Can a Catholic disagree about Global Warming?

[Monte_RCMS]

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.

The leaders of the Green Movement, don’t really want to LEAD; they want to RULE.

Just take a look at the imperial lifestyle of Al Gore.

Or just take a look at the example set by President Obama. Look at the vacations he and his family take. What kind of example is that of a “green lifestyle”?

 

[lynnvinc]

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.

RE the alleged warming pause, here are 2 point Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf brought up last October at Real Climate:
(1) This discussion focuses on just a short time period – starting 1998 or later – covering at most 11 years. Even under conditions of anthropogenic global warming (which would contribute a temperature rise of about 0.2 ºC over this period) a flat period or even cooling trend over such a short time span is nothing special and has happened repeatedly before (see 1987-1996). That simply is due to the fact that short-term natural variability has a similar magnitude (i.e. ~0.2 ºC) and can thus compensate for the anthropogenic effects. Of course, the warming trend keeps going up whilst natural variability just oscillates irregularly up and down, so over longer periods the warming trend wins and natural variability cancels out.

(2) It is highly questionable whether this “pause” is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data [on which the CRU of email leak fame gets is supposedly fudged and exponged data], but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 ºC per decade – just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.

Furthermore, models do include various factors, which allows them to predict pretty much on the dot – but they cannot predict on the dot without including GHG forcing (AGW). For instance back in 1980s Hansen’s most plausible and realistic projection (which included some volcanoes – and there actually were some) was pretty close to what we actually got.

But I’m sure that once we are out of the solar minimum, and aerosols are even more reduced we would be seeing greater warming. Under those conditions, if there is no trend or a cooling trend, then I suppose it would be back to the blackboard for the climate scientists, and they would have to radicially reconsider the laws of physics, etc. that go into their projections.

So I really really hope you’re right. I hope for the best (no AGW), and expect the worst (AGW), so I won’t stop mitigating. And anything you people on this site throw at me just cannot make me do so. Not just bec it saves me money without lowering my living standand, but bec it is the right thing to do in the eyes of God, our Lord Almighty, who did not create this world to be a wasteland, but to be lived in.

 

[lynnvinc]

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

I never said Kyoto is the solution. If you think about it, the ONLY solution is the one posed by JPII in 1990 – that it is EVERYONE’S responsibility to mitigate the serious environmental problems, like the greenhouse effect.

What can governments do? Well, your dear friend Al Gore reduced the government’s GHGs to a tune of saving us taxpayers $1 billion a year (I saw it on some buried page of the Chi Trib in 1995, when I was checking whether the Trib had carried the story that AGW had reached 95% sci confidence that same year – they hadn’t). And governments, such as ours, could cut all subsidies and tax-breaks to fossil fuels, and stuff like that (assuming people would respond to higher fuel prices by using less – which rich nations like us probably won’t). The gov could invest in R&D to develop more efficient products, alt energy, maybe a CO2 vacuum cleaner (if that’s even possible). Maybe they could use the bully pulpit to encourage everyone to caulk their windows and turn off lights not in use. The California plan seems a good idea - hope it works.

But on the whole it is much more up to you and me and everyone else to reduce our GHGs (which in the process reduces toxins and many other harms). Governments, even dictatorships, can’t really do too much, if the people just don’t want to do their part.

I guess if AGW is real (which I accept), then we’re pretty much doomed, if we have to depend on the people of the world. That’s for sure. God help us. Gracious God graciously help us.

 

[estesbob]

RE the alleged warming pause, here are 2 point Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf brought up last October at Real Climate:
(1) This discussion focuses on just a short time period – starting 1998 or later – covering at most 11 years. Even under conditions of anthropogenic global warming (which would contribute a temperature rise of about 0.2 ºC over this period) a flat period or even cooling trend over such a short time span is nothing special and has happened repeatedly before (see 1987-1996). That simply is due to the fact that short-term natural variability has a similar magnitude (i.e. ~0.2 ºC) and can thus compensate for the anthropogenic effects. Of course, the warming trend keeps going up whilst natural variability just oscillates irregularly up and down, so over longer periods the warming trend wins and natural variability cancels out.

(2) It is highly questionable whether this “pause” is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data [on which the CRU of email leak fame gets is supposedly fudged and exponged data], but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 ºC per decade – just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.
Furthermore, models do include various factors, which allows them to predict pretty much on the dot – but they cannot predict on the dot without including GHG forcing (AGW). For instance back in 1980s Hansen’s most plausible and realistic projection (which included some volcanoes – and there actually were some) was pretty close to what we actually got.

But I’m sure that once we are out of the solar minimum, and aerosols are even more reduced we would be seeing greater warming. Under those conditions, if there is no trend or a cooling trend, then I suppose it would be back to the blackboard for the climate scientists, and they would have to radicially reconsider the laws of physics, etc. that go into their projections.

So I really really hope you’re right. I hope for the best (no AGW), and expect the worst (AGW), so I won’t stop mitigating. And anything you people on this site throw at me just cannot make me do so. Not just bec it saves me money without lowering my living standand, but bec it is the right thing to do in the eyes of God, our Lord Almighty, who did not create this world to be a wasteland, but to be lived in.

Funny after years of global warming alarmist 1998 as an example of a runaway warming may now tell us we can ignore it since it no longer fits into their narrative.

You keep quoting Hanson-isn’t he the guy that instigated the famous hockey stick hoax?

 

[The_Reginator]

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. **

.

That’s how I’ve been thinking for many years.
Now I’m becoming concerned that governments are possibly taking unnecessary measures that will do more harm than good.
As you said, " Instead of focusing on AGW, we should be focusing on conservation in general."

 

[Ender]

RE the alleged warming pause, here are 2 point Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf brought up last October at Real Climate2) It is highly questionable whether this “pause” is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data [on which the CRU of email leak fame gets is supposedly fudged and exponged data], but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 ºC per decade – just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.

The information I cited was from NOAA’s annual report of 2009 where they said that warming for the previous decade was precisely 0.00 degrees. Rahmstorf, citing data from Hansen et al at GISS, said that the warming was 0.19 degrees during that same time frame. NOAA, GISS, and CRU are the three most important agencies in the world for collecting global temperature data; everyone uses their data. What does it mean when NOAA and GISS report such wildly different results? Two obvious possibilities are that either (at least) one group is “adjusting” the data improperly or that the ability to measure global temperatures simply doesn’t exist. In either case, the GISS data doesn’t trump the NOAA data. If NOAA gets to fifteen years without finding a warming trend then regardless of what GISS says the damage will have been done.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

To be honest when the global warming alarmist declared the debate was over, that it was settled science, started calling those who disagree with them deniers on the level of Holocaust deniers and then offered solutions to the alleged problems there were nothing more than regurgitations the standard far left political agenda I knew they could not support their case. The revelation that much of what they had relied on was fabricated evidence and that they had a coordinated policy of trying to keep those who disagreed with them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals was just a final nail in the coffin is finals I was concerned.

The standard Internet debate on this is for the global warming alarmists to cut-and-paste reams of data , much of what they do not have a clue as to what it means, and hoping that we do not realize that it is based on fabricated data and manipulated studies.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

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. .

Good example of the outright fraud taking place in the "green movement’.

Green Mountain Energy has NON- transparent finances.

Green Mountain Energy is a multi-level marketing retailer of energy that it purchases from various sources, including subsidized wind power.

Wind generated power has MAJOR problems: excessive high costs; absolute lack of storage, for when the wind doesn’t blow; short component lives; AND, killing birds and bats.

Wind power gets a free pass on all those issues.

Look them up. See for yourself.

There is no “there” there.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

amazon.com/Wind-Farm-Scam-Independent-Minds/dp/1905299834/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281119850&sr=8-1

 

[The_Reginator]

Wind generated power has MAJOR problems: excessive high costs; absolute lack of storage, for when the wind doesn’t blow; short component lives; AND, killing birds and bats.

You forgot the health claims that have been reported. I recall reading about sleep problems due to noise, etc.

Here’s one example of potential health problems:
Wind turbines cause heart problems, headaches and nausea, claims doctor

Wind turbines can cause heart problems, tinnitus, nausea, panic attacks and headaches among people living nearby, according to a US doctor who has studied their effects for five years.

 

[lynnvinc]

The information I cited was from NOAA’s annual report of 2009 where they said that warming for the previous decade was precisely 0.00 degrees. Rahmstorf, citing data from Hansen et al at GISS, said that the warming was 0.19 degrees during that same time frame. NOAA, GISS, and CRU are the three most important agencies in the world for collecting global temperature data; everyone uses their data. What does it mean when NOAA and GISS report such wildly different results? Two obvious possibilities are that either (at least) one group is “adjusting” the data improperly or that the ability to measure global temperatures simply doesn’t exist. In either case, the GISS data doesn’t trump the NOAA data. If NOAA gets to fifteen years without finding a warming trend then regardless of what GISS says the damage will have been done.

Ender

And this during a period in which there should have been significant cooling due to the 11 year solar minimum. Once that the sun moves into a solar maximum, we can check and see if there is cooling or non-warming.

Or, we could start mitigating now and save $$$$.

—Laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[lynnvinc]

Good example of the outright fraud taking place in the "green movement’.

Green Mountain Energy has NON- transparent finances.

Green Mountain Energy is a multi-level marketing retailer of energy that it purchases from various sources, including subsidized wind power.

Wind generated power has MAJOR problems: excessive high costs; absolute lack of storage, for when the wind doesn’t blow; short component lives; AND, killing birds and bats.

Wind power gets a free pass on all those issues.

Look them up. See for yourself.

There is no “there” there.

I did check them out earlier and found out there is nothing wrong with Green Mountain, despite various criticisms. In fact, they are MUCH more honest that the carrier we were first on after moving here.

Yes, they do purchase wind power from providers. When I asked them up in IL if they were to come there (IL was in process of deregulating their electicity), and more and more people wanted wind, what would they do. They said they could even buy it from farmers, who could have turbines on their land, then plant right up to the base of them.

Yes, there is the bird issue (enviros v. enviros – so I’m wondering why you might care about this). And other issues. There are solutions being developed (I read about some radar thing to detect when flocks of birds are approaching, that would shut down the turbines, and other such innovations). It’s easy to stand on the side and criticize, when others are trying to do what is right, and come up with solutions.

BTW, it is expected that up to 50% of bird species could go extinct by 2100 from AGW. So either way, we need to do better by the birds.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I did check them out earlier and found out there is nothing wrong with Green Mountain, despite various criticisms. In fact, they are MUCH more honest that the carrier we were first on after moving here.

Yes, they do purchase wind power from providers. When I asked them up in IL if they were to come there (IL was in process of deregulating their electicity), and more and more people wanted wind, what would they do. They said they could even buy it from farmers, who could have turbines on their land, then plant right up to the base of them.

Yes, there is the bird issue (enviros v. enviros – so I’m wondering why you might care about this). And other issues. There are solutions being developed (I read about some radar thing to detect when flocks of birds are approaching, that would shut down the turbines, and other such innovations). It’s easy to stand on the side and criticize, when others are trying to do what is right, and come up with solutions.

BTW, it is expected that up to 50% of bird species could go extinct by 2100 from AGW. So either way, we need to do better by the birds.

Green Mountain should follow a policy of transparency. Which they do not.

It’s not flocks of birds. With raptors, they cannot detect the impending strike from the windmill arm. They just circle around and get whacked.

What we should be seeing is a public report on the number of birds killed at each windmill. The bird and bat carcasses should be picked up for disposal and not left there where they attract various carrion-feeders, which then get killed by the blades.

 

[verum_peto_1]

There is a nuclear power plant in Texas that generates 2.5 MW. In order for windmills to replace just that one plant they would have to cover an area the size of Rhode Island. This is because the “energy density” of nuclear plants is over 50 times greater than wind farms.
The issue is not whether we should be good stewards but what should a good steward do? The debate is not between those who care and those who don’t, it is between those who disagree on the probable outcome of the choices before us.
This is a good example of the point I just made. I disagree with this assessment; I think it is completely wrong. There is no moral issue involved (which is why there is no “Church” position on the issue); it is a question of who’s facts are correct.

Ender

Nuclear may be cheaper, until you add in the cost of spent fuel disposal, and the cost of an accident. Unfortunately, because those costs are essentially infinite, the drive the real cost out of the ballpark. The challenge with calculating energy costs, is that nobody who produces energy has been held accountable for the actual cost, which includes environmental damage.

For example, there is lead in the ice of Antarctica. The only way that such lead could be present would be from leaded gasoline burned in the 1970’s and before. This is not a trivial point, as metals accumulate in the body of all animals. Baby whales are now dying from nursing on their mother’s milk, which contains accumulated heavy metals from filtering large amounts of sea water.

A whale is a complex mammal. This is dangerously close to humanity, and there is no apparent concern by our politicians, or the public. As long as corporations are not held accountable for the actual cost of doing business, the costs of energy will not be properly reflected.

 

[lynnvinc]

Wind generated power has MAJOR problems: excessive high costs; absolute lack of storage, for when the wind doesn’t blow; short component lives; AND, killing birds and bats.

Wind power gets a free pass on all those issues.

Look them up. See for yourself.

There is no “there” there.

Other considerations include deaths and harms from fossil fuels causing local pollution and acid rain. 60,000 Americans die each year just from small particulate matter (that’s like a Viet Nam War every year) – mainly from burning fossil fuels, and that doesn’t include deaths, birth defects, abortions and other harms from the various toxins released in burning fossil fuels.

What about the sea birds, not to mention seafood and other sea life forms, harmed by oil spills – there are many other spills, aside from the BP spill, that we don’t even hear about.

What about the cancer alleys – towns in the South with extremely high cancer rates – around oil processing facilities.

What about the largest hazardous spill in all of U.S. history – no, not BP, the the Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash spill in Tennessee in 2008, which has damaged a huge area, and caused lots of health harms to the people living near by.

And there are other harms, from mountaintop removal (MTR) and the pollution that causes, plus reducing opportunities for wind generated power on those mountaintops (which would have been far far better than removing the mountains). Just imagine the runoff from that.

What about fracking for gas, and the harms that causes.

The poor, the rural, the minorities are the “written off people” – the ones who suffer most from these problems, except the urban people living in smog – and I guess they don’t count in people’s calculations.

There are many many harms from fossil fuels, even if one discounts any harm from AGW, that makes it well worth following a path of energy/resource conservation/efficiency to the greatest extent possible – and experts say we can reduce our energy by more than 75% cost-effectively, without lowering productivity and living standards – see natcap.org.

All strategies need to be pursued, not just wind power – that is only part of the mix. We may have to get into more nuclear, tho I have reservations about that – not just the plant and waste dangers, but the uranium mining (which could be done with less harms to people and the environment, but typically is not).

Also the larger grid would have some place or other when it is windy, and often when it is still, it is also sunny, which is good for solar.

And there are some advances going on in biofuel (I’m not talking about food to fuel, or biofuel that entails more GHGs than petroleum, but smart fuels).

We just need to put our old American engenuity to work, and God’s help and grace into it, and we can solve these problems.

Let’s keep a positive and prayful attitude. God will help. He never fails.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I can just imagine the howls of protests from the pro AGW camp.

motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/our-climate-ultimate-agw-apple-app-for.html

wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/31/our-climate-iphone-app-is-rising-fast-plus-new-link-widget/

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Other considerations include deaths and harms from fossil fuels causing local pollution and acid rain. 60,000 Americans die each year just from small particulate matter (that’s like a Viet Nam War every year) – mainly from burning fossil fuels, and that doesn’t include deaths, birth defects, abortions and other harms from the various toxins released in burning fossil fuels.

What about the sea birds, not to mention seafood and other sea life forms, harmed by oil spills – there are many other spills, aside from the BP spill, that we don’t even hear about.

What about the cancer alleys – towns in the South with extremely high cancer rates – around oil processing facilities.

What about the largest hazardous spill in all of U.S. history – no, not BP, the the Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash spill in Tennessee in 2008, which has damaged a huge area, and caused lots of health harms to the people living near by.

And there are other harms, from mountaintop removal (MTR) and the pollution that causes, plus reducing opportunities for wind generated power on those mountaintops (which would have been far far better than removing the mountains). Just imagine the runoff from that.

What about fracking for gas, and the harms that causes.

The poor, the rural, the minorities are the “written off people” – the ones who suffer most from these problems, except the urban people living in smog – and I guess they don’t count in people’s calculations.

There are many many harms from fossil fuels, even if one discounts any harm from AGW, that makes it well worth following a path of energy/resource conservation/efficiency to the greatest extent possible – and experts say we can reduce our energy by more than 75% cost-effectively, without lowering productivity and living standards – see natcap.org.

All strategies need to be pursued, not just wind power – that is only part of the mix. We may have to get into more nuclear, tho I have reservations about that – not just the plant and waste dangers, but the uranium mining (which could be done with less harms to people and the environment, but typically is not).

Also the larger grid would have some place or other when it is windy, and often when it is still, it is also sunny, which is good for solar.

And there are some advances going on in biofuel (I’m not talking about food to fuel, or biofuel that entails more GHGs than petroleum, but smart fuels).

We just need to put our old American engenuity to work, and God’s help and grace into it, and we can solve these problems.

Let’s keep a positive and prayful attitude. God will help. He never fails.

Consider EACH issue separately … each on its own merits and “demerits” … rather than adopting every approach and hoping for the best.

That’s why I have strongly suggested that people interested in the Green Movement study industrial engineering … because the success or failure is based on the small details.

The major problem with the Green Movement is the refusal to look at the details … glossing over the “failure modes”.

Look at Spain … classic example of good wishes and good intentions and hoping for the best [and ignoring the known problems] leading to disaster. They actually ran out of money and the country went bankrupt because of adopting wind power. It just didn’t work.

You can only transmit electricity just so far before the line losses eat up all the power. You cannot transmit electricity from Texas to New York.

You cannot “assume” an adequate storage facility for electricity.

Lots of really great ideas … just do not work out in practice.

Details, details, details. The terrible tyranny of details.

That’s why I keep arguing for total transparency. Which is why Green Mountain, if it’s such a great idea, will not post its financials on the internet. Open and transparent, Green Mountain is not.

Good intentions are not enough.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Button-up Your Overcoat …!

weatherwise.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2010/July-August%202010/global-cooling-full.html

 

[lynnvinc]

Button-up Your Overcoat …!

weatherwise.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2010/July-August%202010/global-cooling-full.html

Read up to
“Have no fear, the planet is getting colder at least according to some. This is more than speculation by skeptics: According to the World Meteorological Organization, global average temperature spiked in 1998 and has been in a cooling trend since then. Sure, 2008 was the 10th-warmest year on record since 1850, but if climate change is really happening, then shouldn’t 2008 have been warmer than 1998?”
then realized they know nada about climate science – no need to read further…

 

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc
"Other considerations include deaths and harms from fossil fuels causing local pollution and acid rain. 60,000 Americans die each year just from small particulate matter (that’s like a Viet Nam War every year) – mainly from burning fossil fuels, and that doesn’t include deaths, birth defects, abortions and other harms from the various toxins released in burning fossil fuels.

What about the sea birds, not to mention seafood and other sea life forms, harmed by oil spills – there are many other spills, aside from the BP spill, that we don’t even hear about.

What about the cancer alleys – towns in the South with extremely high cancer rates – around oil processing facilities.

What about the largest hazardous spill in all of U.S. history – no, not BP, the the Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash spill in Tennessee in 2008, which has damaged a huge area, and caused lots of health harms to the people living near by.

And there are other harms, from mountaintop removal (MTR) and the pollution that causes, plus reducing opportunities for wind generated power on those mountaintops (which would have been far far better than removing the mountains). Just imagine the runoff from that.

What about fracking for gas, and the harms that causes.

The poor, the rural, the minorities are the “written off people” – the ones who suffer most from these problems, except the urban people living in smog – and I guess they don’t count in people’s calculations.

There are many many harms from fossil fuels, even if one discounts any harm from AGW, that makes it well worth following a path of energy/resource conservation/efficiency to the greatest extent possible – and experts say we can reduce our energy by more than 75% cost-effectively, without lowering productivity and living standards – see natcap.org.

All strategies need to be pursued, not just wind power – that is only part of the mix. We may have to get into more nuclear, tho I have reservations about that – not just the plant and waste dangers, but the uranium mining (which could be done with less harms to people and the environment, but typically is not).

Also the larger grid would have some place or other when it is windy, and often when it is still, it is also sunny, which is good for solar.

And there are some advances going on in biofuel (I’m not talking about food to fuel, or biofuel that entails more GHGs than petroleum, but smart fuels).

We just need to put our old American engenuity to work, and God’s help and grace into it, and we can solve these problems.

Let’s keep a positive and prayful attitude. God will help. He never fails."

To which MonteRCMS replies:
Consider EACH issue separately … each on its own merits and “demerits” … rather than adopting every approach and hoping for the best.

The point I’m trying to make is that our fossil fuel inefficiencies/profligacies entail many harms. So the solutions mitigate many harms, not just AGW.

Of course, anti-environmentalists don’t recognize any of the harms, and probably would also not admit smoking entails cancer risks either. So one really can’t discuss anything with them.

One would think they might at the least be interested in implementing those strategies that save them money without lowering living standards, but the proof is in the pudding – our U.S. GHG emissions have increased by 20% in the past 20 years and so too the other concomitant pollutions and harms, when they could have fallen by at least 25%, maybe 50%+, saving money, without lowering productivity or living standards, perhaps softening this economic recession, AND mitigating a plethora of environmental and other ills in addition to AGW.

Which just goes to show there is no such thing as a rational, economic man, and ergo the entire field of economics is based on a false assumption. And there aren’t many moral Americans either. It’s not so much an issue of “they didn’t know,” but that they didn’t care. That’s a very sad state of affairs.

“If you want all, seek nothing” – St. John of the Cross, who shows us the path of self-denial to true happiness in life and union with God.