http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Articles%5El1586&enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enZone=Technology&

We’re pumping liquid poison out of the bowels of the Earth and spraying it all over the kitchen, our children, etc.

We needn’t be distractingly arguing about whether a sponge or a rag is the best approach to sop up the mess, we need to pinch off the hose, have a laugh, and get dirty cleaning up!

Pass the vice-grips!

You make some excellent points, mds, and I’ve rarely seen such a commitment to balance in anyone attached to the climate issue. Which is why I’m surprised you’d be interested in that documentary. It uses the complexity of the situation not to draw the viewer into a better understanding, but merely to undermine the AGW case, while demonizing its proponents. It is bald propaganda and as such, it’s part of the problem, not the solution.

I agree almost completely with what you say: that this is a complex issue that needs to be better studied, but it’s also an important one that needs to be taken seriously. And your take on the precautionary principle: let’s use the safest technologies first–solar, aeolian and geothermal, not forgeting the safest of all: conservation. These are what Amory Lovins calls the low-hanging fruit. It would be harmless to pursue them, even aggressively, and in a few years’ time we might find that we have much more of the solution in our hands than we’d previously assumed.

The problem is getting other people to see it that way…For this, I found An Inconvenient Truth, though flawed, to be a much more positive influence on the debate. Even if it presents a simplistic picture, it at least encourages people to take this REAL ISSUE seriously, and thus to engage with the world rather than sleepwalk into an uncertain future. Durkin’s documentary encourages only cynicism, not skepticism, and as such is much to be deplored.

So, based on your philosophy we should push the use of biomass, even when this is resulting in the loss of forests. If the counter-hypothesis is true, then in a few more years you are going to find you’ve been making the problem much worse instead of better.

I see no problem with carbon sequestration using biomass that is already just waste from existing industry processes. This can only help. Some other approach might not, eg farming of ethanol crops that requires forest clearing.

Now I don’t know that this counter-hypothesis is true. It may be completely false. …but I do know that ignorance is not bliss. It can lead to trouble. I think point 2 should stay. It is possible that CO2 reduction is not enough. It is possible that more needs doing. We need to know.

Sounds reasonable, except in your point 2 I don’t see such a need to achieve a complete understanding, in order to arrive at success. I would place a far greater emphasis on achieving a complete undertaking, in all that implies.

Thank you also!

I am interested in both sides.

Here’s what I think:

1. The earth is getting warmer. Everyone seems to agree on this.

2. “The Arctic” The world’s snow and ice are melting. Satellite measurements of this over the entire earth don’t lie. What do you expect if the earth is getting warmer? You cannot leap to the assumption this is due ONLY to increased CO2. Other factors could be involved.

3. “The Sun” The sun’s activity cycles are a large factor. There is a huge amount of data on this and the correlations are just too neat to be wrong. You need to show a deviation from these cycles to make a case for additional global warming from new causes. This would appear to be the case though.

4. “Temperature” Increased CO2 will increase the atmospheric green house (GH) effect. I’m very familar with the GH effect. You can boil water and cook a steak in a cardboard box with a glass cover. I’ve done some work with this and a lot of reading. Showing a nice correlation is not enough, though. There may be more significant causative factors that we are missing. Then what?

The problem with what your “green side” link has to say under “Temperature” is that they ASSUME this is the only causative factor. What if the majority is wrong? What if CO2 is a relatively small contributor to global warming (GW)? Maybe mowing the Brazilian rain forest down to grow biofuels is more detrimental than helpful because those trees are producing water vapor that is far more important to cooling the planet. Maybe jet contrails are a larger factor. Maybe all three wiegh equally. No “hunch”, except I am not clear on the answers and we need to know more to make our actions count for more. I’m not “implicitly” endorsing the “anti-GW view”, although I see your point, that it may seem that way to some. Do you know anything of the debate over the demise of the wooley mammoth? Changing climate verses Human Predation? Some very nice population modeling was done showing that both could have been cofactors and neither acting alone would have killed all the mammoths. What is the rest of the picture for GW? There is a very good correlation between the number churches and the rate of crime in cities. Bigger cities have more of both. Does anybody think churches cause crime? Correlation is not enough. Understanding causation is paramount.

FOR THE RECORD:

1. I’m endorsing a reduction in CO2 output, using increased solar, waves, wind, geothermal, CLEAN coal, and nuclear, pretty much in that order. I’m endorsing use of electricity from these sources to run EVs and PHEVs to solve the transportation problem. Besides radically cutting fuel-use, storage batteries in EVs and PHEVs will be used storage for clean renewable energy sources. (Not should be, but will be. The technology to do this stuff is here and it is starting to make economic sense, regardless of environmental benefits.) WE NEED TO REDUCE OUR CO2 OUTPUT BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY BY MAKING A KNOWN PROBLEM WORSE. We need to reduce our use of limited fossil fuel resources anyway.

2. I’m endorsing continued study of the GW problem to determine the proportional effect of the various causative factors. YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND A PROBLEM COMPLETELY IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO A GOOD JOB OF SOLVING IT. It seems to me that we don’t understand this one completely yet.

Lastly, I’m sorry for the delay in response. I was busy working. Missed the Thursday show too, darn. I’m sure it will be back. The cosmic ray stuff sounds very interesting.

Thanks again to both sides here!

I’m not saying he has no right to make his case, or that people shouldn’t watch it. I just think people should be informed. Because if you think that Al Gore’s movie was unscientific and biased, or did not present the full picture; well this documentary is even more so. Yet people who criticise Gore for those reason are holding this piece up as “fair and balanced”. It’s ridiculous.

One take on it is found here.

Sorry if I come off as a bit of an arse, mds. It’s just that I found your post a bit too eager to find data which support your initial “hunch” about AGW, and that’s been the problem of both sides in this debate….

Doesn’t change my position on solar or EV/PHEVs. We need to move to these solutions to get away from the middle east oil problem…but solar and EV/PHEVs are going to happen anyway.

The earth is heating up, but anthropogenic CO2 as the cause has never been clear to me. I figured it probably isn’t helping. What about the much more abundant GHG H2O? It’s known that high clouds heat and low clouds cool the earth? Could deforestation, which has been going on since long before the Romans, be part of the problem? (forests are reservoirs for water and produce water vapor by transpiration) What about the more recent jet contrails be having a large effect one way or the other? What about the effect of the sun and the earth’s albedo? Interesting they mention an effect from cosmic rays interacting with the solar wind to effect cloud formation. Is it possible that the underwater eruptions discovered in the Indian ocean last year are increasing CO2 concentrations and causing the worlds oceans to release more CO2 into the atmosphere when they should be absorbing it? Sorry to ramble. Both sides have strong points on the CO2 issue. I’m interested in both. This does look like some new information. Thanks again.

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary

Cheers