problem....nothing could be further from the truth. If you look at the scientific journals, you will not find anything of the sort. The consensus of almost all climate scientists is that global warming is already happening, that human actions are causing it, and that it will cause major problems for our planet. Of the hundreds of climate scientists in the world, there are only a handful who are still doubters. When the TV news gives both “sides” equal time, it is seriously misleading the public about the current state of climate science. The earth’s climate is enormously complex, so there are still plenty of research questions to keep the scientists occupied for a long time. Still, the overwhelming consensus is that we are causing a serious problem for the near and distant future. The “debate” about global warming exists only on the TV news and the op-ed pages of the newspapers.
If one chooses to believe the likes of Rush and Drudge, they may be fooled into believing that "it's the sun stupid"...ironic use of words considering the facts.
The claim that the sun -- rather than human activity -- is primarily responsible for global warming has been trumpeted by nationally syndicated columnist John McCaslin, who wrote in his March 2 Washington Times column that a February 28 National Geographic News article "cites 2005 data" showing similar warming trends on Earth and Mars as "evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun." In fact, the National Geographic News article, to which conservative Internet gossip Matt Drudge linked, did not itself assert the existence of evidence that "changes in the sun" are largely responsible for global warming -- as McCaslin suggested -- but rather reported on "one scientist's controversial theory." The article first quoted "Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University" saying that the claim that the sun is largely responsible for global warming is "completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion" and that it "contradict[s] the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC report." The article added that "[t]he conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun" and that "most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now." The article further reported that "the biggest stumbling block in" the theory is the "dismissal of the greenhouse effect," and quoted Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who said that "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice."
Rush Limbaugh made a similar claim in September 2005, selectively reading on his nationally syndicated radio show from a year-old article to falsely suggest that a 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research found that an increase in solar brightness is the sole cause of global warming. In fact, the article, which appeared in the London Telegraph in July 2004, specifically noted that the study's lead author did not believe increased solar brightness was responsible for the dramatic rise in global temperatures over the past 20 years; according to the parent organization of the group that conducted the study, solar brightness "plays only a minor role in the current global warming."
Two days before Gore testified, Drudge purported to reveal several "[p]roposed questions" that "could lead [sic] Gore scrambling for answers!" One question asked:
How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn't it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?
MYTH: The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.
FACT: There is no debate among peer reviewed scientists about the basic facts of global warming.
The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.
MYTH: Even if global warming is a problem, addressing it will hurt American industry and workers.
FACT: A well designed trading program will harness American ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively, jumpstarting a new carbon economy.
Claims that fighting global warming will cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfounded. In fact, companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money. The cost of a comprehensive national greenhouse gas reduction program will depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for the reductions and the means of implementation. An independent MIT study found that a modest cap-and-trade system would cost less than $20 per household annually and have no negative impact on employment.
Experience has shown that properly designed emissions trading programs can reduce compliance costs significantly compared with other regulatory approaches. For example, the U.S. acid rain program reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 30 percent from 1990 levels and cost industry a fraction of what the government originally estimated, according to EPA. Furthermore, a mandatory cap on emissions could spur technological innovation that could create jobs and wealth. Letting global warming continue until we are forced to address it on an emergency basis could disrupt and severely damage our economy. It is far wiser and more cost-effective to act now.
MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?
FACT: Although water vapor traps more heat than CO2, because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2.
Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has warmed.
The best way to lower temperature and thus reduce water vapor levels is to reduce CO2 emissions.
MYTH: Volcanoes release much more carbon dioxide than humans.
FACT: Not so much. Volcanic activity is 0.02 to 0.05 Giga-tons/year. [Note: 1 Peta-gram (PgC) = 1 Gigaton (Gt)] Humans produce 8 Gt/yr (and climbing). Volcanoes elicit a far more dominating cooling effect due to atmospheric dispersal of particulates and sulfur dioxide. In addition, there has been no recent increase in volcanic activity � and the volcanic activity we have seen has actually slowed global warming.
MYTH: The Earth (and its carbon cycle) is too big for humans to affect it.
FACT: While the Earth exchanges a great deal of carbon between the ocean, atmosphere, soil, and biosphere, it is the net balance which is of greatest concern to us. Without human influence, this regulatory process produces a net carbon increase of 0.0 Gt/year. During 1850-2000, through a combination of fossil fuel burning, cement manufacturing, and land-use changes, humans added a net 174 Gt of carbon. This caused the majority of an increase from 288 ppm (parts per million) to 369.5 ppm of CO2. As mentioned above, we currently add 8 Gt/year to the atmosphere.
MYTH: Scientists get paid big bucks to skew their data to indicate global warming.
FACT: Again....not so much. There is little commercial funding available for research designed to support global warming. It is far more lucrative to produce research denying global warming. With little exception, funding for climate research is provided by governments, which do not attach conditions to the results of the research.
Logically, of course, it doesn't make sense that corporations or governments would want to fund skewed studies that indicate their entire way of living is threatening the planet. And with tens of thousands of scientists producing research indicating human-induced global warming, the task to compromise the ethics of so many esteemed professionals would be, to say the least, challenging.
MYTH: Global warming and extra CO2 will actually be beneficial — they reduce cold-related deaths and stimulate crop growth.
FACT: Any beneficial effects will be far outweighed by damage and disruption.
Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal communities, contaminate water supplies with salt and increase the risk of flooding by storm surge, affecting tens of millions of people globally. Moreover, extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts and floods, are predicted to increase in frequency and intensity, causing loss of lives and property and throwing agriculture into turmoil.
Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, scientists now think that the "CO2 fertilization" effect on crops has been overstated; in natural ecosystems, the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than desirable species.
Higher levels of CO2 have already caused ocean acidification, and scientists are warning of potentially devastating effects on marine life and fisheries. Moreover, higher levels of regional ozone (smog), a result of warmer temperatures, could worsen respiratory illnesses. Less developed countries and natural ecosystems may not have the capacity to adapt.
The notion that there will be regional “winners” and “losers” in global warming is based on a world-view from the 1950’s. We live in a global community. Never mind the moral implications — when an environmental catastrophe creates millions of refugees half-way around the world, Americans are affected.
MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.
FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing some of it.
People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)
Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.
We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.
MYTH: We can adapt to climate change — civilization has survived droughts and temperature shifts before.
FACT: Although humans as a whole have survived the vagaries of drought, stretches of warmth and cold and more, entire societies have collapsed from dramatic climatic shifts.
The current warming of our climate will bring major hardships and economic dislocations — untold human suffering, especially for our children and grandchildren. We are already seeing significant costs from today's global warming which is caused by greenhouse gas pollution. Climate has changed in the past and human societies have survived, but today six billion people depend on interconnected ecosystems and complex technological infrastructure.
What's more, unless we limit the amount of heat-trapping gases we are putting into the atmosphere, we will face a warming trend unseen since human civilization began 10,000 years ago. (IPCC 2001)
The consequences of continued warming at current rates are likely to be dire. Many densely populated areas, such as low-lying coastal regions, are highly vulnerable to climate shifts. A middle-of-the-range projection is that the homes of 13 to 88 million people around the world would be flooded by the sea each year in the 2080s. Poorer countries and small island nations will have the hardest time adapting. (McLean et al. 2001)
In what appears to be the first forced move resulting from climate change, 100 residents of Tegua island in the Pacific Ocean were evacuated by the government because rising sea levels were flooding their island. Some 2,000 other islanders plan a similar move to escape rising waters. In the United States, the village of Shishmaref in Alaska, which has been inhabited for 400 years, is collapsing from melting permafrost. Relocation plans are in the works.
Scarcity of water and food could lead to major conflicts with broad ripple effects throughout the globe. Even if people find a way to adapt, the wildlife and plants on which we depend may be unable to adapt to rapid climate change. While the world itself will not end, the world as we know it may disappear.
MYTH: Recent cold winters and cool summers don’t feel like global warming to me.
FACT: While different pockets of the country have experienced some cold winters here and there, the overall trend is warmer winters.
Measurements show that over the last century the Earth’s climate has warmed overall, in all seasons, and in most regions. Climate skeptics mislead the public when they claim that the winter of 2003–2004 was the coldest ever in the northeastern United States. That winter was only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single year of cold weather in one region of the globe is not an indication of a trend in the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire planet.
MYTH: Global warming can’t be happening because some glaciers and ice sheets are growing, not shrinking.
FACT: In most parts of the world, the retreat of glaciers has been dramatic. The best available scientific data indicate that Greenland's massive ice sheet is shrinking.
Between 1961 and 1997, the world’s glaciers lost 890 cubic miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air temperatures are the most important factor behind the retreat of glaciers on a global scale over long time periods. Some glaciers in western Norway, Iceland and New Zealand have been expanding during the past few decades. That expansion is a result of regional increases in storm frequency and snowfall rather than colder temperatures — not at all incompatible with a global warming trend.
In Greenland, a NASA satellite that can measure the ice mass over the whole continent has found that although there is variation from month to month, over the longer term, the ice is disappearing. In fact, there are worrisome signs that melting is accelerating: glaciers are moving into the ocean twice as fast as a decade ago, and, over time, more and more glaciers have started to accelerate. What is most alarming is the prediction, based on model calculations and historical evidence, that an approximately 5.4 degree Fahrenheit increase in local Greenland temperatures will lead to irreversible meltdown and a sea-level rise of over 20 feet. Since the Arctic is warming 2-3 times faster than the global average, this tipping point is not far away.
The only study that has shown increasing ice mass in Greenland only looked at the interior of the ice sheet, not at the edges where melting occurs. This is actually in line with climate model predictions that global warming would lead to a short-term accumulation of ice in the cold interior due to heavier snowfall. (Similarly, scientists have predicted that Antarctica overall will gain ice in the near future due to heavier snowfall.) The scientists who published the study were careful to point out that their results should not be used to conclude that Greenland's ice mass as a whole is growing. In addition, their data suggested that the accumulation of snow in the middle of the continent is likely to decrease over time as global warming continues.
June 13, 2007
1:38 PM
jay writes:
(cont'd from below. had to split up post in order to bypass the blog software)
MYTH: Accurate weather predictions a few days in advance are hard to come by. Why on earth should we have confidence in climate projections decades from now?
FACT: Climate prediction is fundamentally different from weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather.
It is often more difficult to make an accurate weather forecast than a climate prediction. The accuracy of weather forecasting is critically dependent upon being able to exactly and comprehensively characterize the present state of the global atmosphere. Climate prediction relies on other, longer ranging factors. For instance, we might not know if it will be below freezing on a specific December day in New England, but we know from our understanding of the region's climate that the temperatures during the month will generally be low. Similarly, climate tells us that Seattle and London tend to be rainy, Florida and southern California are usually warm, and the Southwest is often dry and hot.
Today’s climate models can now reproduce the observed global average climates over the past century and beyond. Such findings have reinforced scientist’s confidence in the capacity of models to produce reliable projections of future climate. Current climate assessments typically consider the results from a range of models and scenarios for future heat-trapping emissions in order to identify the most likely range for future climatic change.
MYTH: As the ozone hole shrinks, global warming will no longer be a problem.
FACT: Global warming and the ozone hole are two different problems.
The ozone hole is a thinning of the stratosphere's ozone layer, which is roughly 9 to 31 miles above the earth's surface. The depletion of the ozone is due to man-made chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). A thinner ozone layer lets more harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation to reach the earth's surface.
Global warming, on the other hand, is the increase in the earth's average temperature due to the buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities.
MYTH: Most of the global warming in the past 100 years occurred before 1940:
FACT: During a panel discussion of global warming on a May 2006 edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Rob Pollock falsely claimed that "most" of the global warming that has occurred "over the past century ... happened before 1940." In fact, according to an analysis of "global-mean surface temperature[s]" last revised in January 2006 by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, "It is no longer correct to say that 'most global warming occurred before 1940' ":
Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that "most global warming occurred before 1940". More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade.
MYTH: No scientific consensus that humans are the primary cause of global warming
FACT: Media figures, including MSNBC host Tucker Carlson, have claimed that "[t]here's no consensus" on "why" the "world is getting warmer." As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) share the consensus view that, as stated in a June 2006 NAS report, "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming" of the planet. An IPCC report released in February found:
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-produced] greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR's [Third Assessment Report] conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.
Additionally, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, media figures frequently claim that there is insufficient evidence that humans are contributing to global warming. On the July 29, 2006, edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys, Weekly Standard executive editor and co-host Fred Barnes denied that humans are a cause of global warming. After co-host Morton M. Kondracke stated that "[g]lobal warming is a fact," Barnes replied, "Yeah, but who caused it? You don't know." When Kondracke replied, "Humans," Barnes retorted: "No. You don't know that."
(This is why folks like KW and kmkp aren't necessarily dumb...but rather just a victim of their sources)
MYTH: Greenland and Antarctic ice is increasing, not decreasing
FACT: A CEI ad, "Glaciers," claimed that scientific studies have proven that "Greenland's glaciers are growing" and that the "Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner." But as the weblog Think Progress noted, the Greenland study found increased snow accumulation only on the island's interior, while separate studies conducted during the same period found significant melting among the coastal glaciers. Further, the lead author of the study on Antarctica issued a public statement accusing CEI of a "deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate." According to the statement, "Growth of the ice sheet was only noted on the interior of the ice sheet and did not include coastal areas. Coastal areas are known to be losing mass, and these losses could offset or even outweigh the gains in the interior areas. ... The fact that the interior ice sheet is growing is a predicted consequence of global climate warming."
On Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fred Barnes made a similar claim, asserting that the "hysterical position is to say that sea levels -- based on some glaciers in some places melting -- based on that, sea level is going to rise 20 feet. ... It's getting colder in Greenland." Du Pont's Wall Street Journal column also claimed that "the coastal stations in Greenland had actually experienced a cooling trend." But climate scientist Petr Chylek of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, who found in a 2004 report that "Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend," published a study a year later that attributed this cooling trend to local climate patterns -- specifically, the North Atlantic Oscillations (NAO). Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland -- an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO -- and found that the rate of warming there was 2.2 times faster than the global average. This corresponds with United Nations climate-change models that show Greenland warming at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and partially explains the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet in recent years. In addition, recent studies documenting the increased melting in Antarctica and Greenland, as well as studies of past ice-sheet melting, have strengthened the case for accelerated sea-level rise over the course of the next century.
Even when it is accepted that ice is melting, media figures have suggested that scientists don't know why they are melting. In a segment on "the health of our planet" on the September 13, 2006, edition of NBC's Nightly News, host Brian Williams showed recently released NASA images of the Arctic from 2004 and 2005 and said that the difference between the two demonstrated "an abrupt shrinkage ... equal to an area about the size of the state of Texas." Williams stated that the ice is not "shrinking that much every year," adding that "[s]cientists can't say yet whether global warming is the culprit." However, according to the scientist and author of the NASA study on the Arctic ice meltdown to which Williams was presumably referring in citing the Arctic images, new data show "the strongest evidence of global warming in the Arctic so far."
June 13, 2007
1:45 PM
jay writes:
(almost done)
MYTH: The "hockey stick" study has been shown to be a fraud:
FACT: The so-called hockey stick study, by a team of researchers led by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, showed a recent spike in global temperatures. The study has become a conservative bete noire, a white whale that righties have pursued all the way up to congressional hearings. According to Inhofe and other skeptics, the congressional investigation discovered that the hockey stick is worthless and thus that the entire edifice of climate science has fallen. The congressional investigation did not, in fact, find that. They found small errors in Mann's statistical methods, but the main finding was that the basic results of the study -- the recent spike in global temperature -- are basically sound and have since been confirmed by numerous other studies using a variety of methods. The hockey stick is a conservative obsession, but it's ultimately a sideshow.
MYTH: Scientists used to predict a "coming ice age"
FACT: In the 70s, they were predicting an ice age -- now they're predicting warming! Those scientists and their kooky hype. Only, that never happened. A few media reports hyped the possible ice age, but scientists never did. Climate science has been developing, as science is wont to do. Early on, there was some question about which "forcings" would be dominant, the ones that cool us off (e.g., pollution blocking sunlight) or the ones that warm us. Because scientists, unlike Senators, cannot find all the information they need in their own rear ends, it took a while to settle the issue. But now it's settled -- the warming forcings have it, by a mile.
And, as a bonus, here are a few rhetorical tricks (as opposed to factual errors) to watch out for:
-Use the words alarmism, hysteria, and hype at least once a sentence, more if possible.
-Instead of attributing claims about climate science to scientists -- the ones who originally made them -- attribute them to "the media" or "Al Gore" After all, saying that the majority of scientists are flat wrong kinda makes you sound ... CRAZY. But everybody loves bashing the gov't and the media!
-Equate political involvement with financial involvement. Climate skeptics, almost to a man, receive funding from fossil fuel industries. But scientists concerned about global warming, like the legendary James Hansen, support political candidates that promise to do something about it. Bias here, bias there, same thing, right?
June 13, 2007
1:50 PM
jay writes:
(last one)
Now that we've gotten some of the accredited information out of the way in regards to some of the far right wing myths about global warming...I should tell you that there are those on the fringe of the right wing who have also "published" myths about the rest of the world's view (80% of the the US population) about GW. You can find such information here:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/green.htm
I think those who choose to side against science on this issue (and others quite frankly) have one of a couple of problems. I believe the main issues are that these "Deniers" either let the bible or their politicians and talk show hosts provide them with "what they need to know" about global warming. I'm not saying that the Deniers aren't welcome to their opinions...but let's recognize them as such and consider their relevance to the debate according to the relevance of their "sources".
I'll leave you with a few quotes:
The whole (global warming) thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability.--Jerry Falwell (did Jerry get anything right?)
Some of the scientists, I believe, haven’t they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming? There’s a lot of differing opinions and before we react I think it’s best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what’s taking place.--W
With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it.--James Inhofe, Republican Congressman
Despite the hysterics of a few pseudo-scientists, there is no reason to believe in global warming. The Earth’s ecosystem is not fragile, and humans are not capable of destroying it.--Rush
A leading climate expert from Colorado State University says the idea that humans are responsible for global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media, and by scientists trying to get grant money. Dr. William Gray is a noted global warming skeptic who says the current heating of the earth is part of a natural cycle.---Britt Hume (Already debunked...right KW?)
The only documentable "truth" that can be known is that mean global surface temperatures increased about a half-degree Celsius between 1850 and 1940 and by another 0.3 degrees since then. Most of the warming in the 20th century was in the period between 1900-1940, when man-made greenhouse gases were considerably less influential.---Mike Rosen (whose opinions are debunked above)
We have observed that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.--James Dobson
No matter how much liberals try to dress up their nutty superstitions about global warming as "science," which only six-fingered lunatics could doubt, scratch a global warming "scientist" and you get a religious fanatic.--mAnn Coulter
I think there’s an emerging consensus that we do have global warming. You can look at the data on that, and I think clearly we’re in a period of warming. Where there does not appear to be a consensus, where it begins to break down, is the extent to which that’s part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it’s caused by man, greenhouse gases, et cetera.--Dick Cheney
June 13, 2007
2:13 PM
Loser? writes:
Wow. Can anyone say?
June 13, 2007
2:16 PM
Over taxed writes:
How many of you commenter’s that support the home efficiency standards are Denver residents?
I’m a Denver resident. I bought my home in 2001. My home is a nice, ranch style, brick home in Harvey Park. It was built in 1959.
I’ve have invested 30K in my home for a new roof, gutters, game room, deck, doors, locks and many other amenities.
Those of you that support these proposed tax increases (that’s what this really is)
Yet aren’t Denver residents should be lining up to buy my home right?
Ya’ll would be willing to foot the bill for those new windows right?
I mean, after all, you should put your money where your mouth is, correct?
As if the declining home values (while I invested greatly) weren’t bad enough, now I’m supposed to somehow squeeze out more equity to pay for those windows?
Last I checked that’s a 10 to 15k expense.
June 13, 2007
3:00 PM
robert zimmerman writes:
> new roof, gutters, game room, deck, doors, locks and many other amenities.
Hmm. I invested a bunch of money into my 1970s trilevel for a new, more efficient furnace and AC, loads of insulation, high-quality double-paned windows, and xeriscaping.
Now I'll do the fun stuff like a new kitchen, while enjoying utility costs that are about 40% lower than when I moved in.
Nobody made you buy a game room.
June 13, 2007
3:42 PM
over taxed writes:
Robert,
The furnace and hot water heater were actually replaced months before I bought the place.
So they’re still under warranty.
I have insulated and made my home as energy efficient as possible short of replacing the homes original windows.
You’re missing the point. The government has floated the proposal to force me replace perfectly working equipment in my home before I’m allowed to sell it.
That cost offsets almost all of the equity earned in the six years I’ve owned the house.
That isn’t right.
My energy bill is affordable…or at least I’m able to pay it. Why would I invest 15K into a house that my family will soon outgrow?
My (very young) children have benefited greatly out of the carpeted game room. They’ve learned to crawl and walk in the nice new child proof room.
What would they have gained in replacing the windows?
June 13, 2007
3:52 PM
David (R) writes:
Hi Jay -
Thanks for (all) of the information - I have been in meetings, but plan to read it all tonight. The few that I glanced at look like they contain quite a bit of good, supported information. I appreciate the obvious effort you have invested in putting this information up.
Part of the issue for us average Joes is that we seldom have the education in specific areas to fully understand all of the information. Another part of the issue is all of the information that exists in any given area of research and analysis, much less all the areas. I've long accepted that my limitations don't negate proof that others understand.
Being a long-time "tree hugger" (though not radical) I don't believe that jobs should be gained at any cost to the planet, or that environmental protection laws should be set aside for convenience. I think most people can see and understand that we simply cannot continue to consume resources and pollute our environment at the present pace - we all have to come to grips with that, find and utilize alternate sources of power, and learn to do with a little less if that's what it takes. Just my opinion.
June 13, 2007
3:52 PM
Dixie Lee Ray writes:
Let's see:
Global warming = Warmer surface temperature
Warmer surface temperature = Increased evaporation of ocean water
Increased evaporation of ocean water = Increased storm precipitation
Increased storm precipitation = Cooler surface temperature
Therefore:
Global warming = Global cooling!!
I knew there was a logical explanation for this!
June 13, 2007
4:04 PM
KW writes:
That's good jay. We figured these guys can always dupe at least a few of you.
You go the way of the last global cooling scare, endorse the costs that will produce no change and I'll keep my money in my pocket.
See you in a few years when the next cooling trend begins.
PS No refunds.
June 13, 2007
4:09 PM
jay writes:
Dixie, water vapor actually traps more heat that a comparable amount of CO2.
June 13, 2007
4:34 PM
jay writes:
KW,
At some point you should at least peruse the info below. Here's a relevant expert.
MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.
FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing some of it.
People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)
Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.
We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.
June 13, 2007
5:06 PM
KW writes:
jay says: FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing some of it.
That's only the theory jay. Nothing has been proven. There are scientists who strongly disagree as well. Your key word there is "some." Most dissenting scientists say about 1% is manmade and we can't alter the other 99% enough to make any diffference. I'm not saying we need to clean up our act (so to speak), we just don't need to freak out and throw 13 trillion dollars at it. If we do there won't be any money left to throw at global cooling when it returns.
I thought we finished this already.
Go ahead and write a check to Al & Co and I'll keep my money. Not Al OR Denver OR Colorado will be getting any extra from me.
June 13, 2007
5:23 PM
Anonymous writes:
If you want to decrease CO2, stop breathing.
June 13, 2007
5:37 PM
jay writes:
"There are scientists who strongly disagree as well. "
I guess since you're still spouting debunked myths you have failed to read my previous posts....I'll just cut and paste the relevant sections for each of your far right wing talking points.
Many folks who would use politicians and talk show hosts for their "sources" on global warming are led to believe that there is a debate among scientists about its validity or even a lack of scientific consensus on the problem....nothing could be further from the truth. If you look at the scientific journals, you will not find anything of the sort. The consensus of almost all climate scientists is that global warming is already happening, that human actions are causing it, and that it will cause major problems for our planet. Of the hundreds of climate scientists in the world, there are only a handful who are still doubters. When the TV news gives both “sides” equal time, it is seriously misleading the public about the current state of climate science (and apparently 20% of Americans like you KW are falling for it). The earth’s climate is enormously complex, so there are still plenty of research questions to keep the scientists occupied for a long time. Still, the overwhelming consensus is that we are causing a serious problem for the near and distant future. The “debate” about global warming exists only on the TV news and the op-ed pages of the newspapers.
People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)
Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
MYTH: The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.
FACT: There is no debate among peer reviewed scientists about the basic facts of global warming.
The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.
"Most dissenting scientists say about 1% is manmade and we can't alter the other 99% enough to make any diffference"
MYTH: The Earth (and its carbon cycle) is too big for humans to affect it.
FACT: While the Earth exchanges a great deal of carbon between the ocean, atmosphere, soil, and biosphere, it is the net balance which is of greatest concern to us. Without human influence, this regulatory process produces a net carbon increase of 0.0 Gt/year. During 1850-2000, through a combination of fossil fuel burning, cement manufacturing, and land-use changes, humans added a net 174 Gt of carbon. This caused the majority of an increase from 288 ppm (parts per million) to 369.5 ppm of CO2. As mentioned above, we currently add 8 Gt/year to the atmosphere.
"I'm not saying we need to clean up our act (so to speak), we just don't need to freak out and throw 13 trillion dollars at it. If we do there won't be any money left to throw at global cooling when it returns."
MYTH: Even if global warming is a problem, addressing it will hurt American industry and workers.
FACT: A well designed trading program will harness American ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively, jumpstarting a new carbon economy.
Claims that fighting global warming will cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfounded. In fact, companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money. The cost of a comprehensive national greenhouse gas reduction program will depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for the reductions and the means of implementation. An independent MIT study found that a modest cap-and-trade system would cost less than $20 per household annually and have no negative impact on employment.
Experience has shown that properly designed emissions trading programs can reduce compliance costs significantly compared with other regulatory approaches. For example, the U.S. acid rain program reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 30 percent from 1990 levels and cost industry a fraction of what the government originally estimated, according to EPA. Furthermore, a mandatory cap on emissions could spur technological innovation that could create jobs and wealth. Letting global warming continue until we are forced to address it on an emergency basis could disrupt and severely damage our economy. It is far wiser and more cost-effective to act now.
"Go ahead and write a check to Al & Co and I'll keep my money."
You know why the far right always points their disbelief in Gore's direction? Because claiming that all those scientists are wrong makes you look crazy...
June 13, 2007
5:50 PM
robert zimmerman writes:
> The furnace and hot water heater were actually replaced months before I bought the place.
In that case, I'd be very surprised if they didn't meet energy-efficient criteria.
Who says "thou shalt replace thy windows"?
You're taking a generic statement (house must be energy-efficient before it can be sold) and making up some specific requirements.
In any event, energy-efficient houses sell for more than wasteful ones. I rather doubt that anyone will lose money (except Xcel, and who can argue with that?)
June 13, 2007
8:48 PM
kmpk writes:
Jay,
Its dorks like you that motivate me to keep filling up my SUV. I'll laugh tomorrow morning when I fire it up and I'll thinking of you and every other moron that doesn't think this is all just a money grab. Look at Denver. The UN wants the ability to raise money off this bullshit. I've read other post and one guy really hit the nail on the head.
ITS THE SUN STUPID
June 13, 2007
8:56 PM
kmpk writes:
Good to see Jay is still hard at it spewing his propaganda. People wake up. Governments are using this as an opportunity to tear money out of our pockets.
Global Warming is the new religion.
Its become much like the communist movement. Scientists that disagree with global warming are silenced or lose their grant money to continue their research. People like Jay want us to spend trillions of dollars trying to solve a problem we cannot solve because
"ITS THE SUN STUPID"
Global warming will be debunked in the next several years and everyone like Jay will need to find a new religion.
June 14, 2007
8:20 AM
over taxed writes:
Robert
>In that case, I'd be very surprised if they didn't meet energy-efficient criteria.
They are. I didn't claim that I would need to install a new furnace and hot water tank.
>Who says "thou shalt replace thy windows"?
You’re correct. I’m assuming, knowing full well that the best way to make your house more energy efficient is to have moden double pained windows, high quality (and well installed doors) and insulation.
Besides that, this entire situation is hypothetical right now. So we’re all assuming some or none of these measures will pass.
>In any event, energy-efficient houses sell for more than wasteful ones. I rather doubt that anyone will lose money (except Xcel, and who can argue with that?)
Here’s where you’re dead wrong. If these new requirements pass all homes will be energy efficient. That means the all of those energy efficient improvements to your home (THAT YOU CHOSE TO DO) are now worthless. You have no advantage over anyone else. Your house and all others are the same. Your investment will be nullifies.
See the point? I decided to insulate my house. I’ve already decided to put in better more efficient doors. The government didn’t have to “Force” me to do so.
And in fact, if I decide that it will be cost effective to replace my windows then I will do so. I just don’t feel I should be strong armed into doing some by an overzealous local gov. Especially one that refuses to see the real issue which is over population. The same people that are making this a sanctuary town that in effect encourages the local population explosion are trying to restrict how much energy I use?
That makes no sense. Fix the root cause.
Oh, and you’re very naive if you think Xcel is going to lose money. Remember what the water companies did when the lawn watering restrictions went into place? Yup, they raised the price to make up for the lack of consumption. Xcel will do the same thing.
June 14, 2007
9:06 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
So Al Gore believes so much in GW that he is going to stop jetting all over the place and ride a bicycle instead right? Bueller ... Bueller...
Buying carbon credits is the moral equivilant of buying slave credits in Lincoln's day. To bad he didn't think of slave credits, we could have skipped the whole part about killing 2% of the country.
BMW just introduced the Hydrogen 7, the worlds first Hydrogen powered luxury car. That is a good thing. We can definitely invent our way out of any problem that may exist, but not if we do another knee jerk reaction like we did with DDT, while listening to the sort of hysterical rantings of Rachel Carson.
Just say NO to the Gorestopo.
June 14, 2007
9:35 AM
Over Taxed writes:
Good lord.
"It's about the money stupid"
Turns out, the CH2M Hill rep responsible for this money grabbing proposal, Benita Duran, is a 47 year old (middle aged) Hispanic, divorced, female BOULDER RESIDENT making 130 grand a year.
Replace the (h)
ttp://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_6134124
notable quotes:
"FreedomWorks, a conservative group, argues that the plan "is compromised from the top." The co-chairman of Denver's Climate Action Plan task force is Benita Duran, an executive with the global firm CH2M Hill. "
"After all, it's not as if Denverites have acted recklessly. According to a city inventory of planet-warming gases, residents, despite living more lavish lifestyles, do not add any more greenhouse gases in their everyday lives today than they did 15 years ago."
This is scary stuff.
June 14, 2007
9:51 AM
jay writes:
kmkp,
I have to thank you. You are providing a great conduit for educating the right wing folks out there who have some serious misconceptions about global warming.
"Scientists that disagree with global warming are silenced or lose their grant money to continue their research. "
Many folks who would use politicians and talk show hosts for their "sources" on global warming are led to believe that there is a debate among scientists about its validity or even a lack of scientific consensus on the problem....nothing could be further from the truth. If you look at the scientific journals, you will not find anything of the sort. The consensus of almost all climate scientists is that global warming is already happening, that human actions are causing it, and that it will cause major problems for our planet. Of the hundreds of climate scientists in the world, there are only a handful who are still doubters. When the TV news gives both “sides” equal time, it is seriously misleading the public about the current state of climate science. The earth’s climate is enormously complex, so there are still plenty of research questions to keep the scientists occupied for a long time. Still, the overwhelming consensus is that we are causing a serious problem for the near and distant future. The “debate” about global warming exists only on the TV news and the op-ed pages of the newspapers.
The overwhelming majority of scientists are in agreement about the following fundamental assertions: 1) the world has been warming and will continue to warm for the foreseeable future, 2) the warming is largely due to human activity (burning fossil fuel - oil, coal and gas - and destroying forests), and 3) the consequences of rising temperature, in all projected futures, are grave enough to warrant global action.
How do we know this? In 1988 the U.N. established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is a body of over 2000 scientists and experts from around the world who gather periodically to review the existing peer-reviewed literature of the relevant science. The skeptical scientists, by the way, are invited and are even among the lead authors of working groups. The summary documents are reviewed word for word, with industry and skeptics in the room. The IPCC's methods are rigorously fair to dissent, and incomparably thorough. The IPCC only began to assert the fundamentals in 1995 and since then has increased the conviction of the wording in its summary statements.
Here is the summary of their latest conclusions,
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
These conclusions have been endorsed by the following organizations:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
"ITS THE SUN STUPID"
If one chooses to believe the likes of Rush and Drudge, they may be fooled into believing that "it's the sun stupid"...ironic use of words considering the facts.
The claim that the sun -- rather than human activity -- is primarily responsible for global warming has been trumpeted by nationally syndicated columnist John McCaslin, who wrote in his March 2 Washington Times column that a February 28 National Geographic News article "cites 2005 data" showing similar warming trends on Earth and Mars as "evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun." In fact, the National Geographic News article, to which conservative Internet gossip Matt Drudge linked, did not itself assert the existence of evidence that "changes in the sun" are largely responsible for global warming -- as McCaslin suggested -- but rather reported on "one scientist's controversial theory." The article first quoted "Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University" saying that the claim that the sun is largely responsible for global warming is "completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion" and that it "contradict[s] the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC report." The article added that "[t]he conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun" and that "most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now." The article further reported that "the biggest stumbling block in" the theory is the "dismissal of the greenhouse effect," and quoted Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who said that "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice."
Rush Limbaugh made a similar claim in September 2005, selectively reading on his nationally syndicated radio show from a year-old article to falsely suggest that a 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research found that an increase in solar brightness is the sole cause of global warming. In fact, the article, which appeared in the London Telegraph in July 2004, specifically noted that the study's lead author did not believe increased solar brightness was responsible for the dramatic rise in global temperatures over the past 20 years; according to the parent organization of the group that conducted the study, solar brightness "plays only a minor role in the current global warming."
According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.
There has been work on reconstructing past trends in solar irradiance over the last century before satellite records were available. Acording to the Max Plank Institute there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940.
This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century that coincides with the warming from around 1900 til the 1940's. This trend in irradiance is responsible for large portion of that trend, together with around the same portion from CO2 forcing.
This is a great chart that monitors the trends in Solar, Volcanic and Ozone factors in relation to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. You can see that with those three factors at relatively static levels, it is extremely difficult to make the ridiculous argument that solar, volcanic or ozonic activity are at fault for the rise in greenhouse gases...not that you don't give it a heckuva try.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Hogar,
Again...do you know why right wingers attack Gore's credibility on this subject? Because saying you don't believe the nearly all the scientists on this matter makes you sound crazy.
You might as well call 80% of Americans Sciencestopos instead of Gorestopos. I know you're at odds with science on many subjects...and with that track record...why would you think you still have any credibility on such matters?
June 14, 2007
10:01 AM
Over taxed writes:
Jay,
This isn't even about global warming. It's a money grab by CH2M hill and a Boulder elitist.
How much, in dollars, will these changes if implemented cost you?
I know how much it will cost the sponsor. $0.00
I know how much it will cost me to replace my functional windows.
10 to 15k.
Something smells.
What does Benita, specifically CH2m have to gain? Contracts.
What do I gain? Can you truly say that this expense will help?
June 14, 2007
10:13 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
To follow up with overtaxed comments regarding Benita, CH2M Hill and Mayor Hickenlooper.
End coroporate donations to politicians now.
http://www.freedomworks.org/newsroom/press_template.php?press_id=2220
June 14, 2007
10:21 AM
jay writes:
I'm aware of the original topic, over taxed...but often at the RTL we get off on tangents. I was responding in particular to some of the sentiment that any attempts at curbing global warming were futile because global warming is a "myth" or simply caused by the sun. I believe that any discussion must start with some basic truths established (for instance the majority support for a path to citizenship in the immigration debate or the superiority of embryonic stem cells) or the discussion itself is inherently flawed. By the way...what are your thoughts on GW?
Am I sure that Hick's program will be a success? Of course not...any more than I know that the Rocky's will be above .500 this year. The point is that there are a lot of variables that will take place between now and when his "plans" are put in place...if ever. I think starting a citywide discussion now will benefit the program down the road. I am in favor of putting any such initiative on the ballot as well.
June 14, 2007
10:29 AM
ScottyDog writes:
Posted by jay on June 14, 2007 09:51 AM
So Jay, after all the cut and paste propaganda that you have posted, what is your solution to the planet warming by one degree?
How much money are we supposed to spend to lower the temperature because you have your under wear in a wad?
You Global Warming People have gone off the deep end. It is laughable that you think man can influence the weather on a global scale.
Any solutions that you offer will be instituted by force and they have not been proven despite all the propaganda you have cut and pasted here.
I guess we all should allow the scientists to govern the world according to your world view.
We still have a Constitutional Republic, thank God, and I will do everything I can as a voter to fight your World View and stop the hysterical man made Global Warming nonsense.
June 14, 2007
10:52 AM
jay writes:
ScottyDog...am I to assume that you too disregard the best minds on the planet in regards to this issue?
On what we should do:
I for one don't think we are in imminent danger of flooding Los Angeles or seeing the nation's breadbasket go to desert. I believe we can take the time to engage as many pertinent parties as possible and consider a wide variety of options to curb our greenhouse production without wrecking our economy. Will industry regulation be necessary? Who knows. I'm skeptical because of the track record of allowing industry to police itself. In what universe do corporations act in anything but their own self interest? I understand that it's business, not personal, but should that keep us from taking steps to reduce industry's harmful practices? Of course not. Should we allow paint manufacturers to go back to lead? Should we allow construction companies to use asbestos again? Of course not....and eventually we'll look at the effort to reduce our nation's effect on global warming in the same light...only on a much larger scale.
That aside, no program is going to be completely effective until we get some global buyoff from some of the major contributors. The Kyoto Protocol had its problems, but we need to consider putting together an accord of similar magnitude with a similar sphere of intended influence.
June 14, 2007
10:53 AM
Over Taxed writes:
Jay,
My thoughts on global warming are irrelevant to the topic at hand. These measures will in no way impact global warming. They will only negatively impact my pocket while lining the pocket of Benita Duran.
But because you asked, I’ll answer.
I’m not informed enough, or rather, not partisan enough to claim to know “facts”.
I can only say what I’ve seen first hand. The planet does appear to be warming.
The data, to this point, has not in my opinion supported the idea that man has caused the warming. The jury is still out.
But your slight of hand in changing the topic isn’t unnoticed. Let’s focus on the real topic. Money. This is a money grab plain and simple.
I’ve already provide the names and the corporation that stand to benefit. You admit to not knowing if these measures will have any affect other then draining the pockets of the middle class while the sponsor lives safely away from the proposed regulations.
Now that I’ve answered your question please answer mine.
What, in dollars, do you expect these measures if passed will cost you personally?
June 14, 2007
11:07 AM
robert zimmerman writes:
>Especially one that refuses to see the real issue which is over population.
If the real issue is that overpopulation causes global warming (and I can't disagree with that a whole lot), then it doesn't matter at all where those people live--Denver or El Salvador or Bangalore.
Red herring.
June 14, 2007
11:12 AM
jay writes:
Taxed, your thoughts on GW are entirely relevant to this discussion. Either you believe we should be taking action to curb our contribution to gw without wrecking our economy or you choose to disregard overwhelming evidence in support of the beliefs of 80% of Americans because of political or theological affiliations and thus believe that nothing needs to be done because the problem simply doesn't exist. That would make your "cost benefit analysis" completely irrelevant due to your personal thoughts on the matter as any outlay of cost on your part would, in fact, be deemed excessive by you and the other Deniers.
As far as the costs of Hick's program...who knows...like I said before...there's a lot of season left and it's early to be playing Chicken Little when no specifics have been released. However...I'll repeat this....any additional costs will be deemed excessive by those ideologues who still haven't come to terms with GW yet. So here we are again...back to your views on GW...
June 14, 2007
11:24 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Scottydog,
Don't you know that you are a mere mortal. You cannot question the Wizard of OZ. I am Oz, how dare you come before me. Pay no attention to the little man behind the peer reviewed papers. Now get out of my sight before I scortch you with my Global Warming.
June 14, 2007
12:14 PM
Kevin writes:
Jay,
Mines have been found where glaciers have receeded. Tools were stacked up like people would be coming back the next day than it started to snow and snow and they never returned and glaciers formed. Greenland was used by the Vikings to raise crops and livestock before it was socked in by Ice. Why do all you global warming zealots disregard that the Planet was much warmer before the little Ice age set in. Now were getting warm again and you people are telling us the sky is falling. If anything the planet is getting back to normal. Any time there is a weather event now we are told by the media its because of global warming. I wanted to laugh because everytime there was some sort of global warming meeting or event it was either canceled due to snow or people were marching wearing snowmobile suits to stay warm. This planet has been warm, cold, warm, cold, warm, cold and warm again. It will continue to behave that way irregardless of what all the arrogant scientists say.
Lets clean the planet up because its the right thing to do but don't try to scare me and the millions of mindless sheep that you and your global warming buddies have successfully convinced with your preconceived global warming theories. We will cool again and I'm sure you and your buddies will tell us its man's fault.
June 14, 2007
12:22 PM
jay writes:
Kevin it sounds as if you missed my posts yesterday that dealt with a lot of the common right wing myths about global warming.
here's a relevent passage for you.
MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.
FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing much of it.
People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)
Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.
We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.
You might also be interested in this one:
MYTH: Greenland and Antarctic ice is increasing, not decreasing
FACT: A CEI ad, "Glaciers," claimed that scientific studies have proven that "Greenland's glaciers are growing" and that the "Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner." But as the weblog Think Progress noted, the Greenland study found increased snow accumulation only on the island's interior, while separate studies conducted during the same period found significant melting among the coastal glaciers. Further, the lead author of the study on Antarctica issued a public statement accusing CEI of a "deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate." According to the statement, "Growth of the ice sheet was only noted on the interior of the ice sheet and did not include coastal areas. Coastal areas are known to be losing mass, and these losses could offset or even outweigh the gains in the interior areas. ... The fact that the interior ice sheet is growing is a predicted consequence of global climate warming."
On Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fred Barnes made a similar claim, asserting that the "hysterical position is to say that sea levels -- based on some glaciers in some places melting -- based on that, sea level is going to rise 20 feet. ... It's getting colder in Greenland." Du Pont's Wall Street Journal column also claimed that "the coastal stations in Greenland had actually experienced a cooling trend." But climate scientist Petr Chylek of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, who found in a 2004 report that "Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend," published a study a year later that attributed this cooling trend to local climate patterns -- specifically, the North Atlantic Oscillations (NAO). Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland -- an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO -- and found that the rate of warming there was 2.2 times faster than the global average. This corresponds with United Nations climate-change models that show Greenland warming at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and partially explains the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet in recent years. In addition, recent studies documenting the increased melting in Antarctica and Greenland, as well as studies of past ice-sheet melting, have strengthened the case for accelerated sea-level rise over the course of the next century.
Even when it is accepted that ice is melting, media figures have suggested that scientists don't know why they are melting. In a segment on "the health of our planet" on the September 13, 2006, edition of NBC's Nightly News, host Brian Williams showed recently released NASA images of the Arctic from 2004 and 2005 and said that the difference between the two demonstrated "an abrupt shrinkage ... equal to an area about the size of the state of Texas." Williams stated that the ice is not "shrinking that much every year," adding that "[s]cientists can't say yet whether global warming is the culprit." However, according to the scientist and author of the NASA study on the Arctic ice meltdown to which Williams was presumably referring in citing the Arctic images, new data show "the strongest evidence of global warming in the Arctic so far."
June 14, 2007
12:34 PM
Kevin writes:
Jay,
You are obviously consumed by this issue and you seem to have closed your mind to all others (Reputable Scientists) that disagree with you. There is an agenda here by those that believe in Global Warming. European leaders have stated that Kyoto is not about the environment but is about the equaliztion of economies.
So Don't tell me there is no agenda because there is.
June 14, 2007
12:50 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Kevin,
Remember the first two laws of peer reviewed papers.
1. All facts that disagree with our preconceived notion are MYTHS.
2. All facts that agree with our preconceived notion are FACTS.
This is due to the fact that we said so, and you opinion doesn't count.
June 14, 2007
1:05 PM
Kevin writes:
Hogar,
You hit the nail right on the head.
Scientist are human and as humans we all want to be right.
There should always be a healthy skepticism especially where science is involved. Its fantasy to think that man can get his arms around something as complex as the global environment. A large volcano erupts and we have a summer where it doesn't get much above 80 degrees where I live. Jay in all his arrogance believes in man made global warming. There are too many very reputable scientists that disagree with his causes theories.
Man made global warming is not settled consensus science. I'm thankful that this group of people are getting a healthy push back from people that are skeptical.
June 14, 2007
1:49 PM
Over Taxed writes:
Jay with his rampant cutting and pasting has accomplished his mission.
The real debate here, Denver’s proposed money grab that’s in collusion with Benita Duran of CH2M hill, has been long since forgotten.
Heck…the blog has been moved to the archives and nothing new has been discussed.
Good job with the slight of hand, Jay.
Again I’ll ask, do you even live in Denver? Do you stand to be financially crippled by these proposed measures like many middle class Denver residents?
Call it chicken little all you want. But you’ve proven that you’ll sit and speculate about GW all day long. Why not let the truth be known and let us know what these proposals could potentially cost you.
Again, these policies were developed and are being pushed on Denver by Benita Duran.
Divorced, 130k salary, executive for a company that stands to profit on the construction contracts and she also happens to live in Boulder.
She’s safely tucked away from these proposals. I’m not.
Lets get back on topic.
June 14, 2007
1:50 PM
robert zimmerman writes:
> What, in dollars, do you expect these measures if passed will cost you personally?
Well, since these "measures" are just ideas that have been floated, it's impossible to say.
When you set up a hypothetical situation that you attribute to the other guy, and then shoot it down, it's called a "straw man." You seem to be a master of this tactic (they'll make me replace my windows! I'll have to get a new furnace! I'm guaranteed to lose money!).
Are you a Republican?
June 14, 2007
2:06 PM
Over Taxed writes:
Robert,
No, I'm not.
I didn't set up a hypothetical situation. I asked, if the proposed measures pass, how much does Jay stand to loose out of his pocket. I’m really mostly curious if he is even a Denver resident.
I know for a FACT that my windows will not meet the standards. I’ve already stated that I don’t have a need to replace the furnace? Why the lies?
There is no doubt that these measures if passed will cost me money.
And as you’ve already agreed too, we’re not addressing the root cause, population growth. Calling it a red herring is inaccurate.
This whole thing amounts to stealing money out of my pocket without any gain.
As already stated, we could all leave the state and leave to the wild animals and it would have ZERO affect on GW.
Are you a Martian? Just curious. It’s about as relevant as asking me my political affiliation. You partisan hacks are ruining this country.
June 14, 2007
2:11 PM
jay writes:
Taxed, I think we are adult enough to explore a critical tangent if needed in order to put the footing for this discussion on a proper foundation. As I said before...any extra expenditures designed to combat gw will be seen as frivilous by The Deniers...you being one of them....therefore it's an exercise in futility to speculate on the details we haven't even gotten yet...particularly with a Denier.
Kevin/Hogar,
If your positions are solid and valid, there is simply nothing at all to fear from peer review....to imply differently is either ridiculous or evidence of a complete lack of understanding of scientific theory.
June 14, 2007
2:27 PM
Anonymous writes:
Jay,
I haven't denied a thing.
You’re still trying the slight of hand and not answering a very simple question. Do you live in Denver and will you be financially impacted by these proposals.
The answer is becoming obvious.
You’re really good at this internet debating thing for sure.
Switch the subject and label people with fictitious, often hateful, tags.
Talk about being an adult….Sheesh.
June 14, 2007
2:42 PM
David (R) writes:
For what it's worth, here is a pretty reasonable write up on peer reviews. We use them extensively where I work, and have for the better part of my 33 years in Information Technology.
I wouldn't even consider letting even my very best people develop a new system, or the programs, interfaces, or databases in that system, without doing a number of system and program design walk-thrus, which is a form of peer review.
http://www.processimpact.com/articles/seven_truths.html
That's not to say that they can't become contentious at times, or that we always catch all the show-stoppers, but we would get creamed without them. Peer reviews in the academic and scientific world ensures that other talented and knowledgeable people have a chance to review, consider, validate, and test the claims that are being made. They are not perfect, but their absence would allow all manner of errors and deceit.
June 14, 2007
2:46 PM
Kevin writes:
Jays World.
1. Everyone walks, bikes, or takes mass transportation. Heavy taxation on anyone that owns an automobile.
2. Population control. 2 children maximum. Mandatory sterilization after second child. After all Jay, I know you believe there are too many people. Especially those that don't agree with you.
3. Euthenasia encouraged for people over 75 years of age with monetary incentives to relatives. Kind of like corporate down sizing.
Jay probably thinks this idea has strong potential.
4. Big government, Taxation, Freedom of Travel heavily curbed. A general loss of Freedom.
5. American sovereignty surrendered to UN through Carbon taxation. America is to blame and must be punished.
6. American Industry Destroyed.
7. Power rationing
The result. No change in global temperatures. Scientist can't figure out why none of this has helped.
They finally realize when they look up in the sky that it must truly be the sun and a cyclical environmental phenomenon here on Earth.
WELCOME TO JAYS WORLD.
June 14, 2007
2:56 PM
Anonymous writes:
ever see "Soylent Green" with Charlton Heston?
June 14, 2007
3:38 PM
jay writes:
Yes, Taxed, I live in the heart of Denver...in a 100 year old Denver Square. I don't know how the mayor's plans might affect me because it's still in the planning phase.
Now...one thing I do know for sure...is that until you wrap your mind around the fact that gw is real and that humans contribute to it...you're going to continue to have a tough time gaining credibility on the issue.
Kevin...back away from the keyboard....you're starting to creep me out a little.
I'll repost this as I think you missed it before:
I for one don't think we are in imminent danger of flooding Los Angeles or seeing the nation's breadbasket go to desert. I believe we can take the time to engage as many pertinent parties as possible and consider a wide variety of options to curb our greenhouse production without wrecking our economy. Will industry regulation be necessary? Who knows. I'm skeptical because of the track record of allowing industry to police itself. In what universe do corporations act in anything but their own self interest? I understand that it's business, not personal, but should that keep us from taking steps to reduce industry's harmful practices? Of course not. Should we allow paint manufacturers to go back to lead? Should we allow construction companies to use asbestos again? Of course not....and eventually we'll look at the effort to reduce our nation's effect on global warming in the same light...only on a much larger scale.
June 14, 2007
4:26 PM
Anonymous writes:
Jay,
Thanks for finally answering my question.
I'm not concerned, honestly, if you deem me credible or not.
I’ve been an environmentalist nearly all of my life. My father is an environmental scientist and a scout leader. (leave nothing but footprints take nothing but pictures)
I grew up in the Appalachians and saw the damage deep well mining caused. I’ve worked on river reclamation projects and reaped the benefits from the fish revival. I’ve always traveled lightly on this earth, by choice and upbringing.
As I’ve stated over and over, I’m apposed to the government, in collusion with Ch2M Hill, grabbing at my pockets with no reasonable expectation of improving the GW situation.
You, on the other hand, have proven to be completely biased and unwilling to concede that the GW science is not “fact”. You’ve chosen the partisan hack route. You’re posts on nearly every subject reek of partisan politics.
I’m not the one with a credibility problem.
I’m not the one who tries to change the debate.
And I’m not the one who hurls insults.
I’m glad you’re enjoying your time “playing” on the internet. It’s obvious that you really don’t care about the subject at hand. You only care about the senseless game of proving your manhood via the keyboard.
Good luck with that.
June 14, 2007
8:00 PM
Kevin writes:
Jay,
My Jay's World post should creep you out because being the big government guy you are you want to give government all the strings to control our lives.
Governments are using this issue to stick their hands deeper in our pockets and tell us how to live. This is defacto communism shrouded under radical environmetalism.
I as a freedom loving American am not willing to give the government that much control. You obviosly are and want big government making all those big decisions for us. Womb to the Tomb. Womb to the Tomb.
Lets give complete control to the government because scientists tell us were doomed if we don't. Not me brother. The book is still out as to the causes of global warming. You start out with the premise that A is causing B and you'll do everything possible to try and prove it. Many Scientist feel that our contribution to all this warming is very small. There is warming going on elsewhere in the solar system and the one thing all these planets and moons have in common is the Sun.
People wake up. We can't give the keys to the store to Jay and people like him. Our Freedom is at stake.
June 15, 2007
12:20 PM
jay writes:
"you want to give government all the strings to control our lives."
"Governments are using this issue to stick their hands deeper in our pockets and tell us how to live"
"This is defacto communism shrouded under radical environmetalism"
"Lets give complete control to the government because scientists tell us were doomed"
Okay...that kind of stuff still creeps me out, Kevin. You're out their big guy...but I would wager a guess you already knew that.
However...the following three myths are still very easy to debunk.
As posted before:
"The book is still out as to the causes of global warming"
Many folks who would use politicians and talk show hosts for their "sources" on global warming are led to believe that there is a debate among scientists about its validity or even a lack of scientific consensus on the problem....nothing could be further from the truth. If you look at the scientific journals, you will not find anything of the sort. The consensus of almost all climate scientists is that global warming is already happening, that human actions are causing it, and that it will cause major problems for our planet. Of the hundreds of climate scientists in the world, there are only a handful who are still doubters. When the TV news gives both “sides” equal time, it is seriously misleading the public about the current state of climate science. The earth’s climate is enormously complex, so there are still plenty of research questions to keep the scientists occupied for a long time. Still, the overwhelming consensus is that we are causing a serious problem for the near and distant future. The “debate” about global warming exists only on the TV news and the op-ed pages of the newspapers.
The overwhelming majority of scientists are in agreement about the following fundamental assertions: 1) the world has been warming and will continue to warm for the foreseeable future, 2) the warming is largely due to human activity (burning fossil fuel - oil, coal and gas - and destroying forests), and 3) the consequences of rising temperature, in all projected futures, are grave enough to warrant global action.
How do we know this? In 1988 the U.N. established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is a body of over 2000 scientists and experts from around the world who gather periodically to review the existing peer-reviewed literature of the relevant science. The skeptical scientists, by the way, are invited and are even among the lead authors of working groups. The summary documents are reviewed word for word, with industry and skeptics in the room. The IPCC's methods are rigorously fair to dissent, and incomparably thorough. The IPCC only began to assert the fundamentals in 1995 and since then has increased the conviction of the wording in its summary statements.
Here is the summary of their latest conclusions,
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
These conclusions have been endorsed by the following organizations:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
"Many Scientist feel that our contribution to all this warming is very small"
MYTH: The Earth (and its carbon cycle) is too big for humans to affect it.
FACT: While the Earth exchanges a great deal of carbon between the ocean, atmosphere, soil, and biosphere, it is the net balance which is of greatest concern to us. Without human influence, this regulatory process produces a net carbon increase of 0.0 Gt/year. During 1850-2000, through a combination of fossil fuel burning, cement manufacturing, and land-use changes, humans added a net 174 Gt of carbon. This caused the majority of an increase from 288 ppm (parts per million) to 369.5 ppm of CO2. We currently add 8 Gt/year to the atmosphere.
"There is warming going on elsewhere in the solar system and the one thing all these planets and moons have in common is the Sun"
MYTH: This is a double whammy. The other planets are also undergoing our brand of "global warming" and/or The sun is getting hotter and causing all of our warming. Therefore in either instance it couldn't be humans that are contributing to our own global warming.
Not so much. Mars is not undergoing global warming. The Mars Global Surveyor detected a decrease in the mass of the South Polar Cap between 1999 and 2005. First, this is a regional (not global) warming localized to the south pole of mars. There is no similar data for any corresponding temperature change at either the north pole or any other part of Mars. Secondly, since a Martian year is 687 days, this represents only 3 data points, which does not equate to the long-term trend we see on Earth. (Indeed, we see dramatic peaks and valleys in the yearly temperature data on Earth.) Lastly, research has shown that Mars climate is far more volatile than our own, and is quite sensitive to changes in dust storm activity and orbital variations. If most of the planets and moons in the solar system were exhibiting warming trends, that would be a valid point for argument.
While global warming could not occur without solar influx, the sun's output has been relatively stable for as long as we've studied it, and has in fact been declining in recent years. Solar variability plays a very small role, if any, in global warming.
Now...Taxed...I had no idea you were a comedian:
"You, on the other hand, have proven to be completely biased and unwilling to concede that the GW science is not “fact”. You’ve chosen the partisan hack route"
See...now that is funny. Who knew you were a master of irony. Someone like you, who is part of the 20% of Americans who choose to ignore the HUGE scientific consensus on global warming because of theological or political reasons, calling someone with my view a "partisan hack" is pure laugh-genius. Keep up the good work man.
June 15, 2007
1:49 PM
Kevin writes:
Jay,
You are the cut and paste king of the internet. Politically correct movements have a way of steam rolling and gaining momentum when the mass media and governments see an agenda they can advance. You have closed your mind to any and all other possible reasons for global warming. I'm not sold on the "Man Made" portion of this debate. All your cutting and pasting does not impress me. There are many scientists within those organizations that disagree with the MMGW scenario. Again these groups are all driven by Grant $ and the politically correct organizations tend to get the most $.
Freedom, Freedom, Freedom. You can go ahead and surrender yours but I'm not going to surrender mine.
Your post only demonstrate to me that you are panicing because America and other countries are finding out that the science is not settled and that reasoned educated skeptical voices are starting to be heard.
Say Hi to your buddy Ted Kaczynski when you see him. I"m sure you are both cut from the same cloth.
June 15, 2007
2:02 PM
jay writes:
"Politically correct movements have a way of steam rolling and gaining momentum"
Are you implying that issues with broad, peer reviewed scientific consensus don't behave that way?
"I'm not sold on the "Man Made" portion of this debate."
That's fine...you're more than welcome to your opinions. However, let's not elevate your opinions to the level of issues whose backing includes the nearly all of the greatest minds on the subject.
"There are many scientists within those organizations that disagree with the MMGW scenario"
A handful of dissenters compared to hundreds of the best climatologists and scientists in the world doesn't make this into a "debate" or mean that there isn't scientific consensus on this issue.
"Again these groups are all driven by Grant $ and the politically correct organizations tend to get the most $."
Here's the previously posted Myth/FAct piece on this blurb.
Oh...and don't forget that many of the dissenters are paid by companies that deal with fossil fuels:
MYTH: Scientists get paid big bucks to skew their data to indicate global warming.
FACT: Again....not so much. There is little commercial funding available for research designed to support global warming. It is far more lucrative to produce research denying global warming. With little exception, funding for climate research is provided by governments, which do not attach conditions to the results of the research.
Logically, of course, it doesn't make sense that corporations or governments would want to fund skewed studies that indicate their entire way of living is threatening the planet. And with tens of thousands of scientists producing research indicating human-induced global warming, the task to compromise the ethics of so many esteemed professionals would be, to say the least, challenging.
At least that last post wasn't as creepy...besides the unabomber thing...that's just flat weird.
The real question you have to ask yourself Kevin...is why are you going against science? Is it theological or political?
June 15, 2007
3:49 PM
Kevin writes:
Jay,
I feel bad for you. Your movement is losing steam and the skeptical voices are starting to be heard. I'm thankful for alternative media that is getting the word out.
Let me know what new religion you find after MMGW blows up in your face.
June 15, 2007
4:20 PM
jay writes:
"I feel bad for you. Your movement is losing steam and the skeptical voices are starting to be heard. I'm thankful for alternative media that is getting the word out."
lol...and you think that somehow the scientific consensus on global warming will eventually evaporate?
yeah....go ahead and hold your breath.
What kind of "alternative media" are you talking about? Are those the ones that aren't peer reviewed or are "opinion or emotion-based"?
June 15, 2007
4:23 PM
jay writes:
"I feel bad for you. Your movement is losing steam and the skeptical voices are starting to be heard. I'm thankful for alternative media that is getting the word out."
lol...and you think that somehow the scientific consensus on global warming will eventually evaporate?
yeah....go ahead and hold your breath.
What kind of "alternative media" are you talking about? Are those the ones that aren't peer reviewed or are "opinion or emotion-based"?
Hey....what you should take away from all this myth debunking is this.....opinions aren't as valid as data.
June 15, 2007
6:20 PM
Kevin writes:
Jay,
It takes a big man to lol when his sacred cause is starting to get challenged.
Skepticism is a healthy thing. Skeptics are challenging the science behind the theory and more and more people are taking notice.
Man Made Global Warming proponents have been alone on the stage for a long time. Not anymore buddy.
The so called consensus is starting to unravel. Sorry.
June 16, 2007
12:20 PM
jay writes:
Okay buddy, I think we're done here...unless you have any other myths that need debunking (we've already debunked the myth that there is any credible "debate" about the scientific consensus on gw).
Thanks for playing...better luck next time.