Report: This year’s odd cold snaps are due to global warming
February 1, 2010 by Tom GuayPosted in: Latest News & Views, News
This winter’s cold snap that brought freezing temperatures as far south as Miami and Key West, Florida, was caused by that old bugaboo, global warming.
That’s the conclusion made in a new report from the National Wildlife Federation (NWF).
The group predicts that the planet will continue to see more of this “odd weather,” which is caused by increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
The group and many scientists don’t like the popular lingo, “global warming,” because the planet will still get hot and cold as GHG concentrations build up. The climate problem is that weather patterns change, for example, bringing even more rain to some areas and exacerbating droughts in others.
NWF climate scientist Amanda Staudt notes in the report that, “oddball winter weather is yet another sign of how uncontrolled carbon pollution amounts to an unchecked experiment on people and nature.”
The problem is that most people think of CO2 buildup as causing a general warming of the planet. But the NFW report emphasizes that global warming also changes existing weather patterns. For example, the Great Lakes area will likely experience more snow.
Reason: Slightly warmer temperatures during winter months will prevent the lakes from freezing over, which in turn will release more water vapor from the lakes to create more intense snowstorms.
The NWF report follows a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report that 2009 was the second warmest year on record.
Meanwhile, The Washington Post also reports that in a recent public opinion survey, climate change is not a top-of-mind discussion item for Americans. Climate change came in dead last out of 21 issues facing the country today.
Tags: climate change, harsh winter, National Wildlife Federation
GreenandMore.com
Loading ...
February 4th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
So very typical. NWF, Sierra Club, Nat. Res. Defense and etc. all have a vested money interest in global warming being man made. It keeps them in business with donations. I would say it is also a conflict of interest the have the NWF sicentist doing the report. These are all the same people who said it was global cooling as the problem 20 or 30 years ago. They twist facts and leave things out that don’t fit what they want to out come to be. Same with the CARB report that cause California’s massive rules change for diesels and is costing companies millions if they didn’t go out of busniess. And now we find out the same thing was done with the report that came out against vacinations, in 1997, for kids and autism. Enough of this BS.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Allen, please explain to us your logical reason for why the polar ice is melting and breaking apart.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
I agree. But what are we going to do with all these people full of nonsense that are costing us billions?
February 4th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Allen: I agree, on all counts. The only vociferous proponents of global warming or “climate change” ( the new PC way to talk about global warming) are those making a killing monetarily or planning to… talk about conflict of interest! The UN, IPCC and all those involved in manipulating the data and failing to disclose the opposing facts are disingenuous at best. They have their interests, not those of the planet, in mind.
Brian: We need to keep the pressure on and keep spreading the word every time new information comes out that shows it is nonsense, and let your Congressional reps know you know it.
Pam: The polar ice caps are going through normal cyclical change. They have broken up before and re-formed before…all in the last 150 years. Also, very recently the reports that the Antarctic ice is melting have been disproven by the very scientists who first thought it might be a problem! As for climate change in general, the climate changes incrementally all the time, hence the medieval warm period and the mini-ice age both in the last 1500 years. Can you imagine the uproar if the 1930′s dustbowl were to happen today! The climate controls us, not the other way around!
February 4th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Oh, how I long for the good old days (60′s and early 70′s) when you just accepted the weather each day for what it was. I realize that we have done harm to the planet and that harm may or may not be increasing at an exponential rate but I am filled to the brim with studies, opinions, conflicting data, hidden emails, lobbying and everything else that goes along with the growing list of Things That I Really Can’t Do Anything About.
There. I feel better and I didn’t even have to tweet about it or put it on my Facebook page!
February 4th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
This farce has been proven false by real climate scientists. And anthropogenic Global Warming has been revealed as a massive 20+ year fraud perpetrated by the UN and the IPCC in an attempt to force global governance upon the world. Those in charge stand to make TRILLIONS from We the People.
PAM – the polar ice routinely melts every summer and reforms every winter. The net change in ice on both the North and South poles is an INCREASE not a decrease. The report regarding a decrease did not take into account the south pole. Besides, we know for a fact that CO2 levels have been more than 20 times higher in the past and it did not result in catastrophic destruction of the planet. The Medieval Warm period puts the lie to supposed rises in sea levels as the avg temp was 4 degrees centigrade higher than now, and that period was known for being one of prosperity and growth worldwide. In other words everything was better when it was warmer.
February 4th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Pam, I recommend you visit http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
for a scientific look at Arctic sea ice extent. I also recommend http://www.wattsupwiththat.com where all sorts of interesting links, articles, and comments are found.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Pam,
I hate to break the news, but the Polar Ice isn’t melting, its increasing. Please do your research instead of watching MSNBC and the like. Think for yourself.
Larry
February 4th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Good Grief!!!! re: But the NFW report emphasizes that global warming also changes existing weather patterns. For example, the Great Lakes area will likely experience more snow.
Reason: Slightly warmer temperatures during winter months will prevent the lakes from freezing over, which in turn will release more water vapor from the lakes to create more intense snowstorms.
Before anyone believes this stuff….. read this.
With the recent spate of arctic air spreading through the East, the Great Lakes are starting to freeze over, and this is likely to have a major impact on the weather this winter across the Midwest, not to mention commerce in the Eastern U.S.
As the Great Lakes are composed of fresh water, they will freeze as water temperatures fall below 32 degrees. The ability for the lakes to freeze is dependent on a number of factors, of which the major ones are the depth and size of the lake and the air temperature.
The lake that is easiest to freeze is Lake Erie, as it is the easily the shallowest and only slightly larger than Lake Ontario, which is significantly deeper. This means Erie contains about one-quarter the volume of water in Lake Ontario. In a typical winter, Lake Erie will completely freeze over by early February. Lake Huron also typically freezes over later in February, while the deeper lakes Superior and Michigan rarely freeze. One reason these two lakes don`t freeze is that air temperatures can vary by as much as 20 degrees from one end of the lake to the other.
In fact, only three times since the 1950s have the lakes even reached 90 percent fully-frozen: 1977, 1979 and 1994. In 1979, the ice coverage on Superior, Huron and Erie was complete, while Ontario and the southern end of Michigan remained generally open water. Of course, smaller bays within the lakes will freeze as the winter wears on.
(this is just a partial report from Weatherbug.com from Jan. 2010)
February 4th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
And all those people working for the oil and coal companies are not biased. Who’s making the big bucks here? The Sierra Club or Exxon-Mobil? Try looking at the facts and not some made up BS on the web put there by energy companies. There are too many wrong statements above to even try to correct.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
It is all about the money these days. We should take care of the earth to make it better for our children and grandchildren. However, to make a statement that sounds like a “blonde moment” with no scientific or physical evidence to back it up tends to “ruin” the validity factor.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Not to worry.
All the Global Warming BS will be coming to an end in November when the Libs get their walking papers anyway.
Geez, proponents. Man is an all powerful God that controls the planet?
There is a really big ball of Hydrogen and Helium that has a lot more to do with it.
The antarctic is NOT getting warmer. http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/2-CSPP-antarcticatemp.pdf
The Sun or the Earths internal heat have far more to do with Climate Change than we do. Nobody even mentions those. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659
Evidence points to internal heat or solar increases that brought us out of ice ages. Comets or asteroids have hit the planet, as we all know, causing mass extinctions and global fires. The Earths seems to have recovered very nicely thank you.
Super volcanoes regularly blow up in geologic time scales. Do they cause global cooling or warming?
The Earths magnetic pole is moving… FAST on a Geologic timescale. http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp_e.php The iron and heavy metals are moving around down there. Cause and effect? Nobody knows for sure.
Earth’s tilt on it’s axis changes.
The Earth’s orbit is NOT constant around the sun.
Lastly the sun seems to be WARMING. http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002242.html It will vary in output and has for billions of years.
Relax people, we’re a microbe along for a ride on the Earth. I’m not willing to throw money tilting at windmills, or the Sun in this case.
February 4th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
I got news for you Ray, the oil and gas companies have been lobbying FOR the Carbon Tax system as they stand to make even more billions by gaming the system in addition to stifling any competition they might have from emerging technologies as only very large corporations will be able to afford to deal with all the regulatory nonsense. Thanks to George Bush’s ill thought out emphasis on subsidies for corn based ethanol, millions of acres were diverted from producing food for people who are starving to provide fuel for clunkers. The result of this boneheaded policy has been the very real deaths of millions as food prices increased from 67% to as much as 300% for the poorest people on the planet. And as they were already on a subsistence diet, they literally starved to death so you could feel good about putting 10% ethanol in your tank. In Haiti, people were so poor that they would mix what little corn and wheat they had with mud to make it go longer. The mud pies cost 3 cents each, Since the ethanol policy was enacted the mud pies increased to 6 cents and now people were dying. There were food riots in Mexico and other nations as the prices for corn and rice skyrocketed.
The problem is that some very bad policies, which WILL result in the deaths of millions, are being proposed to solve a problem that does not exist. Additionally, even those who believe in Global Warming admit that all of the policies proposed so far will do NOTHING to mitigate the effects of anthropogenic Global Warming. It is about CONTROL, not saving the planet. Don’t be a useful idiot to the elitist a$$H##@$ who are behind these policies.
February 4th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Right on Ray, you hit the nail on the head.
February 4th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
When I see groups like NWF continue to propogate the lies, I find it disgusting. Since when does the ‘greenhouse effect’ involve cooling? But I am quite encouraged when I see so many responses from people who are for science and the truth. Remember, stay away from the Kool-aid called political correctness!
February 4th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Ray has it right! Unbelievable that so many fools will gather around nonsense. Global weirding is a cause for clear science and thinkers. A better world can come from the human race making good/better choices for the future. Fossil fuels are going to run out and as they do the price will become astronomical. We are at war now and for the past century over fossil fuels….and the price?
Global warming is the term used by fools to refute the science…..every winter…go figure.
February 4th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Any time you see a statement from the NWF, you know right off the bat it is a lie told by idiots. That has been true throughout their history.
February 4th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Regardless of whether or not you believe that people have some effect on the climate, it seems to me there are other reasons to keep toxins out of the air we breathe and the water we drink, not to mention avoid spraying toxins over the food we grow, or pumping hormones into the animals we eat.
I’m not so concerned that the planet will survive, but I am concerned with how healthy current and future humans can be if we poison ourselves constantly. There are indeed environmental effects that aren’t taken into direct consideration by individual companies, when they make their own financial decisions. It makes sense to me to add a government-imposed financial incentive, to account for the very real sociological effects that aren’t accounted for, in a company’s direct costs. I, for one, am glad that the smog in Los Angeles is so much better today, than it was 20 years ago. That kind of change can’t happen without social intervention on a large scale (such as can be effected by governments or influenced by NGOs).
February 4th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
And this is precisely the reason why I rarely post ever anywhere. Most posters seem to love spending their hours bashing others and being cynical about everything. Larry, I do not watch MSNBC, ever, and I think for myself all the time. I also read. I do not take everything at face value, but I also do not automatically dismiss everything that comes from a person or organization I do not necessarily agree with on an issue. Anyone who is constantly one-sided, narrow-minded, and refusing to even listen to another point of view is the ignorant one.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Pam, please take this in the spirit it is given. I am here to elucidate and not to bash anyone. My point is that we must resist the urge to affect sweeping legislation and regulations from a position of ignorance. Especially in light of the revelations from Copenhagen that the UN IPCC report was rife with fraud and deception by top scientists. There are unintended consequences whenever governmental force is used to alter natural market forces. I was not exaggerating when I mentioned the deaths of millions worldwide due directly to the US and UN push for subsidies on corn and rice to promote biofuels. The positive effect on the environment is negligible while the cost in human lives is very real and disastrous. In American Samoa, our congress, in their infinite wisdom, decided to force any American company employing people there to follow the minimum wage laws. The major source for jobs there was a tuna cannery. Because of the increased cost of labor they decided to move the cannery to Georgia, thus causing mass unemployment in American Samoa. Additionally, the large boats which hauled the tuna cans away would bring a load of goods for the islanders and pick up a load of canned tuna. Now those ships would bring a load of goods and leave empty as there were no tuna cans to ship. This greatly increased the cost of shipping to the island as the shippers needed to cover their costs. So, thanks to Congress, American Samoa has rampant unemployment and a near 100% increase in the cost of products shipped to the island. But, if they get a job it will pay more! Thanks Congress! This case is a small microcosm of what is to be expected on a global scale if a Carbon Tax is passed globally. Such a tax will do nothing to mitigate anthropogenic climate change, but it will destroy wealth and drive many to ruin. Those on the very bottom will starve to death (which is what they want)
February 5th, 2010 at 8:08 am
Ray, the people making the big bucks off of GW are the Al Gores of the world selling bogus “Carbon Offsets”. The oil companies are not making any more money than they did in the past and in fact will in all likelihood make more if GW is pushed. This is due to the fact that like all businesses they operate on a cost plus margin. If it costs more to operate bvecause of co2 sequestering etc they will just pass the bill on to you and me. the big losers are actually you and me because energy costs will go up. Current estimates by the EU energy gurus is that GW initiatives will increase the cost of energy by between 25 and 35%. This means that everything that uses energy will cost more. Any guess on home many products and services don’t use energy?? Can we say none?? This translates to a general drop in the standard of living for everyone. We are doing this based on the say so of some science types who intentionally deleted all their raw data, lied about the himilayan glaciers, threatened boycotts of any science publication that disagreed with them or had the ordasity to publish a study they didn’t like and conspired to supress data that disputed thier claims??? Please let me know what kind of drugs are involved that allows a person to actually ignore these facts. I will invest in the company that makes them so as to have a comfy retirement.
February 5th, 2010 at 9:17 am
I live in the great lakes area. And I remember, 20-30 years ago, when the snow would fall in Nov/Dec and that was usually the last you saw of the ground until Feb/Mar. Now it very rarely sticks around for more than a few weeks. I built snow forts and played in the snow, snowmobiles were huge around here. Now you have to drive north to find snow year round. Look at Vancouver, they are trucking in snow for the winter olymipics.
I know this is anecdotal evidence, but there deffinately seems like something has changed. If we did not pollute at all, then there would be no arguing whether or not man has that kind of power over the environment. If you think man doesn’t have any influence, I dare you to take a drink from your local stream without any filtering of the water. (just don’t send me the doctor’s bill)
February 5th, 2010 at 9:32 am
1.) Is climate Change occurring? Absolutely! Has been for billions of years.
2.) Do we have to get off fossil fuels. Absolutely!. They will run out. We get them from people who want to kill us. We buy gas to fund them.
3.) Regardless what you think of Exxon-Mobile, they know that too. They are looking for other ways to stay in business. Let them do their job.
4.) Where are the government grants for other automotive fuels? Indy has been running on Ethanol for several years now. Drag racers have been running on Methanol since 1965. We just need to get the supplies up and prices down. Ethanol is a renewable resource fuel and CARBON NEUTRAL. I’d switch two cars TOMORROW if I could find a reliable supply of E85.
5.) The Prius isn’t all green. Go look at Cadmium in Wikipedia.
6.) So man is the cause of Global Warming? consider the following:
“An average hurricane produces 1.5 cm/day (0.6 inches/day) of rain inside a circle of radius 665 km (360 n.mi) (Gray 1981). (More rain falls in the inner portion of hurricane around the eyewall, less in the outer rain bands.) Converting this to a volume of rain gives 2.1 x 1016 cm3/day. A cubic cm of rain weighs 1 gm. Using the latent heat of condensation, this amount of rain produced gives
5.2 x 1019 Joules/day or
6.0 x 1014 Watts.
This is equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity – an incredible amount of energy produced!” Source: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html
I’m all for telling the Arabs to keep their oil, but giving my money to some dim-witted bureaucrat without so much of a education in a technical degree, is like flushing it down the toilet along with the person’s job that SHOULD have got the money.
Do I trust Exxon-Mobile to keep my next car moving down the road or Congress?
I’ll bet most of Congress doesn’t even know what BTU stands for.
I’m an Engineer people. My Brother works for NOAA and has all the data. The numbers for man causing Earths climate to change just don’t add up. I know of no Technical person who doesn’t agree with me. Every day it seems some scientist gets called out on bogus data on global Warming.
It’s a Cycle People. We’re along for the ride.
Solar photovoltaics are making huge strides now. Silicon is OLD NEWS. Washington, give them the help they need.
Batteries still need work. Grants here would be a good idea.
If you want to reduce carbon output, call your Congress Person. Tell them we need more Ethanol Research NOW. Find ways to cut the Red Tape on Nuclear Plants. You could build one in two or three years without the Government BS that drags it out to 8 to 10 years. They’re STANDARDIZED AND PASSIVE these days. (I’ve had briefings on SCE&Gs two Nuclear plants in Columbia, SC.) Not Custom like the 70s (http://www.scnuclear.com/en/) Regardless of you position on Global Warming, WAKE UP! Government isn’t the solution to reducing carbon output, it is the problem.
February 5th, 2010 at 10:09 am
“Such a tax will do nothing to mitigate anthropogenic climate change, but it will destroy wealth and drive many to ruin. Those on the very bottom will starve to death (which is what they want)”
and this guy begins with “I’m not here to bash”?
The “they” would be anyone who refuses to deny the facts?
February 5th, 2010 at 10:37 am
How can all this information be wrong???? Didn’t one of our government officials (who invented the internet) win a Nobel Peace Prize for all the attention he directed to global warming? Mother Theresa really deserved the award, however it only goes to show that the Nobel Peace Prize is now a joke!
February 5th, 2010 at 11:58 am
When the solar flares start to pick up is when we will start to see how of a carbon print we have left over the last 10 years. They should start picking up again either this year or next. Right now we are in a normal down cycle (proven and plotted since the 1800s). We are in an El Nino cycle in response to that as well. When the sun starts showing its “spots and flares” again, then you will see us move into an El Nina cycle. Again, this is a normal cycle. How bad it will get depends on how quickly the sun warms up.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Mon – telling the truth regarding the effects of a global tax to fix a non-problem is not bashing. And the “they” I referred to are – Dr. R K Pachari – indian scientist (now discredited), Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy. Many UN scientists and many scientists in the US are also involved in the scam. The “they” are those in authority who are trying very hard to pass sweeping change on a global scale to control the rest of us through the carbon tax and related regulatory measures. THere is already talk at the UN of creating a carbon budget for every individual on the planet. And if you overextend the budget that you are allowed you will be fined and have your freedoms restricted. The true reason for the carbon tax is to control us. CO2 is NOT a poison, in spite of the recent EPA finding to the contrary. It is a vital gas for our planet, without which all life would soon perish. Plants need it to live and we exhale it.
Jeff – it is free market forces and the prosperity it brings which has cleaned up the environment, not government mandates and regulation. If the carbon tax were passed it would result in a net increase in pollution as the industrial plants would move to India and China and the like, where the restrictions are non existent. And would thus produce more pollution (No that is not an argument FOR regulation, they don’t have free markets either)
February 5th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
JSambdman:
I hate to disagree, but there are VERY FEW companies that would willingly pay to reduce their pollution. The only reason things are cleaner today than 20 years ago is because of government regulation. I’m not saying I want them doing everything for us, but the companies will do anything to keep their costs down, this includes ruining the environment for a larger profit.
February 5th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
20 – 30 years ago I think you are correct. No company is going to spend money they don’t have to. The current regulatory framework is inefficient and in many cases ineffective. One thing it has done is raised awareness of the real costs of pollution both in terms of waste and impact. This has resulted in a culture change where now companies look beyond the immediate gain and look at the long term cost of the waste that causes pollution. This change is not accross the board. There are still bad actors out there. We recycle 10 – 20 % of our raw materials and have changed some of our materials due to pollution concerns; some reguulatory, some cost effectiveness. This is the up side of regulation. The down side is that the regulations many times use a sledge hammer to kill a fly. They also lock companies into draconian pollution control systems even when they reduce and in some cases eliminate the original pollutant. (once regulated by MACT/BACT/NPDES always regulated.) This means there is no incentive to eliminate the polluting behavior because you are going to have to use the control equipment even if you reduce the pollution below the regulated threshold. (I have an NPDES permit even though I have not discharged any industrial pollutants since 1984 and can not get rid of the testing requirements which cost us $3800 a year.)
February 5th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Mike – William Anderson answers you best; ” regulation does, in fact, serve as a device that limits activities of people in the marketplace. However, their clear implication is wrong: they tell students that without government regulation in economic activity, the economy itself would erupt into chaos.
That is untrue on two counts. First, one must distinguish regulation (which often is specific to a certain area of business) from law (which is more general). For example, there are laws against fraud, and long before governments began to regulate the US economy, people brought alleged fraud cases to court, as well as other tort action that existed under a common law system. Thus, the allegations that without government regulation, there would be no legal oversight of markets are untrue.
The second misconception is that there are no self-regulatory aspects of individual behavior in a market setting. This does not only mean a belief that there are no self-policing mechanisms, but also that markets operate on the edge of chaos. This is patently untrue. Because private enterprise works on a voluntary basis, a business owner cannot coerce someone to do business with him. Things like loss of reputation, shoddy products, poor service and the like serve as real boundaries for business owners, who in a free market survive only by offering goods that people are willing to purchase.” The article can be found here : http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=485
February 5th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Here is a great article which shows the folly of government as environmental protector : http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=276
February 8th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Oh my! There is no global warming except in the eyes of those who stand to make a lot of money because of it. The UN climate panel is falling apart under scientific scrutiny and the climate e-mails out of the British group are proving to be a terrible embarrassment to global warming supporters. Turns out if you eliminate enough data you don’t like, you can prove any point you want to make. And as to the claim the caps are melting and polar bears are dying, well those are just lies. Polar bear populations are actually up and glaciers melt and freeze in a cyclical fashion.
Bottom line is that those who produced the “evidence” have been caught manipulating data to suit their hypothesis. That my friends is just plain fraud and those who have foisted this nonsense on us should be sued to return the funds they demanded for their pathetic research as well as be banned from the scientific community for the balance of their lives.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
There is only one good reason to deny the reality of over-consumption, dimenishing resources, and a degrading of earth’s ecosystems…….ignorance!
February 9th, 2010 at 9:24 am
Mon, The article has nothing to do with what you state. You should also define “degrade”. Mountain top mining supposedly “degrades” the environment according to environmentalists yet studies have shown an increase in the abundance and diversity of wildlife after the sites are reclaimed. Oil drilling operations in Alaska and off the coast have been shown to increase the abundance of wildlife; the one provide shelter not found in the area normally, the other acts as an artificial reef. man does indeed change the ecosystem but it is improved just as often as it is degraded.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:29 am
By degrading I mean man’s harmful effects on the environment. Sure, reclamation can work but it has been primarily by regulation.
Climate change is one of many.
February 9th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Mon – Certainly we should be good stewards of the earth, and I agree that we consume way too much – visit http://www.thestoryofstuff.com for a good presentation – however, the proposed solutions of cap and trade will do nothing to mitigate overconsumption. All it will do is to redirect the meager wealth of the masses into the greedy hands of a very few politically connected individuals and international banks. All of this will be overseen by vast, wasteful and corrupt UN bureaucracies. My issue is with the wholesale destruction of individual liberty that is being touted as the solution, when in fact such a system will more than likely increase pollution. If you want to do something that would actually help the environment and reduce overconsumption, you should be in favor of ending all government subsidies of everything they subsidize. Subsidies by their nature cause a market distortion resulting in an overproduction of the thing subsidized.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Generally I agree with you JS until you go on……with everything wrong with government…and that list is longer than I can write about. Katrina exposed the worst of the mindset that Government doesn’t work…..of course it won’t work if you don’t believe it can.
What we need to do is accept the weaknesses of Govt, understand them, improve them and act . We cannot abandon the possibility of working together to make better decisions and flourish.
Good science, good conscience can work if there is a will.
Winter is not proof the problem is not us. Nor are a few bad e-mails.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Mon, if you want to see the true degradation of the environment go to other countries. The US does a fair to middlin’ job of reclaimation and preservation. The problem with the cap and trade and other regulations is that they increase the cost of doing business in the US. net result???? the jobs and business goes overseas wherethere little or no regulation. net result???? higher levels of pollution than if the regs weren’t stiffened. This is why any air regulations aimed at GHG’s is pointless unless there is a global cap on everyone. China, a non signatory nation to Kyoto, is now the #1 polluter in both GHG’s and the more mundane SO2, NO2, PM, etc. What good is it if we cut our emissions by 10 or 20 % if they raise their’s by 50%?? (and in the process we lose 10 or 20 million jobs??). The answer is no help at all; in fact it will pollute the planet more. This is the problem with many in the environmentalist movement. They do not realize that we live on one planet and unless the regulations are across borders they tend to dfrive industry to places where they can pollute.
February 9th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Perhaps I moved to the wrong points. My view was that “Global warming” needs better understanding. The article seemed to stir up all the misunderstanding surrounding the subject and yall are focusing on Cap and Trade. Something needs to be done quickly and with enough pressure perhaps it will. I appreciate the shared thoughts and the “stuff” video is quite good. Thanks.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Guys Socialism has a 100% failure rate.
The best example of why is given below:
“An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.”
The poorer the population the worse the pollution. I’ve traveled widely in the Philippines and know that to be true. The best way to control Global Warming (If you believe in it, I don’t) is to raise the standard of living for everybody, not lower the standard of living for the producers. I’m all for helping those out at the bottom of the food chain by giving them a hand, (Habitat for Humanity is a great example.), but just giving some one something without any commitment for self improvement is doomed to failure after failure.
Want to cut CO2and Pollution? Make sure the Utilities and industry are profitable so that they can afford to do so. Taxing them and giving some lucky few the money just passes the misery down the chain as All atilities and companies pass the cost on. That just makes sure home owners can’t afford to improve their homes, buy energy efficient appliances, or energy efficient transportation or even care to do so. Jobs leave the country and move to poorer countries that don’t care about the environment.
Net result: More CO2 output. More Pollution. Not Less.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
I am a firm voluntaryist, as such I see government as the problem. The true reason for pollution is the fact that private property rights are violated so frequently by those who are charged with protecting them. If I own a particular lake, i will not overfish or pollute it as that would destroy my future revenues and degrade the value of my property, but if the lake is public, then I have no incentive to be careful with how many fish I catch or how much I pollute, as I must compete with everyone else who is fishing. There is an excellent book by Leonard Read (“I, Pencil”) here in audiobook format http://mises.org/media/3078
Also, there is an excellent series of books by political scientists James L Payne here http://www.lyttonpublishing.com/navinavisits_voluntaria.html
“Princess Navina Visits Voluntaria”, describes how a voluntaryist society might look. There is also a free audiobook of “The Market for Liberty” by Linda and Morris Tannehill here – http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/
In this book, the author goes into great detail how a society based on voluntary mutual cooperation might work. IF you believe that such a thing can’t possibly work, it is happening right now in Somalia – http://mises.org/daily/2066
I too hope we can all work toward a less cluttered, stuff filled life. I call it sustainable living. But it will start with each of us refusing to be a part of the problem on our own and doing our part to stop feeding into the destructive over-consumptive, debt riddled lifestyle we are told we should want. Buy less, use less, save more. Buy locally, grow your own food, get to know your neighbors. It would be a start anyway, and government mandates aren’t necessary to make it happen.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Greetings from eastern PA where we now have 2 and half feet of snow.
Those that post arguing that somone is “biased” for taking a position can never see that they are biased themselves and rarely put forth a coherent set of arguments rooted in evidence. They also can never seem to understand that truth or reality can be known amidst the lies and deception.
Therefore a few facts are in order. The IPCC’s own data show that less than 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere derives from manmade sources. Further, CO2 is only 4% of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (90% of it is water vapor). Yet, the global warming alarmists argue to try to deceive the public is that the ppm level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased steadily from 280 to the current 380, a 36% increase since the early 1800′s when industrialization began leaving the public to conclude that industrialization is the evil culprit. What they NEVER explain is how it can be that CO2 has increased 36% presumably due to human activity while all scientific measurements conclude that less than 3% of current CO2 levels comes from manmade sources. Someone is wrong here.
The mountain of evidence for the large increase in CO2 since the early 1800′s is the natural cycle of minute ocean temperature changes. A slight increase in ocean temperature (potentially caused by sun activity) releases dissolved CO2 into the atmosphere accounting for the change from 280 to 380 ppm. In other words, it is temperature that drives CO2 levels not the other way around! As the IPCC’s own data show, very little if any of the increase is due to the manmade sources.
One is then left to wonder what could possibly motivate people to perpetuate the fraud of AGW? That is where bias and speculation do play a part. Is it money, research grants, disdain of fossil fuel sources, earth worship, who knows? Meanwhile, they can cast aspersions at people and institutions they despise with claims that people like me are “biased” simply because we make an argument rooted in knowledge. They will rely on junk science while promoting the idiocy of “go green” in the face of all the evidence to the contrary simply to make themselves feel good about protecting the planet.