Can a Catholic disagree about Global Warming?

[lynnvinc]

You know in my experience the media if anything has been in general more on the side of the skeptics/denalists then anything else. I mean if you were to listen to the general media you would probably believe that AGW is only believed by a handful of scientists and that the numbers were fudged and blah blah blah. And your definately right on the fact that the media wants conflict and dramatic events. Its like with the whole climate gate thing. That was pretty big in the media for awhile. Yet in the aftermath I have heard very little. I am sure if the investigations had found the scientists guilty the media would have been all over it. I read this recently too skepticalscience.com/visual-disconnect-between-scientists-media-public.html notice how closely the public opinion and the media opinion is.

Thanks for the link. Another media outlet that has been atrocious on environmental issues and harms is EWTN, and esp Raymond Arroyo’s WORLD OVER. If they’d just keep quiet about the issues, that would be better, but they make snide remarks about Al Gore (you even wonder if they are really Catholic), about environmental problems, and about environmentalists, despite all the writings of the popes and bishops on how we should mitigate environmental problems. They have guests like Fr. Sirico of the Acton Institute, funded by Exxon. They manufacture fears about environmentalists – that we are nothing but bunch of neopagan-pantheist-anti-human-atheists out to harm the world and destroy souls. Now I’ve met a couple of neopagans as my students over the past 3 decades, and even a pagan (who claimed her family line of witches went back centuries, but they’ve mostly had to hide their paganism, bec of prejudice and harassment by the public). And wouldn’t consider them to be environmentalists, certainly not more than myself, a Catholic, a lay Carmelite. And as I’ve said about atheists, the ones who accept climate science are not nearly as passionate about mitigating it as religious folk, since they don’t believe in the hereafter, don’t fear hell, and don’t really care as much as religious folk about whether they are harming the poor or future generations.

What gets me is that anyone who says they are religious and truly believe in heaven and hell, would be so daring to risk hell by failing to mitigate problems scientists are telling us are real – esp when those mitigation measures save money without lowering living standards and productivity, and mitigate many many other harms and problems. Even if they didn’t quite understand or accept the science, you’d think they’d be into doing the prudent thing of mitigating.

I guess some just like it hot. Really hot.

 

[cathdoki]

Thanks for the link. Another media outlet that has been atrocious on environmental issues and harms is EWTN, and esp Raymond Arroyo’s WORLD OVER. If they’d just keep quiet about the issues, that would be better, but they make snide remarks about Al Gore (you even wonder if they are really Catholic), about environmental problems, and about environmentalists, despite all the writings of the popes and bishops on how we should mitigate environmental problems. They have guests like Fr. Sirico of the Acton Institute, funded by Exxon. They manufacture fears about environmentalists – that we are nothing but bunch of neopagan-pantheist-anti-human-atheists out to harm the world and destroy souls. Now I’ve met a couple of neopagans as my students over the past 3 decades, and even a pagan (who claimed her family line of witches went back centuries, but they’ve mostly had to hide their paganism, bec of prejudice and harassment by the public). And wouldn’t consider them to be environmentalists, certainly not more than myself, a Catholic, a lay Carmelite. And as I’ve said about atheists, the ones who accept climate science are not nearly as passionate about mitigating it as religious folk, since they don’t believe in the hereafter, don’t fear hell, and don’t really care as much as religious folk about whether they are harming the poor or future generations.

What gets me is that anyone who says they are religious and truly believe in heaven and hell, would be so daring to risk hell by failing to mitigate problems scientists are telling us are real – esp when those mitigation measures save money without lowering living standards and productivity, and mitigate many many other harms and problems. Even if they didn’t quite understand or accept the science, you’d think they’d be into doing the prudent thing of mitigating.

I guess some just like it hot. Really hot.

And some like unadulterated truth. The real truth.

As a longtime meteorologist friend of mine said some years ago. The only meteorologists that support AGW are those who’s pockets it lines.

I’m sure you’re too intelligent to consider some of what is in www.icecap.us. I’m sure Dr Michaels and Balling are just idiots. I’m sure Joseph D’aleo is just a fraud.

But, I’ll take them over the extreme fanatics.

 

[lynnvinc]

Not according to NOAA. They also stated that, although none of the climate models had predicted a decade without warming and although such a period could be contained within the models, a fifteen year period without warming would break all of the models. We don’t have much longer to wait.

It really all depends on what the various factors of a non-warming or a cooling spell are. Scientist look at all the contributing factors not just CO2 and warming. For instance, are we in a solar minimum (which would have a cooling effect)? Yes. If there were a nuke war that stirred up a lot of dust – that could cool the planet, despite our greenhouse gases. Scientists won’t automatically dismiss AGW after 15 years of non-warming or cooling, without looking at all the factors involved.

Mitigation - even if it were possible - would not save money, it would be horrifically expensive and devastate the economy.

I too thought I might have to sacrifice back in 1990 when I first started mitigating, and as a Christian I was willing to do so. My husband, however, was not so willing, so fortuitously that left me only with options of finding cost-effective measures. So my antennae were up, and I found hundreds of little things to do and some big things within those constraints that have helped us lower our GHG emissions by more than 60% – and there is still more that we plan to do. Furthermore, many of the measures turned out to be better for our health, not only our pocket book, a further savings on medical expenses. My heart is ever singing, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and its righteousness, and all things will be added unto you.” I found out thru experience that to be one of the truest verses in the Bible I could ever imagine, whereas before I had thought, “Yeh yeh, it sounds good on paper…”

One has to realize that GHG emissions are involved in nearly everything – resource extraction, shipping, manufacturing, marketing, shopping, consuming and discarding. We need to become energy/resource efficient/conservative and go on alt energy when available/feasible. There are 1000s of things to do from which people can select and start down the road of good stewardship. Recycle that aluminum can – save 95% energy in manufacturing aluminum, and help avoid tearing up rainforest floors and polluting the environment to mine bauxite to make aluminum. Carry a hankie in your pocket to wipe hands in public restrooms. It doesn’t matter how small our deed, as Mother Teresa said, as long as it is done out of love; our love makes it infinite. Follow the Little Way of Environmental Healing.

I sort of think if people had only heeded JPII back in 1990 when he told it’s everyone’s responsibility to mitigate serious environmental problems, that we would not have had as serious an economic recession, as we’ve had now. People instead chose the path of greed. Sin leads to sorrow. Renoucing sin leads to true happiness.

 

[lynnvinc]

30 to 35 years ago I believe it was My Hansen that said that.

No, that was Newsweek, after a scientist had done work on how aerosols would have a cooling effect. I believe there was also talk about a “nuclear winter” back then, if we got into a nuclear war. The idea was that if the nukes and fallout didn’t kill us, then the dust it would have kicked up would have had a big cooling effect and blotted out the sun, and plants and thus us would have been greatly harmed by that.

The climate scientists, since Fourier in 1824 have ALWAYS maintained that increasing CO2 would have a warming effect. They never said anything about cooling. In fact 35 yrs ago Dr. Wallace Broecker exactly called the .8C warming over the 20th c. – see here and here. And Hansen’s 1988 most plausible and realistic projection of where we’d be now was pretty much on the dot as well.

In fact, Hansen says that even the next ice age (you know, the one that would have occurred in many 1000s of years, had we not gotten into AGW) is out of the question now with AGW, and considering that the sun is continuing slowly to get hotter on its way to self destruction in some billions of years.

I suggest everyone interested in AGW to read Hansen’s STORMS OF MY GRANDCHILDREN. It is a great intro into climate science, by the top scientist, and a very personal story about his experienced in connection with the AGW issue. He is an extremely honest, forthright person. A Christian, and his wife, kids, and grandkids are all Catholic. A very good, decent, and stolid man (but his book is very interesting). Not a firebrand, like me

 

[lynnvinc]

And some like unadulterated truth. The real truth.

As a longtime meteorologist friend of mine said some years ago. The only meteorologists that support AGW are those who’s pockets it lines.

I’m sure you’re too intelligent to consider some of what is in www.icecap.us. I’m sure Dr Michaels and Balling are just idiots. I’m sure Joseph D’aleo is just a fraud.

But, I’ll take them over the extreme fanatics.

Meteorologists are not climate scientists (and there is a difference betw weather and climate). You wouldn’t go to an optometrist for cataract surgery, but to an opthomologist.

Michaels is a fringe climate scientist, whose works and theories have not panned out. Balling, I think, is not even really a climate scientist. I’m not sure. But his ideas are not accepted by climate scientists either.

One can always find some skeptic to hide behind and use for their particular purpose, someone who’s come up with a perpetual motion machine, or cold fusion. The proof is in the pudding, and the real and top climate scientists are way above these others in abilities and knowledge.

I heard the last member of the “Flat Earth Society” died around 2000 – on the radio driving back from work. I never knew if that was just a joke or what. Maybe someone here could resurrect the Society. I’m sure there’d be lots of people who’d like to join. And, of course, there is the Brooklyn Bridge for sale.

Peace and amen, brother.

 

[Calliso]

As I said above, you have to look at long term trends, many decades, not just one. And you have to look at all the factors, which the scientists are doing, including the fact that we have been in a solar minimum for that past decade, which should have led to significant cooling, sans our added GHGs. The “global warming pause” hoax has been roundly debunked – see here. They even gave the climate data to 4 statisticians to find a trend, without telling what type of data they were, and all 4 came back with an increasing trend.

Once they have accounted for the cooling affects of the aerosols, volcanos, etc, over the past century – which should have put us in a cooling trend, sans our GHG emissions, they find instead a warming trend of about .8C or 1.44F (and a .6C increase in the past 3 decades). Now that may seem like a laughably small amount for the less educated – those who confuse climate with weather – but it is a clear warning that WE are having impact. The last ice age was about 4C cooler. The end-Permian warming, which killed 95% of life on earth, was about 6C warmer. It is now projected by scientists that it could get to 4C warmer by the 2060s (BAU, worst-case scenario) and 5C by 2090s – see & listen to the 4 Degrees & Beyond Conference in Oxford last Sept, at eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/.

We already have 2.4C warming “in the pipes” from our past GHG emissions, even if we were to go down to zero emissions today, according to a 2008 study: Ramanathan, V., and Y. Feng. 2008. “On Avoiding Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference with the Climate System: Formidable Challenges Ahead.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105.38: 14245-14250.

If we get to 3C warmer, then nature’s processes will take over, melting and releasing the vast stores of methane trapped in ocean and permafrost ice, and eventually push us up to 6C. A few cutting edge scientists even suggest we could, along with all that methane stored-in-ice loaded gun, shoot the climate into runaway conditions, as on Venus, ending all life on planet earth.

Why take that risk with life on earth and with our immortal souls, when mitigation can save us so much money and help the economy? I just don’t understand you people.

And you know if you read that statement properly in context in the 2008 NOAA report it certainly doesn;t seem to be suggesting that NOAA actually thinks warming has stopped or will stop. I didn;t find any such statement in the 2009 one. However it does have on page 26 there is a graph of ten things that show evidence that the world has warmed. And it doesn;t even include other lines of evidence such as the movement of plants and animals and how growing seasons are changing.

I am not sure how likely it is that we would actually become like Venus, But that shouldn;t be our concern anyway because the problems would come long long before we got to that point.

 

[Calliso]

Meteorologists are not climate scientists (and there is a difference betw weather and climate). You wouldn’t go to an optometrist for cataract surgery, but to an opthomologist.

Michaels is a fringe climate scientist, whose works and theories have not panned out. Balling, I think, is not even really a climate scientist. I’m not sure. But his ideas are not accepted by climate scientists either.

One can always find some skeptic to hide behind and use for their particular purpose, someone who’s come up with a perpetual motion machine, or cold fusion. The proof is in the pudding, and the real and top climate scientists are way above these others in abilities and knowledge.

I heard the last member of the “Flat Earth Society” died around 2000 – on the radio driving back from work. I never knew if that was just a joke or what. Maybe someone here could resurrect the Society. I’m sure there’d be lots of people who’d like to join. And, of course, there is the Brooklyn Bridge for sale.

Peace and amen, brother.

I took a look at the site and the first argument I noticed is the whole co2 is good for plants. And then it went on to say how plants are co2 starved now. Umm really so for hundreds well actually thousands of years when co2 I think was only about 290 or so. I am in a rush so I donlt have much time to double check numbers. And you know by how these people talk you would think that the world must have been a barren place. But I see not such indication of that in history. Not to mention by how these people talk about co2 and plants you would think that things like water other nutrients proper temperatures and so on werent necessary at all and that plants live on co2. Co2 is good for plants I am not saying it isn;t. But there is plenty of co2 for plants in the atmosphere. And they seriously seem to be suggesting that a climate that the planet hasn;t seen for what over a 100 million years? would be a good climate to bring to the planet now with it;s current species and with human civilization as it is now. I am sure the climate was great for the species living back then. That doesn;t mean that it would be good for us…and rapidly changing the climate is really a bad thing. And we can look back into the past to see that too. Then of course that article on co2 goes on to claim that the earth is cooling *no evidence is given for how this could be true and as I have shown in my last post…really if the earth is cooling then why is it showing all these signs of warming? I guess the planet itself is in on the conspiracy. But anyway I gotta log for now… But yeah icecap.us from what I have seen has **** arguments that are debunked by just a little research and thought.

 

[cathdoki]

Meteorologists are not climate scientists (and there is a difference betw weather and climate). You wouldn’t go to an optometrist for cataract surgery, but to an opthomologist.

Michaels is a fringe climate scientist, whose works and theories have not panned out. Balling, I think, is not even really a climate scientist. I’m not sure. But his ideas are not accepted by climate scientists either.

One can always find some skeptic to hide behind and use for their particular purpose, someone who’s come up with a perpetual motion machine, or cold fusion. The proof is in the pudding, and the real and top climate scientists are way above these others in abilities and knowledge.

I heard the last member of the “Flat Earth Society” died around 2000 – on the radio driving back from work. I never knew if that was just a joke or what. Maybe someone here could resurrect the Society. I’m sure there’d be lots of people who’d like to join. And, of course, there is the Brooklyn Bridge for sale.

Peace and amen, brother.

Ah…so if someone disputes what you say, then they are not worthy. But you are not a climatologist either. When the house of cards start collapsing, resort to name calling.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

A recent posting on carbon dioxide CO1 ] was notably lacking in specifics.

So, I found this:

In fact, carbon dioxide … CO2 is not a toxic substance … unless your lips are wrapped around the exhaust pipe of a car.

Sarcasm intended.

Source for the information below is a bunch of different Web sites and a book or two, but it only took me a short time to collect it.

I do invite you to do additional research, but I do ask that you refrain from making blanket, global statements that are false.

---

The increase of carbon dioxide is not a cause for alarm and, in fact, will be good for mankind.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the gas of life for plants, man, and animals. All plant life is sustained by photosynthesis, where CO2 plus water plus the Sun’s energy form carbohydrates plus Oxygen. Humans and animals breathe in oxygen and exhale CO2. Plants must absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) in combination with water, soil nutrients and sunlight to produce the sugars vital for growth. A shortage of any of these requirements will retard the growing process.

[All high school freshmen should know all this from their biology classes and should have studied and drawn the details of plant leaves.]

According to the Mauna Loa observatory the present atmospheric CO2 is about 385 ppm (parts per million.), but in times past it was as high as 2450 ppm. (Jaworoski, 1992a,1992b).

[Some contend that Mauna Loa is not a good place to measure it because the ocean is the major source and sink of carbon dioxide and Mauna Loa is in the middle of the ocean.]

Normal CO2 concentration varies = ~ 300 ppm = 0.03%

In order to increase their yield, commercial greenhouses may increase CO2 concentration to 600 to 1500 ppm or more = 0.06% to 0.15%

1000 ppm = 0.1%

We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 times current atmospheric levels.

10,000 PPM = 1% drowsiness

20,000 ppm = 2% feeling of heaviness; awareness of deeper breathing

30,000 ppm = 3% breathing rate doubles

Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth.

50,000 ppm = 5% breathing rate increases by four times normal.

above 50,000 ppm = more than 5% toxic level of carbon dioxide.

If atmospheric CO2 drops to the 220 ppm, plants get sick. They start to die at 160ppm. In a field of corn on a sunny day, unless wind currents stir up the air, all of the CO2 is consumed within one meter of the ground in 5 minutes. Nighttime levels in a greenhouse range from 400 to 500 ppm due to plant respiration. Shortly after sunrise this level will drop to normal atmosphere (300 ppm) due to the plant using the early light to start photosynthesis. After 3 to 4 hours of early morning sunlight the CO2 level can drop to around l00 to 150 ppm, then growth is practically stopped. So, CO2 levels need to be monitored and adjusted with carbon dioxide generators if necessary.

If some of the carbon dioxide sequestration [a poor idea under any circumstances] people want to find a place to get rid of it, they might want to consider spreading it on farm fields … just like other fertilizers.

 

[estesbob]

Ah…so if someone disputes what you say, then they are not worthy. But you are not a climatologist either. When the house of cards start collapsing, resort to name calling.

When they start with the “flat eartth” analogies you know they have lost the battle.

 

[Ender]

It really all depends on what the various factors of a non-warming or a cooling spell are. Scientist look at all the contributing factors not just CO2 and warming. For instance, are we in a solar minimum (which would have a cooling effect)? Yes. If there were a nuke war that stirred up a lot of dust – that could cool the planet, despite our greenhouse gases. Scientists won’t automatically dismiss AGW after 15 years of non-warming or cooling, without looking at all the factors involved.

Are you suggesting that none of these factors are included in the models? If they weren’t included the models are worthless and if they were included then they completely failed to predict a decade without warming … which would seem to make them somewhat less than useful. I’ll repeat what NOAA concluded: a ten year period without warming can be -barely- accommodated by the models but a fifteen year period could not. Unless warming resumes by 2015 all of the models will have been shown to be invalid.

I too thought I might have to sacrifice back in 1990 when I first started mitigating, and as a Christian I was willing to do so.

You need a sense of scale here. I don’t believe there is much nations can do to mitigate their CO2 output and, more to the point, it would have almost no affect on the climate if they did. According to studies, even if all nations had met their Kyoto targets the overall reduction of temperature would have been what - a few hundredths of a degree? A few tenths? A meaningless amount in any case

People instead chose the path of greed.

This is your Christian judgment is it?

Ender

 

[cathdoki]

When they start with the “flat eartth” analogies you know they have lost the battle.

And when they refuse to look at arguments that refute their misguided psuedo-science and then refer to those that disagree as less than scientists, we know the battle is lost.

Long live Al Gore!!!

 

[cathdoki]

BTW, I’m sure they can absolutely treat people that support the opinion of www.icecap.us as just a bunch of “denialists”. They’re not really scientists, just witch doctors. That’s why the the AGW have NO credibility any longer. When they come up against the truth, they resort to…well…we’ve seen.

They hide behind fraudulent science, then discard those that disagree. That’s not science my friend. It’s the hookie pokie!

 

[lynnvinc]

Going back to the stone age, by ceasing the use of fossil energy, will “willy-nilly” kill more people than CO2 ever thought of. We owe our standard of living, including life span to the modern conveniences brought about through the use of abundant cheap energy.

Is “willy nilly” a technical term, or something in the bible? I missed it.

How about “reckless endangerment”?

Are we to follow a policy-driven (anti-policy-driven and fear-of-stone-age-driven) psuedo-science, or science-driven policies.

Never underestimate the ingenuity of people to come up with AGW solutions that actually help our economy, rather than hurt it. We’ve saved $thousands by reducing out GHGs by 60%, without lowering living standards, without freezing in the dark… Be not afraid. God is with us.

 

[lynnvinc]

The increase of carbon dioxide is not a cause for alarm and, in fact, will be good for mankind. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the gas of life for plants, man, and animals.

What you say is partly true, CO2 is a “plant fertilizer,” but scientists have found in their studies and experiements many negative consequences of increasing CO2, as well, even without the warming, including (I have sources for all these, just let me know if anyone wants them):

1. 
   *]OCEAN ACIDIFICATION from carbonic acid, due to the ocean’s increasing take up of CO2, harming zooplankton (base of food chain), shellfish, and coral reefs (home to one-fourth of sealife). A recent study also found fish populations are harmed, because baby fish have duller senses and make themselve more available to predators.
   *]OCEAN DEAD ZONES (EUTROPHICATION) from algal blooms, with lots of algae pushed below out of sunlight, where is takes in oxygen, killing fish and other sea animal life.
   *]CROP PESTS & LESS NUTRITION: Experiments (in greenhouses and fields with increased CO2 piped in) found that plants do grow more, but C3 (many weeds) grow more than C4 plants (many food crops), and insects do more damage, bec the crops are less nutritious.
   *]CROP TOXINS for some crops increase.
   *]SOIL ACIDIFICATION
   *]RICE CROP REDUCTION: a study found that up to 40% of rice crops could be lost due to floret sterilization from high CO2 levels.
   
   If you add in the warming and its effects, the situation is much worse.
   
   The projection is that the global south (mainly the poor nations) will be (and some are now) experiencing crop decline from global warming and its knock-on effects. The global north (rich nations) would experience some crop increases up to 2050 (due to CO2 fertilization and longer growing seasons – but not as much as some have suggested), after which a sharp decline is projected.
   
   When I first got into AGW some 20 years ago, what inspired me to mitigate was the increasing droughts in Africa – which they said may have been caused by AGW, if and when AGW acheived sci certainty (which it did in 1995). It struck my heart that I was part of the problem, and I needed to reduce my harms. I still fall far short – there are many other things I need to do. I sometimes keep an image of a starving African madonna and child in my mind’s eye to inspire me to keep on trying any little (and sometimes big) things to reduce my harms. The Little Way of Environmental Healing. It doesn’t matter how small the deed, say Mother Teresa, as long as it is done out of love. Our love makes it infinite.

 

[cathdoki]

How about “reckless endangerment”?

Are we to follow a policy-driven (anti-policy-driven and fear-of-stone-age-driven) psuedo-science, or science-driven policies.

Never underestimate the ingenuity of people to come up with AGW solutions that actually help our economy, rather than hurt it. We’ve saved $thousands by reducing out GHGs by 60%, without lowering living standards, without freezing in the dark… Be not afraid. God is with us.

I think you’re tackling several issues at once. I have no problem with recycling and conserving resources. We recycle all of our goods that can be. We use dishes for picnics and not paper plates. We use no paper cups. We buy with the least packaging possible. We use as little water as possible. We have had the house through an energy audit and have made the repairs. This is what is responsible. Not the garbage that Al Gore and Barbara Streisand. Too many of you greenies do not practice what you preach. Finally the general public has figured it out. The worse part is that you challenge to read more about your views, but ridicule ours. Do you know what a watermellon is?

 

[lynnvinc]

What you say is partly true, CO2 is a “plant fertilizer,” but scientists have found in their studies and experiements many negative consequences of increasing CO2, as well, even without the warming, including …OCEAN ACIDIFICATION, OCEAN DEAD ZONES (EUTROPHICATION), CROP PESTS & LESS NUTRITION, CROP TOXINS, SOIL ACIDIFICATION, RICE CROP REDUCTION

If you add in the warming and its effects, the situation is much worse.

Here are some sources for the above, for those who might be interested:

• Doney, et al. 2009. Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem. Ann Rev of Marine Sciences 1: 169-192.
• Gleadow. 2009. “Unbalancing global resources: will plants be edible in a high CO2 world?” Society for Experimental Biology Annual Meeting, Glasgow, UK, June 28 - July 1.
• Högy, et al. 2009. “Effects of elevated CO2 on grain yield and quality of wheat: results from a 3-year free-air CO2 enrichment experiment.” Plant Biology 11: 60-69.
• Hunter. 2001. “Effects of Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Insect-Plant Interactions.” Agricultural and Forest Entomology 3: 153-159.
• Long, et al. 2006. “Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations.” Science 312.5782: 1918-1921.
• Matsui and Omasa. 2002. “Rice cultivars tolerant to a high temperature at flowering: another characteristic” Annals of Botany - London 89:683-687.
• Munday, et al. 2010. “Replenishment of fish populations is threatened by ocean acidification.” PNAS 107(29):12930-12934.
• Oh and Richter. 2004. “Soil acidification induced by elevated atmospheric CO2” Global Change Biology 10.11: 1936-1946.
• Oschlies, et al… 2008. “Simulated 21st century’s increase in oceanic suboxia by CO2-enhanced biotic carbon export” Global Biochemical Cycles 22: 1-10.
• Roemmich and McGowan. 1995. “Climatic Warming and the Decline of Zooplankton in the California Current.” Science 267: 1324-1326.
• Schlenker and Roberts. 2009. “Nonlinear Temperature Effects Indicate Severe Damages to U.S. Crop Yields under Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 106.37: 15594-15598.

 

[lynnvinc]

I think you’re tackling several issues at once. I have no problem with recycling and conserving resources. We recycle all of our goods that can be. We use dishes for picnics and not paper plates. We use no paper cups. We buy with the least packaging possible. We use as little water as possible. We have had the house through an energy audit and have made the repairs. This is what is responsible…

God bless you. You are a terrific example of good stewardship. And nearly all of those measures also help mitigate AGW, even if that wasn’t your motive for doing them.

There are many other serious environmental problems, aside from AGW, and I support a holistic approach of mitigating other problems, as well. RE all these problems, see Rockström, et al. 2009. “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” Nature 461.24: 472-475 – and that whole edition. I think PNAS also had a similar edition recently.

What will mitigate AGW and many many other problems (for those who don’t believe in AGW) is energy/resource efficiency/conservation and going on alt energy when available/feasible.

If one considers that there are often GHGs involved in resource extraction, shipping, processing, manufacturing, shopping, disposing, then one can find 1000s of things that will not only mitigate AGW, but will also help in many other ways. That is the right way to go.

Luckily we are on Green Mountain Energy’s 100% wind-generated power. It wasn’t available in our previous place. At first is cost about $5 more per month, but now its actually a bit cheaper than other companies using fossil fuel sources. And since the 70s oil crunch and my awareness of petroleum as a finite resource, I’ve seen to it we’ve lived close to work & shops (within 1 or 2 miles). The early Teddy Roosevelt/John Muir conservationists were great. They thought about us. We also need to think about our future generations.

I don’t think Cap & Trade will help much, if at all. I am in favor of either ending subsidies and tax-breaks to coal and oil, or having a “Fee and Dividend” in which every ton of coal and barrel of oil that comes out of the ground or into our ports has a modest fee put on it, then all the proceeds from that are divied up and and given to the people. They could do it, just like they gave us back taxes several years ago. So no net cost to people, esp the poor, who typically don’t use as much energy/resources as others. They can then either use their monthy fossil fuel dividend to pay for the higher energy/product prices, or they can use it to become more energy/resource efficient/conservative and/or go on alt energy.

We do need something (not only to mitigate AGW, but all the other problems), and if we rely solely on the small portion of people like you and me to reduce our GHGs (and other pollutants), then supply & demand would lower prices, and other less scrupulous or knowledgeable people would just use more. No net reductions.

We do need something, but we shouldn’t be taking money out of poor people’s pockets and giving it to the rich – which is what Cap & Trade would do, without having hardly any effect on reducing GHGs and other pollutants.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I think you’re tackling several issues at once. I have no problem with recycling and conserving resources. We recycle all of our goods that can be. We use dishes for picnics and not paper plates. We use no paper cups. We buy with the least packaging possible. We use as little water as possible. We have had the house through an energy audit and have made the repairs. This is what is responsible. Not the garbage that Al Gore and Barbara Streisand. Too many of you greenies do not practice what you preach. Finally the general public has figured it out. The worse part is that you challenge to read more about your views, but ridicule ours. Do you know what a watermellon is?

When I discussed my recycling activities with one of my green friends, she said she was too busy; didn’t have time to do recycling. Total dismissal.

There is a word for the practice wherein people believe they are above the law (or it doesn’t apply to them): antinomiansim.

members.dcn.org/gvcc/radio_trans/antinomianism.html

 

[cathdoki]

When I discussed my recycling activities with one of my green friends, she said she was too busy; didn’t have time to do recycling. Total dismissal.

There is a word for the practice wherein people believe they are above the law (or it doesn’t apply to them): antinomiansim.

members.dcn.org/gvcc/radio_trans/antinomianism.html

I think that is the crux of the problem here. If we ALL just took reasonable steps to reduce waste, to recycle where we can, to use are cars wisely and keep them in good shape, to make sure our homes are insulated, and on and on, we could take care of many of our problems. It would help clean the atmosphere. It would reduce carbon emissions. Instead of focusing on AGW, we should be focusing on conservation in general.

We can do very small things that can help. When I had the energy audit done, the auditor was going to where my water heater is and was starting to say that it should be set to 120F. Well, she quickly stopped and recognized that’s where it is. And the pipes are insulated. Just little things. We have central air, but she was also impressed that we have a standing fan and it was also on. Just on low blowing around the cool and less humid air. It meant we could have the AC a couple of degrees higher. All these little things make a big difference if everybody used them.

So my friend, I’m not surprised about your green friend. They are often attached at the hip with people like Streisand. She screams green, but just google her lifestyle and see how green she is.

Now in all honesty, I truly believe that’s all that lynnvinc is arguing for. Using our resources wisely.