« Polar Bear Alert! Polar Ice Really is Back to Normal Levels | Main | Let Them Eat Painkillers! »

Sunday, June 21, 2009



There is the "slight" change in the pogarrm. It's actually not global warming anymore, since earth is cooling down since 2005 it's now called climate change instead. There is also the slight misshap of the temperatures rising a few years prior to the rise in the levels of CO2.I'm not going to go into details on a high school question but you might want to look into climate gate (it's true, the mails presented by what is American party in the US was taken out of context but I've read the mails decided fo myself and the pro-climate change propaganda is based on B.S. and even the ones spreading it know it) and you might have a look at articles google-schollar finds.IMO: it's a politically based nonscientific topic. A war between American republicans and democrats that spread over the rest of the world with Al Gore. The people have been frightened into believing a bunch of blury idieas that were later discovered not to be true. The evidence is there but the public belief is slow to change.BUT ! The consequence of the hole anti carbon propaganda are really good. More renewable energy is being used.


I believe so. It's just a tmater of how MUCH of an environmentalist you are.I consider myself a borderline environmentalist I don't litter, I consciously conserve water and I recycle whatever I can. I TRY to buy products made from recycled materials and/or biodegradables. I DO have a SMALL SUV, but I only drive when I can't get there any other way. I avoid drive-thrus. I do a lot of small things trying NOT to leave a big impact on the environment.HOWEVER, I don't buy into the global-warming-is-caused-by-us-and-we-have-to-stop-it-at-all-costs mentality, I believe if it IS happening, it's a NATURAL cycle that's happened before and if plants and animals can't adapt, that's THEM, not US. Was this answer helpful?


Instead of turning up your anctrel heating, put a jumper on.Grow your own fruit and veg.Plant a tree in your back yard.RecycleBike to workBy produce closer to homeDry your clothes on a washing line.Don't put the computer or tv on standby.Use a compost binTurn lights off whenever possible.If we all did at least 3 off these suggestions it would make a huge difference. And to the person who said global warming is a lie, the evidence hugely out weights your idea. for example "International scientific consensus agrees that increasing levels of man-made greenhouse gases are leading to global climate change. Possible consequences of climate change include rising temperatures, changing sea levels, and impacts on global weather. These changes could have serious impacts on the world's organisms and on the lives of millions of people, especially those living in areas vulnerable to extreme natural conditions such as flooding and drought."


I am really facnisated at your confusion on Social Security. Other than having a politician destroy it, why should it collapse? It is a strong system and probably will not face the alleged problems in 2041. The fact is, no honest person with an understanding of the system seriously accepts your statement "no one, and I mean NO ONE denies that the system will one day collapse, there's just quibbling over the date when it will happen." Brian, you have been hoodwinked. Just go look at Robert Ball's proposal ( (pdf)). While you are at it, remember that Bob Ball is probably the most knowledgeable man alive today about the Social Security System. The assumptions of American productivity in the projections are too low, and the assumptions of immigration are equally too low. Higher values on either would produce projections that do not include a shortfall in payments with respect to revenue. But let's assume that the conservative assumptions do pan out. Robert Ball has offered a plan (pdf) that accepts those assumptions and easily corrects for them, while placing Social Security onto a sustainable path into the infinite future. His are minor tweaks in what is a well-operating system. The plan offered by the renegade Democratic Congressman [RDC] the other day also totally solves the problem. It isn't as good as Bob Balls' solution either politically or tax-wise, but it is massively better than private accounts with a $3 to $14 addition to the federal debt to finance the changeover. Both plans (B Ball's and the RDC) involve minor changes, a great deal less then the ones in 1983, and set the program up for long-term sustainablity at the future programmed benefit levels (based on replacing a percentage of lost earnings)Or, assume that the worst assumptions in the projections (not predictions, by the way) come true. Then what? By law, the Social Security benefits in 2041 are reduced automatically to match the revenue from takes. That means approximately a 25% reduction (worst case) across the board in all benefits. This is the same as the plan Bush just offered, except that he cuts benefits even more and esepecially on high and middle income wage-earners. He also starts the cuts immediately while the program still has a surplus of revenue coming in rather then waiting until a real shortage of revenue occurs. But Bush still demands that America borrow many trillions and switch to private accounts that do nothing to help the system and nothing to help America. In other words, if approached reasonably there is a strong probability that there is no difficulty with the Social Security. If some difficulty does occur, it will be small and easily dealt with. Just always remember, any projection is totally swamped by reality after about ten years. The 75 year projections are designed to do nothing more than line up the possible future scenarios. Except by actuaries and theoreticians, they are not to be taken seriously. Anyone else considering those projections and predicting doom and gloom is doing a "Chicken Little" impersonation, usually as a prelude to sell you some form of overpriced insurance that you will never need. He will probably also sell you a broken used car while he is at it. So. Back to Global Warming as a man-made phenomenon. There is [1.]a lot of evidence to suggest that global warming may not be at all caused by man, and [2.] it hasn't been explored sufficiently. For [1.] there is also a lot of evidence that indicates strongly that the recent changes in climate are related or associated with outputs from industrial society. [2.] Is completely correct. By the time we know for sure whether man-made industrial products are strongly contributing to climate change, there is a good chance that irreversible changes will have occurred. The argument for taking actions to reduce likely by-products has a certain urgency that this administration is ignoring. "we should avoid severely restrictive measures like the Kyoto protocols that will impoverish us with no definite benefit." Yeah, right. If we do nothing we can surely depend on our private industry to do research that lowers the contaminates. That is Bush's action, of course. In 1994 when Bush became Governor in Texas he got the next legislature to extend the grandfather provisions in the Texas Clean Air act. All standards became voluntary and the industries involved all agreed that they would clean up their acts as they performed normal maintenance. By 2002 none of those companies had spend a dime or reduced emmission a bit. Exactly as they had not done after the initial federal clean air act and the initial Texas-granted grandfather provisions (for the same reason - too expensive to install scrubbers, etc.) were passed in the Nixon era. Until forced, the auto industry in America did not improve gas mileage, safety engineering (like seat belts, air bags, etc.) or emissions improvements. Yet when required by the governbment, the American auto industry developed the current computer-controlled combustion system that is used around the world to reduce emissions. Bush's withdrawal from Kyoto was exactly like his extension of the grandfather provisions in 1994 of the clean air act, and has done nothing to either improve the air or to improve the competitiveness of American industry. The whine "we should avoid severely restrictive measures like the Kyoto protocols that will impoverish us with no definite benefit." is a severe overstatement of the policies that should be put into place immediately based on the admittedly incomplete information that currently exists. Some things should be put into place just to try to make measurable changes in the climate. One reason most studies at the moment don't give any solid date is that they are almost all associative studies. We need to initiate some changes and measure the results just to add some real causal studies that will greatly add to the understanding of the huma effects on climate. But the idea that anyone wants to "impoverish" business to "effect no known benefit" is merely political rhetoric by the businesses like our local untility, TXU, which has made the same whine for over 30 years at the local cement plant in Waxahachie. They have also promised to improve the air they put out all that time. It is worse now than it was in Nixon's era, and they are still fighting against doing anything. The auto manufacturers have taken the same blinded attitude towards gas mileage, smaller cars, exhaust control, and safety. These businesses are failing, as is seen by the current junk bond status of GM and Ford. This is a failure of management. All they can do is manage cost control, and they can't build decent vehicles to compte with the ones built by the Japanese and soon the South Koreans. The Bush administration could have worked with the Kyoto participants to obtain reasonable requirements. Instead they acted as normal, threw up their hands at the difficulty of actually working with and compromising with other. That just isn't their way of doing things. They decide how eveyone will act, then strong-arm the recalcitrant or just walk away and quit as they did in Kyoto. "there is a difference between [1] taking steps to reduce pollution and [2.] radically restricting business in a wild attempt to live up to unproven science..."No one seriously suggests [2.]. The alternative for the Bush administration is to [3.] walk away and do frigging nothing. Any rhetoric alleging [2.] is just that - baseless right-wing political rhetoric intended to lead to [3.]. That rhetoric is exactly like the silly rhetoric that tries to make anyone believe that Ward Churchill is somehow a spokesturkey for Democrats or Progressives.==========By the way, OT, I have figured out how to add an "e-mail me" function to my blog. It is quite easy. For [1.] a small consulting fee - or [2.] a public admission that I am completely totally and unequivocally correct on Social Security above, I'll be glad to help you put one in. I'd guess [2.] is too high a price, right??


You know, it's really easy to deaeft my logic when you entirely mischaracterize it.Allow me to rephrase it in the terms the article produces?There is a lot of evidence to suggest that global warming may not be at all caused by man, and it hasn't been explored sufficiently. As such, we should avoid severely restrictive measures like the Kyoto protocols that will impoverish us with no definite benefit. This is not to say we should ignore the possibility of global warming all-together, but there is a difference between taking steps to reduce pollution and radically restricting business in a wild attempt to live up to unproven science because politicians have found a way to categorize it as a "consensus."Now, on Social Security no one, and I mean NO ONE denies that the system will one day collapse, there's just quibbling over the date when it will happen. The reason the Republicans want to change the system, by in large, has nothing to do with the fact that the system will collapse, it has to do with the fact that many think it's a stupid system.You know that. So, are you trying to say that Global Warming in fact has nothing to do with science, and it's all about ideology? If you're ready to come clean on that, I'll be a very happy man.


I'm really dntsppoiiaed in what your blog has turned into.I used to come here to find interesting articles on PHP and the SolarPHP framework. However, ever since Obama was elected the blog has taken a decidedly different direction and there are very few technology related posts. I fully believe that it is your right to write about whatever topic you wish. Yet I can't help but feel deceived by the turnaround and as a result your blog has become decreasingly useful.I don't mean to say this in a pejorative or hostile manner; I'm just dntsppoiiaed in that I've lost a once-valuable resource.In any case, thanks for the tips and insight you've provided in the past and I can only hope that they may return in the future.


Dear Lubos,You and I agree that particle pscsiyihts have standards of proof (including taking great care not to fool themselves) that are rigorous and commendable. They would not tolerate a colleague who went around publicizing something like the hockey stick. But we know this because we know the people involved and their scientific culture. At some point, I think, climate science has gotten so big that the loss of credibility of climate scientists will simply spill over to all of us. Should we expect someone to understand distinctions between pscsiyihts and climate scientists when our APS statement is, if anything, more hysterical than that of the AGU or AMS? It is ONLY credibility that allows a discovery at the LHC to be widely believed: people believe pscsiyihts are careful and honest, and do not, for example, just invent some particle to keep the funding going. After all, no one could actually tell, except the people involved. You and I know such fraud is not a credible scenario. I wonder about those looking from the outside. The APS does us all a disservice, and HEP and NP could be at risk here. Re the politics of the pscsiyihts, I don't think they just focused on their work in the star wars period--they had opinions. Now it is (politically) convenient to focus on their work, and just 'trust the consensus'. While they may do great work, their credibility is at risk, rightly or wrongly, and it is dumb of them not to pay more attention. Climate science would be improved if they did.Cheers.


Lorelle, I strongly enauorcge you (and anyone, for that matter) to see An Inconvenient Truth and judge for yourself. I don't think you can authoritatively say that Jeff Masters' review is a good and fair review of the movie if you haven't seen the movie yourself. Good and fair regarding the attendant environmental issues, yes.His criticism that Gore paints with too broad a brush in the section about hurricanes and weather events is a valid one, and one that I've heard raised elsewhere as well. I do disagree with some of his other points of contention: Master's statement that the movie plays like a campaign ad was a clinker (would that all campaign ads were so free of ad-hominem vitriol), and his objection to Gore's description of the effect that CO2 emissions have on the atmosphere is hair-splitting at its pettiest. But anyhoo, I agree with the majority of his review and found it interesting to read the thoughts of someone who is (apparently) a meteorologist or geologist of some kind.I agree that the term pollution has fallen into under-use. The thing is (as you say) that pollution is and climate change are directly related as cause and effect. I share your giving a hoot about not polluting if you'll pardon the expression. :P


There will be a longer grwnoig season and there will be more rain as you say. The idea that vast areas will become flooded is alarmist and as for food producing areas, they will expand as we'll be able to grow food at higher altitudes and areas such as Greenland will become fertile again.The idea that plankton will die in warmer seas is silly, they'll just be further down where it's cooler. The seas won't actually change in temperature anyway, what will happen is that the warmer layer on top will increase, but the cooler layers will remain the same.So there might be drought at the equator, this is not where most of the food is grown, most of the food is grown in temperate zones which are set to become more productive, stop panicking people.


I know I'm going to get totally roteasd for this, but I honestly believe that people who are extremely concerned about the environment should not have children. It is inevitable that each and every one of us has an impact on the environment, and I really believe it's irresponsible to lecture others on their consumption of energy and goods if you're hauling 3 or 4 kids around. Each of those kids is going to have a home some day, cars, kids of their own, etc.As to what can be done, we use those curly fluorescent blubs to conserve, and we burn wood for most of the heat in our home. We're looking into converting all of our horse stuff (electric fencing, water heaters) to solar, and when we build a house, I would like some solar panels on the roof. Walking or biking instead of driving would help, too. I really admire the hell out of the people who live in Alaska and ride their bikes to work (or school) all year long. That is certainly a commitment to your beliefs!! It always amazes me how many people who live on a public transportation route refuse to take advantage of it. I would LOVE to take the bus to work - but the closest bus stop to my house IS at work.

Critical illness cover

Global warming research has become a very big business throughout the world. Each year billions of dollars are spent studying climate change. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), now has an annual budget that has reached more than $136 million.

The comments to this entry are closed.

weather widget

  • Global Warming today!


  • googletoo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 11/2003