Global Cooling and the High Price of Food
by Ted Slater on 02/26/2008 at 3:49 PM
Global Cooling
Turns out we probably don't need to panic about global warming after all. According to DailyTech:
All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.... The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years.
As the non-panicky have known, the sun is (surprise, surprise) the primary cause of global warming. Solar activity has been down a bit lately, and so (surprise, surprise) temperatures have declined a bit.
Actually, this could be seen as bad news, as crops prefer slightly warmer temperatures. Those of you who are inclined to panic about this latest news on the climate change front are free to do so. As for me, I'll continue to trust that the One who created "all this" will exercise right control over the sun.
(I have to add: I don't hate God's creation. I don't advocate wasteful use of resources. I don't promote polluting either the air or the water. Just had to add that, as too many people confuse issues related to climate change with issues related to pollution.)
The High Price of Food
I'll be generous and call it an "unintended" consequences. Because of the fear-inducing words proclaimed by certain climate change profiteers, and because of purportedly well-meaning government incentives, ethanol use has skyrocketed. Ethanol, as many of you know, is being proclaimed as the environmentally friendly alternative to petroleum products such as gasoline. Though it's less efficient than gasoline (and therefore decreases your MPG pretty dramatically), it ends up in your tank anyway.
So as demand for ethanol increases, the price of corn, from which it's made, increases. It's more than doubled over the past two years. Example of an unintended consequence: The cost of tortillas has more than doubled, leaving Mexicans "in the grip of the worst tortilla crisis in its modern history."
Farmers have opted for growing this more expensive crop, rather than, say, wheat, and so the wheat supply decreases. Prices consequently rise for wheat; dramatically so. Over the past month, according to the Christian Science Monitor, the price of some types of wheat has risen 90 percent!
As ENN reports, the rising price of these staples affects so many other products:
With corn supplies tightening fast, rising prices will affect not only products made directly from corn, such as breakfast cereals, but also those produced using corn, including milk, eggs, cheese, butter, poultry, pork, beef, yogurt, and ice cream.
All because some politician thought that mandating the use of the inefficient fuel ethanol in cars would save the planet.
Why I Care
I've got a few reasons for continuing to bring up so-called global warming. First, because I care about the truth. I'm pleased to be seeing the arguments and "proof" that climate change profiteers have been promoting ... falling apart. I'm pleased because that's an indication that the truth is coming to light. As a Christian, I value truth.
Second, I'm concerned about this issue because certain individuals (including politicians and light bulb makers and others) are using fears over climate change to exert control over the rest of us, control that doesn't benefit anyone but their bank accounts.
Third, I keep coming back to this issue because it shows us that by mandating, top-down, sweeping societal changes based on flimsy global warming evidence (see section 2 above on ethanol) there may be "unintended" consequences that affect all of us.
Fourth (and I could probably add a fifth, sixth, and so on), global warming fearmongering can induce anxiety and faithlessness. What if the earth warms up 30 degree over the coming decade! What if my energy squandering causes the oceans to swallow California and Florida! What if the planet loses all vegetation because of my neighbor's SUV! Such fearful thinking facilitates faithlessness and an arrogance against those who haven't fallen for the hysteria. And that doesn't honor God.
Let's continue to continue evaluating the evidence. And if it leads us to see the sun, and not my light bulbs, as the primary cause of global warming, let's do the hard thing and admit that anthropogenic global warming is largely -- if not entirely -- a myth.
(Again, I need to add that I'm not in favor of raping the planet. I do advocate wise and gracious and loving and generous stewardship of the earth. I want my kids and yours to enjoy clean air and water. I'm content to use a bit less so that others may have a bit more. And, oh, I sure am grateful for cuddly puppies.)
1. k. said the following at 4:56 PM on Feb 26:
Ted - All right, I'll try the sandwich approach. I appreciate that you advocate good stewardship. Like you, I also care about the truth. However, I completely disagree with you on what the truth here is. You're a little too focused on grinding your axe instead of accepting that Christians can disagree on this topic.
Now for the last part of the sandwich...um, cute puppy??
2. Chris said the following at 5:18 PM on Feb 26:
From the article:
All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.... The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years.
and Ted writes:
As the non-panicky have known, the sun is (surprise, surprise) the primary cause of global warming. Solar activity has been down a bit lately, and so (surprise, surprise) temperatures have declined a bit.
I wouldn't call it the primary cause. It's a contributor, true, but not the main one. There's still disagreement as to how much. (I've read 25%, and some think the past few decades show that greenhouse gases are the major driving factor now.)
And I'd hardly call this a major trend. If you look at the graph in the article, check out what looks to be the period 1990 to 1992 (or there abouts). There's an almost equally large drop. One, in fact, that ends up lower than we are now. I can just as easily draw a simple line between those points and "claim" that temperature is absolutely, positively, going up.
To those who say this is proof we don't have to worry about global warming, will you promise to say global warming *is* a problem if, over the next two years, we see a jump like we did from 1996 to 1998, according to the chart?
In cases like this, it's best to use the old reversion to the mean rule and watch trends over time, particularly much larger time scales.
3. JB said the following at 5:27 PM on Feb 26:
Ted,
Thank you for the interesting link to the climate change data. It was an interesting read and I'll check back to see what the interpretation of the data is when they have February's data in.
I do, however, disagree with you, I think, in how you frame the whole global warming issue. I would like to see the whole debate be simply about the science and the policy and may the best data set/policy plan win. I don't think framing the issue in moral terms, other than the need to care for other people, is particularly helpful.
If you value truth, you should celebrate each additional data point as getting us closer to an understanding of our climate. If you just celebrate the data points that support your position, that's less about truth and more about your desire to be right. After all, it is possible that any of us might be wrong. More data is always good.
I am also not sure that the situation in which we believe in global warming is inferior to the situation where we do not. I think it would be difficult to show that environmentalists and light bulb makers have been worse for the world than oil and coal companies, even disregarding global warming.
As for unintended consequences, these are unavoidable whether we act or we do not. Of course it's bad to make policy based on weak evidence, but maybe it's not worse than refusing to act in the fact of a preponderance of facts.
Finally, I don't think that appropriate concern about environmental change is necessarily faithless. It could be, but that's not an intrinsic quality. And plenty of people on both sides are arrogant about their positions, whether they're crusading environmentalists or holier-than-thou libertarians.
Thanks again for the interesting links. It's definitely something to think about.
4. Matt S said the following at 5:41 PM on Feb 26:
While I agree with your basic point about ethanol not being the answer, IMHO the ethanol hype has more to do with getting the US off of foreign oil than it does with stopping global warming.
5. Ted Slater said the following at 5:45 PM on Feb 26:
Chris -- You argue that the sun is not the primary cause of global warming.
Of course it is. Yes, the internal heat of the earth affects the temperature here at the surface, but most of the heat we enjoy comes from the sun.
Greenhouse gases such as water vapor and CO2 help maintain the temperature of the earth. Without them, the temperature would drop some 60 degrees fahrenheit. But the earth itself is warmed primarily by the sun.
Here's a little factoid to consider: We're not talking about shifts of 20 degrees, 10 degrees, or even 5 degrees fahrenheit. We're talking about average global temperature changes of less than a degree over the course of a century. That's what global warming/cooling profiteers are all up in arms about....
6. Sara said the following at 6:21 PM on Feb 26:
People do know that ethanol is the same alcohol in alcoholic drinks, right? There's more than 'tequilla oil' that can fuel cars! Using corn to produce ethanol is inefficient and, at least in Canada here, people are giving up on that. Are you OK with biodiesel, Ted?
As for food prices going up, North Americans spend a smaller percentage of their income on food than anyone else. If you don't like the "high price" of food, quit supporting the middlemen who get the big profits and buy it directly from farmers. Especially meat: it can be bought in bulk and frozen, and packers get many times more money for each animal than farmers do.
I don't know any cash croppers who are making "90% more" profit on their grain. Where's that coming from? It sounds like some weird little pocket event that isn't characteristic of the big picture.
7. Josh said the following at 7:20 PM on Feb 26:
I agree that a panicky mindset isn't going to do anyone good. However I can't get behind the idea (subtly implied in the post, I feel) that taking steps you believe can stave off environmental catastrophe is a form of not trusting God. If you honestly think that we're going the wrong way in terms of our care of the planet then advocating (arguably) radical policy may be as sensible as wearing a seatbelt in the car, neither of which is betraying a distrust in divine providence.
I would also like to advocate the use of images of breeds of fuzzy puppies other then labs. Other breeds are criminally underrepresented in boundless posts :)
8. Eliza said the following at 8:00 PM on Feb 26:
This is the original article quoted by DailyTech. If you look at the graphs, the drop actually doesn't look any different from other drops in the general warming trend. I'm no scientist, but it doesn't look like a dramatic cooling to me.
Also, the author gives an "Update and Caveat" stating:
The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:
“Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”
I wish to state for the record, and with objection, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”
There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, but it does not “erase” anything. I have suggested a correction to Daily Tech.
It is my impression that instead of fear mongering, this is just some conclusions drawn from a lot of pretty objective research (like taking temperatures). I don't see anyone actually panicking about it. There are a lot of other things people panic about (like the "culture war"), but I don't see global warming to being of them. In my opinion, I wouldn't mind seeing a little more concern about it :).
My understanding is that temperature shifts in less than a degree can do crazy things to ocean currents, causing more frequent and worse storms including hurricanes and tornadoes, worse droughts and floods, and in some cases, colder temperatures and more snow! In short, global warming results in dramatic weather conditions, not necessarily just generally warmer temperatures.
9. Eliza said the following at 8:06 PM on Feb 26:
Quick comment about ethanol: Doesn't the high price of corn benefit the American corn farmer (and essentially the entire American midwest) especially because farmers receive subsidies to leave their fields fallow? I'm not really educated about this, but it seems like it would be a really good thing.
Also, I would contribute a major part of the high cost of fuel to the scarcity or high price of oil. I think it is still the oil market which defines much of the world's cost of living expenses over the supply and demand of the corn market.
10. Ted Slater said the following at 8:11 PM on Feb 26:
Eliza -- you really believe that global warming can result in colder temperatures and more snow?
I don't know how to respond to that.
The person who did the original compilation of stats didn't recant anything, by the way. He stands by his conclusion that the earth, on average, is significantly cooler now than it was a year ago.
And yes, there is a lot of fear mongering. That's how Al Gore made his millions, for example, by saying that we are a mere 10 years away from provoking "irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization." He uses terms like "catastrophe" and "planetary emergency" to describe global warming -- certainly you see those as breeding fear and alarmism, yes?
11. Ted Slater said the following at 8:30 PM on Feb 26:
Sara -- yes, I'm in favor of biodiesels, as well as most other alternate energy sources. I'd love to keep more money out of the hands of those whose ideology would see my family and me dead.
Yes, my wife and I enjoy buying at the local farmers' markets. Not much action going on now, though -- have to wait a few more months. We've looked into "getting a cow" (or going in with some friends for a cow), but haven't had any success yet. A benefit is that the meat should be better -- in our case, we're looking for organic meat.
The 90 percent figure is from the article I referenced. It may be related to crop futures or the grain exchanges....
12. Becky said the following at 8:30 PM on Feb 26:
Ted, you're definitely right about Ethanol, and it's a little scary that we use food for fuel while people in other countries are starving.
However, even mild climate changes, regardless of the cause, whether or not they're permanent, are still cause for concern.
Epidemiologists have noticed shifts in disease patterns already (fear of another cholera epidemic in Peru was the most recent story I've heard). I'm uncertain of what the best response to these issues is, but I'm pretty sure it's not ignoring them.
Global warming issues, such as burning fossil fuels often are entwined with pollution, which is a *huge* stewardship issue for Christians.
Global warming is a case where the research says many different things-often corresponding to who funded it. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle, but I personally would rather err on the side of caution and wisdom, since we will not discover what our planet can handle until it's too late. Thank you for making your anti-pollution stance clear, and I would love to see a post on practical ways to decrease waste and to be better stewards of Creation.
13. Eliza said the following at 9:02 PM on Feb 26:
Okay, I just had a conversation with my husband about the economics of corn, and he agreed that ethanol is not a good or even viable solution. Which is fine. In 100 years I'm sure we'll have a better solution!
Ted,
Thanks for responding to my comment. In my limited understanding of climate and meteorology, here is how I came to the conclusion about more snow: Rising temperatures affect the ocean currents which effect high and low pressure systems which could occasionally result in colder temperatures in places that did not have colder temperatures before. More snow would be a result of more water vapor in the atmosphere (since snow is frozen water vapor) which would be an element of the greenhouse effect. Essentially, it is the dramatic weather rather than warmer weather which will be most noticeable.
I agree that Al Gore makes his money off of other people buying his "end of the world" message, and is often inflammatory. No question. I just haven't seen that translate into hysteria. I saw An Inconvenient Truth in the theater, and it didn't change anything about my life. I recycled before, and I still do. I hear equivalent if not greater fear-mongering in other places, including FotF's often exaggerated political reporting/advocacy. In fact, I would say that equating "in the grip of the worst [Mexican] tortilla crisis in its modern history" with efforts to create clean energy as a classic case of fear-mongering.
I really appreciate your desire to come to actual truth instead of bowing to cultural waves; I like to think that is my goal as well. In what I have seen and heard from very reputable sources, humanity's contribution to global climate change is not insignificant. I don't consider this hysteria, I consider this rational thinking.
14. Eliza said the following at 9:08 PM on Feb 26:
Sorry, one more comment!
Yes, the earth is significantly cooler than one year ago. But every year shows significant change--often higher, often lower. The graph has shown frequent drops exactly like this past year's. The planet is still significantly warmer than it was 100 years ago.
15. Jacob Douvier said the following at 9:08 PM on Feb 26:
As I have said before, regardless of whether or not global warming is actually happening and is a problem, all of the supposed "solutions" are nothing but socialism. I'm pretty skeptical when the "only viable options" are ones that plant too much power in the hands of men with wicked hearts and selfish motives (Jer. 17:9).
16. Ted Slater said the following at 10:09 PM on Feb 26:
Eliza, I actually appreciate your comments. They're thoughtful, and enjoyably gracious. And I think it says a lot about a person when they recycle their "stuff." That's a responsible practice.
You write, "The planet is still significantly warmer than it was 100 years ago."
Here's my question: By how many degrees?
17. Josh said the following at 10:51 PM on Feb 26:
Ted-
I believe the question isn't "by how many degrees", but rather "We know X Degrees: What is the significance of that?"
I personally have no idea what the answer to that question is, but I want to be fair to the people who believe climate change is a pressing issue by framing the question in the right way.
18. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 11:08 PM on Feb 26:
(Sandwich approach, eh?)
Ted,
Let me start off by saying that, looking at pictures from The Boundless Show, I think you have a great haircut.
That said, I don't think that an abnormally cold winter= evidence against GW. I've seen more snow this winter than in the past five winters combined; two years ago, I was wearing a t-shirt outside in the middle of January, and last Christmas my winter jacket saw very little action. And I will remind you that I live in Canada.
Weather patterns, cold fronts, the jet stream, high pressure zones, all contribute to the cold winter we've seen. That doesn't mean GW has gone away, or that Global Cooling is occurring. It just means that it's been cold this winter. If it's cold during the summer, and cold next winter, and so on for a few years, then we can more accurately say that the world is cooling down.
To conclude, I like your glasses as well.
19. JB said the following at 11:09 PM on Feb 26:
This business about corn prices and ethanol is probably more about US agricultural policy than about global warming. The United States gives its farmers huge agricultural subsidies which are theoretically intended to preserve the culture of the small farmer but end up going to gigantic multinational companies like Monsanto. This has the effect of lowering food prices in the US at the cost of impeding the development of large scale agriculture in places like Mexico and Africa. It's now a politically popular white elephant that gets to US in trouble at World Trade Organization meetings. I think ethanol subsidies are more about making Iowa voters happy ahead of the primaries than they're about finding real renewable energy sources.
20. Liz said the following at 12:06 AM on Feb 27:
good article. i've got nothing i want to comment on besides the random puppy picture... that's just awesome.
21. BDB said the following at 12:51 AM on Feb 27:
Suzanne has a global-warming monitoring system?
22. Jethro said the following at 1:19 AM on Feb 27:
Ted,
Let's say I buy what you're selling. I'm not going to argue with you, you've heard my opinions enough.
One thing I am interested in though: Why have you chosen GW (or GC as it perhaps should be called) as the truth you must propagate? Why do you advocate this truth over the truth about how many children die every day because they don't have access to clean water and food? Why don't you try to expose the truth about dirty tactics and smear campaigns by political parties (both of them). Indulge me. There are countless worthy issues out there, why do you choose to beat the anti-GW drum?
23. Leah said the following at 1:29 AM on Feb 27:
I think ethanol efficiency depends on your car. There are cars being made these days which run ethanol fuel quite efficiently, but it's true that most existing cars (and even most new ones) are relatively inefficient with ethanol in their tanks.
Chris- I really do think the sun is the primary cause of global warming. Other planets have undergone considerable global warming as well, and that's certainly not from human pollution! It is true that humans do contribute to global warming, but it's a miniscule amount. The vast majority of it is sun and water vapour.
24. Kate E. said the following at 2:08 AM on Feb 27:
A good book to read regarding corn and our food chain is Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma." I highly recommend it.
25. obewan said the following at 6:45 AM on Feb 27:
Ted:
I agree we should not panic over GW. However, I don’t see the increase in ethanol use as tied to a desire to use cleaner fuels. My understanding is that ethanol is actually dirtier when all the diesel used to farm it and coal used to refine it is burned.
Yes, it is also less efficient (takes more energy to grow it than it yields) according to many experts. I see us using it because of misinformed or ignorant politicians who have been sold a bill of goods and who want to give lip service to the impending world energy crisis. They claim (falsely) that ethanol is a "renewable" energy source. I am very much opposed to ethanol and favor the use of liquid coal, which is not global warming friendly.
Expensive food is not tied to “global cooling”. It is tied to an energy shortage that will only worsen as the next few decades go by. In 35-50 years, billions may face starvation if we don’t learn to conserve or find efficient alternative energy sources.
While I agree we should not panic over global warming, the silver lining in the clouds may be that the so-called fear MAY force the conservations that will postpone starvation!
26. Christina said the following at 7:05 AM on Feb 27:
Ted,
From 1870 - 2007, there has been a .9 deg C rise in global temperature.
That is a .005 deg increase per year.
That is so insignificant, that I don't see how the world will fail to adjust to a rise in temperature. Who believes in adaptation?
Who believes in reading history books where civilizations have survived adverse weather conditions beyond your wildest imaginations?
Who thinks that a change in global temperature is an anomaly only significant to our time period?
Why do you think God isn't big enough to know what he's doing with the planet?
Again, like Ted, I'm not saying go out and be wasteful and stuff, but seriously people need to take a chill pill.
You can show responsibility without panicing. Acede that point and stop fighting with him on all the others. That is the PRIMARY POINT.
27. Heather Koerner said the following at 8:00 AM on Feb 27:
Ted,
If you and Ashleigh and the kids are willing to make a road trip to the great state of Oklahoma, I can arrange that cow for you (happy, grass-fed, organic and all). But not the black one with the white face--that's my daughter's. FYI, you might want to do some serious recipe searching first. Not all parts of the cow are...how shall we say it...filet mignon. By buying the whole cow, you soon come to find out why Southerners eat chicken friend steak.
28. Chris said the following at 8:06 AM on Feb 27:
Ted writes:
Chris -- You argue that the sun is not the primary cause of global warming.
Of course it is. Yes, the internal heat of the earth affects the temperature here at the surface, but most of the heat we enjoy comes from the sun.
Greenhouse gases such as water vapor and CO2 help maintain the temperature of the earth. Without them, the temperature would drop some 60 degrees fahrenheit. But the earth itself is warmed primarily by the sun.
Ted,
Perhaps I was confused by your definition. If you meant to imply that global warming is the natural warming of the earth by the sun, then yes, the sun is the primary agent.
When most people speak of global warming, however, they are referring to an increase in the climate temperature (and the associated causes). Climate models tend to show that greenhouse gases are the primary reason why the average temperature appears to be trending upwards. The sun is not the primary driver.
Here's a little factoid to consider: We're not talking about shifts of 20 degrees, 10 degrees, or even 5 degrees fahrenheit. We're talking about average global temperature changes of less than a degree over the course of a century. That's what global warming/cooling profiteers are all up in arms about....
The concern is not so much what the past change has been, but what the models are predicting. And in large, complex system, even the smallest change can have significant consequences.
But back to my original point: would you support global warming theory (e.g., not the "sun is the primary warming agent for the earth" fact) if over the next few years we saw a large increase in average temperature that "completely wiped out" the drop seen in the chart in the article?
29. Carrie (the original) said the following at 8:10 AM on Feb 27:
I'm still trying to figure out this whole global warming thing.
My step-dad's company is a "green initiative" company. They do all sorts of things to help raise awareness about global warming. He also believes that families shouldn't have more than 2 children unless they are adopting.
I came right out and asked him "So humans are like a cancer to this planet then?" He thought I was being emotional asking such a question. He said I was putting words into his mouth.
Personally, I believe that there is a lot of fear mongering that happens in the global warming debate. I'm still unsure of exactly how much and on what issues the fear mongering takes place.
I think that fuel consumption is a big part of it. I haven't done any homework on ethanol, so I'm completely clueless when it comes to that debate. However, if in the last 100 years temperatures have gone up - even if only by a fraction of a percent - how can you not equate it with increased fuel consumption?
I think if we did everything we could (from using your own grocery bags to car pooling more often) we could increase our dependence on fuel by a large amount. If we bought from local farmers, made an effort to work close to home, used our own grocery bags, and car pooled we could decrease on fuel consumption because we wouldn't be needing the large diesel trucks to haul in food to the local grocery store.
Ted, I do appreciate you raising this issue a lot. It is a nice break from the frequent debates of "who should we blame today for being single? me? the guy next to me? my dad?! who?!"
30. Eliza said the following at 9:22 AM on Feb 27:
Yay!!! Thanks Ted! I've really been working hard on presenting my thoughts articulately and with some humility because, as anyone who watched last night's democratic debate can see, attacking is just not attractive:).
Wikipedia says, "The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005". So, the earth's temperature has risen a little over 1 degree in the past hundred years. This map shows temperature fluctuations for the past 2000 years. Obviously they didn't have thermometers before 1850, so scientists use tree rings, coral growth, ice cores, etc. to estimate temperatures. Current temperatures are significantly higher than even the "Medieval Warm Period" in 1000AD.
The International Panel on Climate Change estimates that temperatures will go up between 2 and 11 degrees in the next 100 years. The reason for such a huge discrepancy is that it depends on a lot of factors, including uncertainties in future greenhouse gas concentrations. Scientists only consider humanly contributed greenhouse gas emissions to be a significant player in global warming since 1975. Prior to that, it is unclear whether temperature variations were the effect of natural or human causes.
Does 1 degree make a difference? Melting glaciers and the melting permafrost suggests that it does. Obviously those things aren't causing worldwide catastrophe at this point, but they probably are a sign of a general trend.
I choose to be concerned about the effects of global warming because I see reasonable and rather solid evidence for it and because the consequences of it being true and us ignoring it are so much worse than if it is not true and we spend money and resources combating it. I admit it is Y2K reasoning, but I'm okay with that. The fact is, ">http://128.11.143.113/english/archive/2007-04/2007-04-17-voa21.cfm?CFID=265731527&CFTOKEN=54452459"> Africa is the most vulnerable to climate change and has the fewest resources to adapt to it. I do not want them to suffer because of the waste of my own country.
Finally, is it reasonable to think that humans are playing a significant part in the warming of the planet? (Note: I am not saying that this is categorically true. What I am saying is that it is logical and probable.) Naturally I would say yes, because of the combination of three things: 1)the release of excess greenhouse gas emissions, 2)deforestation, which eliminates a major CO2 cleanup resource and creates flat earth which reflects the sun rather than absorbs it, and 3)the growth of cities, which are major heat sources.
And on this scale, 1 degree makes a difference :).
(Sorry for the long post.)
31. Priscilla said the following at 9:29 AM on Feb 27:
Ted, you said:
Here's a little factoid to consider: We're not talking about shifts of 20 degrees, 10 degrees, or even 5 degrees fahrenheit. We're talking about average global temperature changes of less than a degree over the course of a century. That's what global warming/cooling profiteers are all up in arms about....
I say:
The problem is what that "less than a degree" change means to real people -- not the scientists, not the profiteers, but ordinary people who live in places which are changing drastically because of that one degree change. For example, people in small island nations like Tuvalu or Vanuatu or in the coastal regions of poor nations like Bangladesh who are already being pushed out by the rise in sea levels. I've spoken to some of them -- they couldn't care less about the politics or the science, they aren't trying to be alarmist or cause hysteria, they're just pretty desperate about losing their homes and livelihoods. On a larger scale, there are 500 million people on the Indian sub-continent who depend on Himalayan glacier-fed rivers. Those glaciers are measurably diminishing according to every scientific study. Most of those people have never heard of climate change, have never even read a newspaper or a blog, let alone watched Al Gore's movie, but they are clearly being affected all the same.
You may not come into the category of any of those people. Most Americans may be able to ride through the effects of mild climate change with various technological adaptations. But as Christians, I think we are called to care about those who are being affected, right now, by the effects of that one degree climate change. So don't dismiss it as something mild and insignificant.
32. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:38 AM on Feb 27:
:::tongue in cheek:::
Hey Ted, now that the earth is cooling, I'd say it ought to be okay to use more than two sheets now....
33. Miss S said the following at 10:44 AM on Feb 27:
To get the USA off the dependence of foreign oil I'd like to say:
Drill Alaska!
*smile*
34. Ted Slater said the following at 10:48 AM on Feb 27:
Eliza -- This graph, this one or this one are probably more useful than the one you provided. As you'll see, we currently seem to be in a historically cool period.
Back when temperatures were supposedly 10 degrees C. hotter than they are now -- who or what was to blame? Seriously. Why were temperatures 10 degrees hotter then than they are now?
Regarding melting glaciers -- scientists say that some 20,000 years ago much of North America was covered in glaciers. I'm grateful that they melted! What caused them to melt? Nomads with SUVs and incandescent light bulbs? Or solar cycles? And the bigger question: Was it a bad thing that they melted?
I'm really not afraid of continuing this conversation. The more we talk, the more the truth comes to light, that politicians and others want to instill a sense of urgent fear in order to exert control over us and our finances.
35. Ted Slater said the following at 11:21 AM on Feb 27:
Priscilla -- you mention Tuvalu or Vanuatu. I do feel for those who may have to move because of concerns about rising sea levels.
The thing is, there have been fluctuations in sea level for as long as the earth has existed. They go up. They go down. Naturally.
According to The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (which is right in the neighborhood of the Pacific Islands you mention), there has been some variation in sea levels, "but no significant trend. Actual records of tide gauges at Tuvalu for the last 25 years, and at Vanuatu since 1993 show no traces of a sudden rise in their sea levels."
The article rightly concludes that "people in positions of political authority should be paying greater and more urgent attention to clear and present problems such as earthquakes, tsunamis, clean air, clean water and the elimination of diseases such as malaria and AIDS."
Regarding the Himalayan glacier-fed rivers, I don't know much about that, to be honest. But when I think of the Himalayans, I think of the Yangtze River. And when I think of the Yangtze River, I think of the Three Gorges Dam, which has displaced nearly 1.5 million people and flooded around 1,300 archaeological sites. Some are concerned that the dam will induce earthquakes, and may collapse -- bringing catastrophic destruction downstream.
36. obewan said the following at 11:28 AM on Feb 27:
Don't forget, it only takes a change of 32F to 33F to melt ice. The question to answer is how much territory falls into that boundary.
The Russians are happy about it because the ice that has melted already has opened up a new shipping route that has taken weeks off the shipping times!
Yes, it still could be due to natural causes, but we should not deny that things are changing for some people in the world.
37. farmer Tom said the following at 11:43 AM on Feb 27:
From NCGA, National Corn Growers Association
How much corn is in a box of corn flakes?
About 8 percent of the weight in a box of corn flakes is corn. Less than 5 percent of the purchase price reflects the corn price. The remainder of the cost is in packaging and advertising.
The following is copied from a fellow farmer on another blog. mcangus52 I don't have time to write this information out as well as he said it, so I'm quoting him. I don't know the guy, can't vouch for him other then he gave a decent presentation of the facts.
The govt is spending less on the blenders credit for ethanol than it was spending on govt payments to farmers. The people that raise your food are finally getting rewarded in the market place and people that know nothing of the cost of food are complaining.
With $4 wheat your loaf of bread had about 4 cents worth of wheat in it. Let's just say your loaf is now made of $20 wheat (it is not but hold that thought). 5 times 4 cents, viola, your bread now has 20 cents worth of wheat in it. The fact that diesel fuel is $3.50 or more for the truck to buy that is hauling your bread is influencing the price more than that.
When complaining about a subsidy to get biofuels off the ground, decide if you think our troops in Iraq amount to a subsidy for Big Oil.
Another thing, you do realize that Big Oil has not added any refining capacity in years, the added capacity has come from the ethanol plants that are now producing over 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol to help keep the cost of gasoline somewhat under control.
Back to $20 wheat, that is a somewhat synthetic price because the March contract in MN is in the delivery month and there are very few bushels of wheat in speculators hands. It is an interesting ride in the markets as corn, soybeans, and spring wheat are all fighting for acres to be planted by the farmers this year.
The other thing influencing prices is fund money seeking a way to get in on the rising tide. More long term is the economies of China and India doing well and increasing demand.
The farmers raising your food are people too, with huge investments in land, machinery and input costs. They deserve to make a profit also. Remember farmers old slogan, don't complain with a mouth full of food.
Ted while I agree that global climate change is a totally bogus scam, I think your blaming the wrong group here. Farmers are your friends, don't believe it, try going without food for a couple of months.
38. Ted Slater said the following at 11:57 AM on Feb 27:
Tom, I was careful not to say anything negative about farmers in my original post. I have a lot of admiration for those who bring life out of the earth.
It's muddle-headed politicians that I have a beef with.
39. Nick said the following at 11:57 AM on Feb 27:
@k.
AWESOME sandwich!!! Thank you SO much for writing that way. It really did help me remember that peole can disagree respectfully. Thank you for using humility in your response.
Ok, that's all. thanks!
40. Ling Ling said the following at 1:50 PM on Feb 27:
Um.....
Ted, I really don't understand your "reasoning" at all or why you so forcefully resist the idea of global warming. When you said that you realize the truth is coming to light, I expected some sort of biblical evidence as to why global warming can't possibly wreck the planet.....but there was none. I was shocked that the reason you're so sure of yourself has nothing to do with God's Word and everything to do with ideology. You don't explain HOW you know....apparently you just do. I have a hunch that your position is nothing more than a political, ideological one not backed up by sufficient evidence. You seem to have come to a conclusion before doing all the necessary research. You're coming off as extremely arrogant about this, as if you are infallible and know the truth better than anyone else, despite the fact that you're not a scientist.
I have done very extensive GW research and just finished writing an extremely long paper on it for one of my university classes. I heard arguments from both sides. You would do well to pay attention to ALL the evidence and not just the 5% that tickles your fancy. I have only seen the "sun activity" argument used in The Great Global Warming Swindle, which has largely been debunked.
And the small temperature change that people are "up in arms about" can have HUGE impacts on many many aspects of the environment, including some that could cost thousands of human lives taken by vector-borne disease.
You know, Ted....if we were more energy-conscious and more conscious of the dangerous amounts of greenhouse gases we're releasing into the atmosphere, then maybe we wouldn't HAVE to worry about faithlessness. Paying attention to real problems doesn't necessarily lead to hysteria. If you're wrong and global warming wipes out a huge chunk of the human population, then there won't be anyone to HAVE faith. "We shouldn't worry about it. Just trust God!" Well maybe God wants US to DO something about it. Ever think of that?
41. Eliza said the following at 3:02 PM on Feb 27:
Okay, Ted, those charts offer the best points you've made so far. I would have to be a scientist to actually prove that the climate change we are experiencing is different from that which occurred millions of years ago.
I'm curious, however, why you use these charts to prove your point, because I assume you are a young-earth creationist? From a young-earth perspective, those charts hold no water. But I'm more of an old-earth creationist, so I can't actually argue with your points about recent human contribution to recent warming trends.
However, it seems like a natural warming on the scale of the Jurassic period would be utterly catastrophic. Lots of dead dinosaurs attest to that. (Again, from an old-earth perspective.) In any case, we would still need to do some drastic adaptation to the new climate.
42. Ted Slater said the following at 3:14 PM on Feb 27:
Ling Ling -- thanks for joining the conversation. Great back-and-forth.
You wrote, "I have a hunch that your position is nothing more than a political, ideological one not backed up by sufficient evidence."
Truth is, my initial opposition to GW fanaticism *did* result from suspicion over political, ideological positions backed up by insufficient evidence.
As I researched the issue more, I've become convinced that it is primarily driven by politics. The evidence is a lot less supportive of anthropogenic global warming than the profiteers proclaim, and the possible consequences of climate change are a lot less severe than they claim as well.
Your conclusion is that the sun doesn't affect the temperature of the earth all that much? You're free to hold that opinion, of course.
I keep hearing the argument that *if* global warming is true, then doing nothing is not an option. The thing is, unscrupulous politicians and others are manipulating the evidence so that we'd come to the conclusion that there's "consensus" about it ... so that they might exert control over us and our money.
Their love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
As for me, I refuse to panic, but rather have faith in the Lord that the end will come in His time through His means. In the meantime, I enjoy serving the Lord and being a grateful, wise, generous, conserving steward of the environment.
43. Leah said the following at 8:53 PM on Feb 27:
obewan- the use of ethanol fuel is very closely related to being cleaner fuel. That's one of the big selling points for it in Australia. The main thing is that it's a by-product of sugar, and so you don't need an additional manufacturing process to make your fuel- it's all in the one process of making sugar. Its renewability is also a big selling point, and while you're correct that it isn't totally renewable, it is more renewable than coal. Because you can always grow more sugar cane. Growing more coal is a bit more difficult.
Ling Ling- I don't think Ted is resisting the idea of global warming at all. Rather, I'm sure he totally agrees that there has been global warming. I think the point he's arguing is that it isn't humans' fault (for the most part).
44. Caleb S. said the following at 12:46 PM on Feb 28:
"...are using fears over climate change to exert control over the rest of us, control that doesn't benefit anyone but their bank accounts.
What? That doesn't make any sense at all. Can you back this statement up?
"global warming fearmongering can induce anxiety and faithlessness."
I ardently disagree! I don't know a single soul stressing over the issue. If anything it promotes good stewardship of our resources. I think to say it causes faithlessness is ridiculous.
And, a tortilla crisis? Come on now - get real! As I read and type this post I am munching down on the best shrimp taco ever and it only cost me $2. I can go to the grocery store at anytime and by 12 tortillas for about $1.50.
45. Caleb S. said the following at 12:48 PM on Feb 28:
One more thing, is it really worth battling "the myth" of global warming? If we are called to be good stewards of the earth we should do so regardless of whether or not the earth is warming because of us.
46. John said the following at 1:28 PM on Feb 28:
check 'er out:
Cold Water on "Global Warming"
By Thomas Sowell
47. Ted Slater said the following at 2:56 PM on Feb 28:
Caleb -- I agree with you that we should be good stewards of the earth. The thing is, I don't think it's necessary to severely curtail our CO2 output in order to do so.
Pollutants are bad; the thing is, we can't lump the thing that plants "breathe" -- CO2 -- in with pollutants like sewage and true toxins.
Earlier, you questioned whether people profit from global warming alarmism. You also were puzzled that anyone would actually stress out over this. Two words to answer both concerns: Al Gore.
Finally, you express doubt about the tortilla crisis. I provided a link in the original post to an article explaining this crisis. Among the poor, it truly is a crisis.
48. Jethro said the following at 3:17 PM on Feb 28:
Ted,
You don't like Al Gore, we all know this. But so what if he has profited from talking about GW. There are countless Christians who profit immensely from talking about Christianity. Does this mean it's not a valid cause?
49. Ted Slater said the following at 3:53 PM on Feb 28:
Jethro -- Caleb asked for an example of someone who profited from global warming alarmism. I provided an example.
Caleb commented, "I don't know a single soul stressing over the issue." I provided an example.
That is all.
50. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 5:58 PM on Feb 28:
Ted:
"Caleb -- I agree with you that we should be good stewards of the earth. The thing is, I don't think it's necessary to severely curtail our CO2 output in order to do so."
I see the two as going hand-in-hand. Being good stewards of the earth will result in us cutting our CO2 output through wasting less electricity, driving more fuel-efficient cars, using less hot water, planting trees, etc.
51. John said the following at 5:24 AM on Feb 29:
CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING!!!
GET THROUGH YOUR HEADS!!!
52. obewan said the following at 6:25 AM on Feb 29:
Co2 is NOT the only pollutant.
Coal has sulfur, mercury, and uranium in it. It is very very dirty. Any thing we can do to minimize the amount of fuels consumed will help the environment.
Setting the thermostat to 75 in the summer and 68 in the winter is the best place to start. The local utility published a graph in the local paper that CLAIMED that 5-7 degrees on the thermostat was nearly a 100% difference on the electric bill. I find that hard to believe, but try it and see how much less your HVAC runs!
53. Ted Slater said the following at 10:04 AM on Feb 29:
obewan -- most GW alarmists are talking about curtailing and taxing carbon emissions. Not toxins like sulfur, mercury and uranium.
Of course pollutants (such as sulfur, mercury, uranium, etc.) are pollutants. As such, they should be minimized. Using clean coal technology is one way to do this. Nuclear energy would be, perhaps, a better way to do this.
The thing is, global warming profiteers are talking about CO2, eager to determine how best to make money off of it and limit your production of it. I'm surprised they haven't suggested a breathing tax.
I'm not sure what a "100% difference on the electric bill" would look like. Sounds like it'd go from $300 to $0, right? ;-)
54. JB said the following at 10:55 AM on Feb 29:
Ted,
If you're looking for a conspiracy to explain the global warming debate, I don't see why you're convinced that it's the environmentalists who are making the big bucks off of their advocacy. Companies like Exxon-Mobil and GM have literally billions of dollars invested in convincing the world that their main profit-making enterprise is not the cause of global warming. On the other hand, Al Gore made a few bucks from a movie. Who do you think has the greater financial incentive to manipulate the data?
A climatologist can get a lot more money from oil interests by denying global warming than she can get staying in the academic mainstream.
55. John said the following at 11:18 AM on Feb 29:
CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT!!!
56. Louise said the following at 11:50 AM on Feb 29:
Is there an echo on this blog?
57. Ted Slater said the following at 11:52 AM on Feb 29:
John -- of course it is. The very act of our exhaling reveals who God has made us to be: mere polluters.
Not only is your grandpa a monkey, but you're also poisoning the planet by your very existence.
58. John said the following at 12:13 PM on Feb 29:
Ted,
The question then is: Have I evolved to pollute less than my gorilla grandpa? Or has natural selection not gotten around to that yet?
And what is natural selection's carbon footprint? He's omnipresent like God, right?
"The world may never know."
59. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 1:43 PM on Feb 29:
JB-
Really good point. It seems that the idea that global warming is a conspiracy... is a conspiracy.
John-
I notice you've found the Caps Lock button. However, just because you type a sentence in all caps does not make it true.
For example:
"God created the world in exactly six periods of 24 hours" is not a true statement.
"GOD CREATED THE WORLD IN EXACTLY SIX PERIODS OF 24 HOURS!!!!!!"- still not true.
It also helps if you actually make arguments, instead of just statements.
Have a great day!
60. obewan said the following at 6:41 AM on Mar 3:
Regarding 100% difference on electric bill at comment #52.
I think the utility meant the bill would be 100% HIGHER (doubled) if you set the thermostat at a wasteful setting. If you don't that savings would be 50%. No Ted, we are not going to have a bill of zero! It also depends on the severity of the outside setting. If it is 75 outside and you set the AC on 75 you won't really save anything. If it is 100F like it is here in FL then you would save a whole lot!
61. Ted Slater said the following at 9:30 AM on Mar 3:
Meanwhile, millions are in danger of dying because of global cooling in China. Half a million livestock are dead, and well over a million have developed such maladies as frostbite.
What's worse? People dying because the earth gets one degree hotter or people dying because the earth gets one degree cooler?
We just can't win. Humans kill others by both their supposed warming of the earth and their supposed cooling of the earth.
Or maybe these are just natural cycles of warming and cooling, this latest cooling cycle brought on by reduced solar activity. Occam's razor....
62. John said the following at 11:11 AM on Mar 3:
Andrew makes statements without backing them up, but tells others not to do that.
It helps if you actually take your own advice and not be a hypocrite.
63. JB said the following at 11:26 AM on Mar 3:
Ted,
Remember back in April when you were claiming that global warming was being caused by the sun? (http://www.boundlessline.org/2007/04/the_dangers_of_.html#comment-67144742)
Which is it again? Or did the sun decide to reverse its 100 year warming trend in the past 10 months? You've been contradicting your own evidence.
64. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 11:37 AM on Mar 3:
Ted:
Global cooling?
Or... winter?
65. Ted Slater said the following at 12:08 PM on Mar 3:
Andrew -- what part of "the record lowest in January in the province" don't you understand?
That said, I'm glad you recognize that temperatures go up in summer and down in winter. Snow and glaciers and ice caps melt in summer; snow and glaciers and ice caps build up during the winter. Climate change takes place cyclically....
66. Ted Slater said the following at 12:12 PM on Mar 3:
JB -- I stand by what I said then. Global warming is indeed being caused by the sun. When it's more active, the earth gets more warm; when it's not so active, the earth gets less warm. Surely you follow the logic there, right?
I reiterate, for the record: The sun is largely responsible for the temperature of the earth. We'd get awful cold without it.
67. Eliza said the following at 12:18 PM on Mar 3:
Ted,
I do think it would help your case to be a little more consistent. If you really believe that there is a warming pattern (as evidenced by the above graphs and such) the cause of which is the earth's natural fluctuation, then bringing in radical seasonal variations is kind of pointless. Limited "cooling" in one part of the earth and/or encompassing only a couple of years says nothing about the long-term effects of climate change.
I'm also curious how you rationalize the "natural climate change" idea as a young earth creationist? It doesn't seem like there has been time for any significant climate change since the earth's creation, if that is your perspective.
68. Ted Slater said the following at 12:38 PM on Mar 3:
Eliza -- It's true that you can't evaluate long-term fluctuations of temperature by looking at data from but one year.
What I'm saying, though, is that there's a correlation between the sun's activity and the temperature of the earth and other planets in our solar system. When there's more activity, as we saw in the past couple of decades, the earth warmed up a tiny bit. When there's less activity, as seems to be the case now, the earth cools off a tiny bit.
Regarding your second paragraph, please see this comment for an introduction to the gap theory.
69. JB said the following at 12:47 PM on Mar 3:
Ted,
I was just curious because you linked to an article in the OP which claims that the sun's activity is declining and that this is responsible for global cooling. However, the article is from 2001 and you made a statement in April 2007 referring to the sun being responsible for a warming trend. It's not inconsistent to say that the sun is responsible for temperature, but your evidence seems to be at odds with you about the timing of the solar trends you're using for an explanation.
70. Ted Slater said the following at 1:18 PM on Mar 3:
JB et al.,
Can we cut back on the game of "gotcha"? It's like you're trying to catch me being hypocritical or inconsistent, and it gets old having to keep explaining myself.
Yes, I reference an article first published in 2001 that speaks of cycles of solar activity, and how we've recently entered into a cycle of lower solar activity.
I also have acknowledged that the temperature of the earth has gone up. And now it seems to have peaked. After a lag of a few years following a turnabout in solar activity, the temperature of the earth seems be be going down.
Please stop and think about what I'm saying, rather than trying to catch me at something that I'm not saying.
71. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:45 PM on Mar 3:
Ted has a point here.
Fact is, the strength of a mathematical model is best determined by its reliability as a predictive tool. How many scientists predicted last year's temperature drop? If this was representative of the scientific consensus, then we need some explanation...
72. Jethro said the following at 3:18 PM on Mar 3:
Ted,
You never answered my question in post #22.
73. Ted Slater said the following at 3:49 PM on Mar 3:
Jethro, you ask, "There are countless worthy issues out there, why do you choose to beat the anti-GW drum?"
I'm not sure, exactly. Let me just start writing and maybe we'll figure it out together.
Part of it is that everyone already knows that children dying from lack of clean water and food is a bad thing, and that dirty tactics and smear campaigns is a bad thing. I acknowledge that and don't have a problem affirming that.
But this issue is different. I find it fascinating that those who profit most from global warming hysteria are the ones who say that there is scientific consensus about it, when in fact there's not consensus. There's clear evidence that the sun is responsible for temperature changes, but those who stand to profit from carbon taxes and carbon credits and special light bulbs and so on reject that, instead saying that my energy use is the primary cause of climate change. The GW models predict higher temperatures, but we're having record low temperatures this year.
There's just a lot of fascinating stuff going on, and I can't *not* find myself inquisitive. Why does Nobel Award winner Al Gore say that New York is going to be under water in 10 years, when everyone else says otherwise? Why do many people say that the record cold is a result of global warming, when common sense would say otherwise? Do you not find yourself wondering what's really going on, and why GW alarmists are wanting to suppress evidence challenging their view?
The evidence for anthropomorphic global warming is weak, in my opinion, and the threat to our liberties and finances is great, in my opinion. California is talking about regulating the temperature that people keep their homes, because of GW. Those who keep their homes at 70 during the winter would be fined or jailed, it seems. Such heavy handed regulations, which result from flimsy "science," strike me as unjust.
So maybe this is an issue of justice for me.
And I find that a lot of people confuse greenhouse gases (very good things, without which we would die) with pollution. They consider those of us who are more moderate in this issue to be threats to the environment, claiming that we don't want to be good stewards of the earth. That kind of misunderstanding gets me wanting to bring clarity, which leads me to want to blog on it.
So it's this general lack of knowledge, this passion to restrict others' liberties -- based on misinformation -- that motivates me to write on this topic.
74. Jethro said the following at 7:19 PM on Mar 3:
Thanks for your thoughtful response Ted. Perhaps strangely, in my opinion, that was the most effective piece you've written in all the GW debates on here.
75. John said the following at 5:47 AM on Mar 4:
Ted,
You've got it all wrong. Now that the temp is going back down, they've changed the focus.
It's a common liberal word game. When the words no longer serve their agenda, they choose new ones.
Now it's...tah dah CLIMATE CHANGE!!!
So, now, whenever the weather is different than "normal", whatever that is, it's because of evil CO2 exhalers!
Anyway, here's a nice little link for liberals to bash as biased, funding by oil and not "scientific" enough:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/
76. obewan said the following at 10:48 AM on Mar 5:
Ted at comment 73 writes: "There's clear evidence that the sun is responsible for temperature changes, but those who stand to profit from carbon taxes and carbon credits and special light bulbs and so on reject that..."
I have not seen any special marketing emphasis for CFL's saving the world from GW doom. All the hype I have seen has been a no-brainer focused on the money they save the consumer. It is not fair to villainize the CFL suppliers for making a cost effective and efficient product and seeking to profit from that good deed. Should Honda be villainized for selling me a great car that also gets 34 mpg? Yes, they are out for profit and yes they are killing the less efficient big three automakers who care less about the environment and energy that is wasted. But they always say, money talks, so what goes around will come around.
77. obewan said the following at 6:56 AM on Mar 6:
Also, comment 73 said:
"California is talking about regulating the temperature that people keep their homes, because of GW. Those who keep their homes at 70 during the winter would be fined or jailed, it seems. Such heavy handed regulations, which result from flimsy "science," strike me as unjust."
It is not JUST GW they are worried about. There is a very real power shortage in CA. They have actual brownouts and even blackouts during peak hours. Yes, they have SOME nuclear power, but they mostly use natural gas because it is clean. There is a world shortage of natural gas now, and most of it is imported via tanker ship to CA. Yes, they could add more capacity, but that will take a long time and they have to somehow live with their present REALITY.
Get real. I don't see them entering someone's house to "arrest" them. It would be an ordnance like mandatory recycling, and a few degrees of "lost comfort" is hardly a "heavy handed" law. As for mandatory recycling, some cities do random checks, but most do nothing, and if you are caught not recycling, the “fine” is only around $50.
Once again, you are using the bully pulpit to bash conservation efforts. You are preaching to the choir when it comes to worries about GW “alarmism”. I am a person who has already lost nearly $20K on liquid coal investments that are not GW friendly. However, I STILL give very HEAVY support to ALL conservation efforts.
When we approach or talk about conservation efforts with distain or cynicism, we plant the seeds of resentment in others that CAN cause them to rebel and live wasteful lives. I had a housemate like that once. He was a RADICAL conservative -- Rush Limbaugh fan and the whole works. We had mandatory recycling in our town, and he HATED it. I was always sorting HIS trash, separating the cardboard from the glass and tin and newspaper. Once I had it sorted, he would unsort it and mix it back together in the trash just to be anal and rebel. It was infuriating; because we had random inspections, and there was a $50 fine if you were caught with unsorted trash. His reasoning was that there were still INFINITE resources left for the world to enjoy, and that recycling was a waste of time and money. (He never did the math to prove his point,) In our town, it was a win financially, and they used robotic trucks to pick up the trash bins anyway, so there was little if any additional labor. Do you get my point? People are already cynical enough about this topic. A little more support of green causes would go a long way to improving our world. As for the rebel roommate, it caused so much friction in the house that we had to take him before the church elders, and he still refused to change.
78. John said the following at 6:44 AM on Mar 12:
Economics 101:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/03/12/big_corn_and_ethanol_hoax
Socialism at its finest.
79. John A. Jauregui said the following at 11:18 PM on Mar 30:
To put the whole Climate Change issue into perspective vis-a-vis the Peak Oil Crisis, everyone needs to ask themselves, their associates, all sitting elected officials and those seeking office, especially the office of President of the United States, "What is more threatening in both the long and short terms, a beneficial 1 degree F rise in average world temperatures over the past 100 years, or a 1 percent decline in world oil production over the last 100 weeks - with steepening declines forecast? Furthermore, can our economy better deal with declining fuel inventories in an environment of persistent warming, or in an environment of declining average temperatures over the next several decades, the most likely scenario given the highly reliable solar inertial motion (SIM) model forecasts of climate change?” Solar cycle # 24 will tell the tale. The problem is not AGW. The problem is the end of cyclical warming coincident with the onset of Peak Oil.
80. John said the following at 11:31 AM on Apr 2:
If you wanted to "combat" AGW, wouldn't one of the quickest and surest ways to do that be to shut down the hugely energy ineffecient (and incredibly teaching deficient) government indoctrination centers.
Think about all emissions that would be cut by taking those big yellow bananas off the road. (Just think of all the exhaust produced by idling cars at every stop)
But, that will never happen, because then where would you indoctrinate impressionable young minds into believing the myth of AGW.
LOL.