Does it matter if it's human-caused?

Did George W. Bush take science classes in high school?

It appears, as it does with his English and speech classes, he skipped them to go to cheerleader practice.

Yes, GS, it matters a great deal if it's human-caused because many of the proposed solutions to so-called "global warming" affect human behavior (like reducing carbon emissions by taking SUV's off the market, as one example).

These are extreme measures which impact a free market society, which, the last time I checked, the U.S. still was. We'd better be damn sure that a solid, scientific cause-and-effect analysis is done and verified before we resort to any of these proposals, which are being floated out there right now by environmental extremists armed with nothing but emotional speculation at this point.

Let me get this right, Mongo. Are you saying that, for instance, if you learned that an approaching storm surge was going to be three feet above normal and would swamp your levees, you wouldn't do anything about it until you confirmed whether or not that storm surge was caused by man or nature? Heck of a reason, Mongo!

Get real, GS. Your example is related to an impending disaster. Global warming (if it exists) is a longer term issue.

Nice attempt to flip the argument around. What he is saying is closer to this hypothetical example:

Problem: Measurable increase in number and severity of earthquakes over past decade

Liberal hypothesis: Increased number and severity of earthquakes is caused by human activity, namely, too many people jumping up and down.

Proposed solution: Outlaw activities like skipping rope, hopscotch, and running. Force citizens to buy special shoes with shock absorbers that cushion the impact of walking on the earth. Establish new government agency to monitor and regulate any kind of earth shaking activity. Increase taxes on industries that use any kind of equipment or processes that shake, rattle or roll the earth. Provide government subsidies to low income people to assist them in purchasing special cusioned shoes. Provide special exemptions on requirement to wear government-mandated shoes for women (since they are lighter than men) and minorities (since they are disadvantaged).

Conservative response: Perhaps we should first confirm the hypothesis through unbiased scientific research.

Liberal rebuttal: We don't have time for that, we must act now before it is too late!

Mongo, I agree that global warming (if it exists) is a long term issue we will have to deal with but the increasing severity of storm surges, the rising of the oceans, the changing climate patterns and other phenomenon all exist now, whether man made or not and they require two responses. (1) We all need to prepare for the problems and dislocations that these phenomenon will cause over the short term (like the flooding of New Orleans) and (2) we need to find out what we can do to mitigate the worst of the damage that will be done by global warming (if it exists) over the long term (like the spread of exotic diseases, the failure of agricultural & hydrological systems and the mass migration of peoples).

We can argue about what's causing climate change till the cows begin nesting in trees but there's no question that the effects of climate change are beginning to be felt more and more and we need to get off our asses and start addressing the problems now.

It does matter if it is natural fluctuations or is caused by c02 emissions from humans.

If it is caused by our habits we should change. If it has nothing to do with us then changing what we are doing doesn't have an impact.

Either way Bush has already agreed it is caused by our cars, industries, and energy production.

Mongo and Bubba who do you agree with? Bush and McCain who think it is real and human caused or some other political faction?

Brian, you are sometimes too civil when dealing with vermin.

Boy, Brian, I never envisioned you as much of a baiter, but your question is akin to: How often do you beat your wife? I guess my answer would have to be that I agree with some other political faction. Although I'm not sure which political faction you are referring to.

Let me remind you this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of science and facts and I have not been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that humans or human behavior is causing global warming (if it, in fact, exists).

And, Love-In-the-Air, this one's for you: Phhhhhhttttttt!!!!!

I believe that the earth is going through a warming cycle. We know that even over the course of human history that the earth's climate has gone through natural warming and cooling cycles. In fact, the planet Mars is presently experiencing a global warming cycle. There is ongoing scientific debate over whether recent climate changes are man-made or is being caused by other factors outside of our control. I don't believe that the science has been settled on this issue and more research needs to be done.

As far as McCain and Bush are concerned, I have no way of knowing their true feelings on the issue. They are politicians, which means that they may take a position on an issue that is politically expedient even if it is different from their personal beliefs. Given the current political climate it is far easier to join the politically correct global warming bandwagon than being on the wrong side of public opinion polls. Politicians do it all the time.

Furthermore, history has shown that majority consensus is often wrong. I prefer to make up my own mind.

Every year since Katrina we've been warned that this year's hurricane season would be the worst ever. For several years in a row we've seen very calm seasons, despite these predictions.

It is very important to determine whether or not it is caused by us, because the proposed solution is to change our behaviour, which will have negative consequences for our economy and many people in the developing world.

I'm not a scientist, but I've heard from enough scientists, particularly climatologists, that there is no clear proof our CO2 emissions are causing Global Warming. After all, 1,000 years ago the earth was a few degrees warmer than today. And as far as I understand, they didn't have as many polluting cars and factories back then.

The more I hear about the so-called perils of global warming, the more I have serious doubts about its existence and its severity. There are too many questions out there about the origins and the cause that raise serious questions in my mind about it.

Forget whether its man made or natural. That's the political red herring both sides are using to mobilize votes. The questions is what do we do about the effects? What do we do about rising sea levels? How do we protect the people of North America from dengue fever and malaria? What do we do when 100,000,000 refugees start crossing borders? All of that's happening now and will and will continue to accelerate, whether due to man made or natural climate change.

10-4, good buddy!

First of all, why should anyone be impressed because politicians say they believe in global warming? Global warming is politically popular these days, so of course many politicians are going to jump on the bandwagon. It certainly doesn't take much courage for Bush or Giuliani or McCain or Schwarzenegger to go with the flow and profess that they believe in it and want to "do something". I have much more respect for those politicians who refuse to be stampeded, even at the risk of being labeled "global warming denialists" and likened to holocaust deniers for their skepticism.

Second, if global warming does exist (which is not at all clear based on recent data and possible instrumentation errors), we still have the crucial question of whether it is human-caused. If the major component of warming turns out to result from normal fluctuations in temperature such as the earth has experienced over many centuries and millennia, then it's unlikely that humans can do much to ameliorate it. In other words, if human-generated CO2 emissions are only a small contributor to temperature fluctuations, then reducing our CO2 emissions will also have very little effect on temperature fluctuations.

Furthermore, if human-generated CO2 is not a major contributor compared to normal climate variability, then we don't face a significant problem. Our planet hasn't experienced run-away temperature changes in the past, so there's no reason to expect abnormal problems in the future from non-anthropogenic global warming. Higher average temperatures will have some effects on our lives (both good and bad), but we'll adapt to them. Especially since these temperature changes will proceed slowly over a period of decades or centuries.

The only risk is if global warming is primarily human-caused, and is leading to large-scale, rapid, irreversible climate changes. Some climate models predict such catastrophic changes, but most do not. And none of the models have matched reality very well when they attempt to predict the future (as opposed to being revised and massaged to fit past data).

So before we go rushing off trying to solve a problem which may not exist, or if it does exist may not be caused by humans, it behooves us to verify the hypothesis and then come up with rational solutions. And even then the best solutions could have nothing to do with reducing human CO2 emissions, but rather with geo-engineering using advanced technology. Examples of possible technological solutions include seeding the oceans with iron dust to promote algae growth to sequester CO2, or inserting sulfur into the upper atmosphere (via airline jet exhausts) to reduce absorption of solar radiation, or building orbital mirrors to intercept a fraction of incident sunlight.

Scientists around the world concur on global warming, but high school's local brightest like Bubba know differently. One has to wonder why the most educated are involved in a conspiracy. We believed them when they cured polio and built the hydrogen bomb, but not when they tell us that global warming is due to the industrial revolution. I guess idiots like Bubba can't cause too much trouble for our planet as long as they remain in a small minority.

Rushing? We have been debating it for a few decades now. Bush promised in 2000 to regulate c02.

But at the end of the day Wiener would have us do nothing because a few of his fanatics are still mad that tree huggers might be right about something.

I agree with John McCain that the cost of doing nothing if global warming is real would be huge. But the cost of increasing new clean energy sources if global warming isn't real would just leave us with a better planet.

I don't think there is any questions as to where I stand on Global warming...I requested the council look into becoming a "Green" city, and for the most part I think they are on board....it would be kind a silly if they werent'. I look at it this way, anything we can do to preserve Mother Earth is a good thing..Everyone can play a part by recycling, changing the wattage in their light fixtures, and as a city, we can get serious about looking at new trends in construction design and much more. But it is important that the residents demand it of their elected officials, because some think it is hype...and by the time we take notice it may be to late.

My dad used to tell me "nothing ventured nothing gained".

This is what bothers me about people who dismiss the possibility that climate change is man-made - they demand more proof as a means of justifying inaction. Frankly, it is un-American to throw your hands up and say "I give up because I dont know." Anyone who considers themselves to believe in God yet has issues with climate change on the basis that they need more proof is just not using their noodle for much else besides a neck attachment.

I am tired of people saying we cant. I hear this from right of middle so much it makes me wonder how these people get out of bed every day - I mean why bother? As a group, you are afraid and despondent about your inabilities. You need a father figure for a President to tell you what to do, you need more science to be convinced that renewable energy self-sufficiency is a good thing, you are afraid of people half way around the world who dont know you and who you have never gotten to know yourselves. You are just a bunch of scared and cowering (I dont know) blobs. You should be ashamed of your defeatism but you parade around displaying it proudly. How sad really.

As an American, I believe we can make better cars, I believe we can start an Apollo project for renewable and clean energy sources that would ultimately lead us to where we need to be, I believe this would create millions of jobs in the process of doing that, I believe we should improve our country's infrastructure with worst-case scenarios in consideration, I believe we should continue to study the climate and understand how change might affect our means of food production, I believe we need to decentralize as many industries as we can to spread our assets in relation to potential disaster, I believe we should sustainably manage forests and not just clear cut them, I believe we should plant 10 trees for every one we harvest.

Tell me - what does any of this hurt? Your feelings? Your philosophy? Stop whining and do something positive with your lives and stop being so afraid of your freakin' shadow. Debate whether your old SUV was contributing to warming from the safety of a recovering planet for chrissakes.

G.S. is right.
It doesn't matter if global warming is human caused or a natural occurrence. The important thing is Dean's beach house soon will be under water. That's a phenomenon I call heart warming.

Now that is funny...

Let's see, what do we know for sure?

We're led to believe that we can predict the weather in 100 years when we can't accurately predict the weather for tomorrow.

The Earth is warming, there used to be glaciers in Wisconsin.

Greenland and Russia are experiencing the worst winters in 100 years.

The Antarctic ice sheet is growing.

CO2, plants and trees live on it.

The ozone hole has closed, and is not even a topic of conversation anymore.

In 1975 we were told to fear global cooling. The scientific community had a consensus then. They now say they were wrong in '75 but are right now.

Science is driven by grant money. Grant money has agendas.

So what should we do? Should we be good stewards of our environment? Of course. Should we try to make a reasonable attempt to be green? Sure. Should we ruin an economy in that pursuit? No.

And above all we should stop scaring our children with catastrophic predictions of the end of the world and drowning polar bears. Using questionable science to drive a political agenda has always resulted in the law of unintended consequence rearing its ugly head. The next thing we'll hear is that a lack of CO2 is killing the rain forests. Speaking of which, we hear all those, "An acre of rain forest is disappearing every 90 seconds," type comments and other doomsday predictions. If you do the actual math it never works out, if you do the math all the rain forests are already gone, all the children are already dear of gun violence, etc.

Be sensible, be smart, live life responsibly, enjoy your life, you'll never get another one.

While I don't think we can have a discussion on climate change without one on energy, I do want to discuss a concept that keeps getting thrown around in terms of energy. I keep hearing the term "self-sufficiency" in energy policy debates.

To me, this Enver Hoxha autarky approach to energy is destined for failure. If implemented, it will harm consumers and the economy. Closed economies do not work and will certainly raise prices on everything as the concept of comparative advantage will go out the window.

What many are really saying when they say the US will be self-sufficient in energy is that we will do it ourselves, but this, in fact, means the US will do it less efficiently and more expensively than what we can get in mutual trade that keeps prices down.

If you wish to see self-sufficiency in action, take a look at the 19th century British Corn laws and their subsequent repeal. and I agree with Voter, enjoy your life...

I'd have to argue that the conventional energy industry, ie, petroleum production & distribution is itself a closed system that exists virtually independently of our mythical free market system. And more, that it has wielded its virtual monopoly over energy prices to move legislatures, armies and economies in an effort to restrict the free market and make all other markets safer for itself.

Also, I don't see how you can automatically equate self-sufficiency with a closed market economy. Being self sufficient does not require the USA to lock out all other energy suppliers. It simply means that the USA would have the wherewithal to provide all its own energy, if necessary. If consumers discover they can import electricity from Bangkok at a lesser rate I don't see any reason why self-sufficiency would prevent them from doing so. But if Thailand decided to attack the USA economy by spiking electricity prices, the USA could mitigate any damages by resorting to its self-sufficient supplies.

GS:

So you are arguing the government needs to produce this self-sufficient energy because there is very little, if any, profits in being self-sufficient when you can get cheaper energy on the open market?

Does self-sufficiency include opening ANWR?

I noticed you don't blame OPEC at all in your criticism. A cartel is not free either, yet you didn't mention that, saving your blame for energy producers without understanding the market barriers they are operating in. The only way to make the country energy self-sufficient would be to artificially make imported energy more expensive or non-existent making alternatives more reasonable.

When politicians on the stump say self-sufficiency, it's either code for gas taxes, profits taxes, heavy import duties, or subsidized alternative energy to achieve self-sufficiency.

That is in essence a closed economy in energy because you are making existing energy no longer profitable by using government to means to stamp it out while propping up less efficient government subsidized producers.

Scott, you seem to be raising political issues that have nothing to do with self-sufficiency. I'm not advocating that the GOVERNMENT run the energy industries.

Self sufficiency MAY or MAY NOT require opening ANWAR. Depends on the cost.

OPEC is PART of the energy system. There's no getting away from that fact.

If the politicians use SS as a code word, why then did you continue to use it in the same way, without telling us you weren't really talking about the economics of the market but instead actually referring to these political issues? If you're gonna set the rules stick with them.

Scott, you seem to be raising political issues that have nothing to do with self-sufficiency. I'm not advocating that the GOVERNMENT run the energy industries.

Self sufficiency MAY or MAY NOT require opening ANWAR. Depends on the cost.

OPEC is PART of the energy system. There's no getting away from that fact.

If the politicians use SS as a code word, why then did you continue to use it in the same way, without telling us you weren't really talking about the economics of the market but instead actually referring to these political issues? If you're gonna set the rules stick with them.

GS you said, "Being self sufficient does not require the USA to lock out all other energy suppliers. It simply means that the USA would have the wherewithal to provide all its own energy, if necessary."

How would you accomplish that in our economic system?

OPEC is part of the energy system. Yes, a large part.

"Use self-sufficiency in same way", I exposed the word above.

"Set the rules"? What rules? You seem pretty confused today.

This is from you:

"What many are really saying when they say the US will be self-sufficient in energy is that we will do it ourselves, but this, in fact, means the US will do it less efficiently and more expensively than what we can get in mutual trade that keeps prices down."

You've offered a premise. When I responded to that premise you changed the underlying basis of your premise from strict economic terms to strictly politics by claiming your previous use of the term "self sufficiency" doesn't really mean what you initially meant it to mean:

"When politicians on the stump say self-sufficiency, it's either code for gas taxes, profits taxes, heavy import duties, or subsidized alternative energy to achieve self-sufficiency.

That is in essence a closed economy in energy..."

That's a big change in the subject. From, is it economically feasible to have self sufficiency to the should the govt control energy. Did you do that on purpose? A sort of intellectual bait and switch? Or did you just panic?

GS:

I was responding to you. This was my question after you asserted, "Being self sufficient does not require the USA to lock out all other energy suppliers. It simply means that the USA would have the wherewithal to provide all its own energy, if necessary."

If self-sufficiency was feasible, there would already be profits in it. Correct?

Following this logic, My question to you was this:

"So you are arguing the government needs to produce this self-sufficient energy because there is very little, if any, profits in being self-sufficient when you can get cheaper energy on the open market?"

Under our current economic system, we could be "self-sufficient" only with serious government intervention in the marketplace any way you cut it. To say that politics and economics are totally separate is pretty naive and misses the point completely. It is a political and economic issue even if you would like to keep those separate to create a false impression of my argument.

With that being said your position is that politics and economics aren't inter-related as you've said above?

You saying this, "Being self sufficient does not require the USA to lock out all other energy suppliers. It simply means that the USA would have the wherewithal to provide all its own energy, if necessary."

I asked in a follow-up to which you didn't answer:

"How would you accomplish that in our economic system?"

Prehaps more important, how would you accomplish this without politics?

Scott,

Do you think global warming is real?

If so, what should we do about it? Anything?

Instead of pointing the flaws in every plan ( and every plan has flaws) how about point out what we can do.

I have a big problem with the premise that self-sufficiency equals closed markets.

America grows enough food to feed her population and more. We are self-sufficient suppliers of food. We do not need to import wheat like Russia for instance (they have limitations of climate - limitations of distribution are another argument irrelevant to my using them as an analogy in the context of self-sufficiency.) In no way does America's ability to grow enough food to feed herself naturally lead to a closed system.

Now substitute in another commodity like hydrogen or wind or solar. The reality continues to hold water. Scott B. is simply operating on a questionable premise in order to justify inaction.

He is also arguing that Americans might be getting the short end of the stick if we cant buy a cheaper gallon of gas versus a slightly more expensive (I dont know...) gallon of hydrogen. But he is not factoring in the ancillary costs of getting that gallon of gas here to begin with. The real cost of a gallon of gas is not paid at the pump. I would explain this further but I wont do Scott's homework for him. He can research the real cost himself.

The other premise he blithely throws about is that we would somehow destroy our economy by pursuing alternative energy sources. Oil used to be an alternative energy source so again he isnt making any sense.

Scott - you are making tiresome arguments that irregardless of your attempts at courteous discourse are not really adding much to the discussion. I recall people right of middle in fairly recent elections making a lot of hay about their opponents not having a plan for various issues confronting our society. It seems that your plan is more of the same, tired defeatism that has compelled a great deal of the rest of us to activism.

Re: Corn Laws in Britian suggested by Scott B.

Please explain how a law that was designed to keep a domestic commodity from being undercut by cheap imports speaks about the proposition of self-sufficiency.

You may be reading a lot into this idea of being able to produce enough energy domestically that we are not reliant on others for energy resources.

The British just had to suffer a few years of war and bad harvests to realize they needed imports to keep eating. Are you suggesting that something similar would happen in a domestic energy market?

Maybe you noticed that I proposed decentralizing our assets? If sun isnt shining on the east coast it might be shining on the west coast. Same with wind - you place generators far apart to utilize changing weather patterns. There are many good ideas we have yet to realize because we arent trying.

Trade is not just based on who produces something cheaply and more efficiently but also on who can produce something unique. Alaska is forced to import coconuts but they export king crab in return. Production of energy may not be easily exported in a global sense but the means of producing energy could be. And making millions of good paying jobs would be a result of that.

You shouldnt try to bog the discussion down in the minutiae of trade barriers and tariffs. It is really rather pointless and a waste of time. Unless your reply sheds some light, I wont be following your advice again any time soon.

I know that it is easy to pull down someone else's ideas instead of building up our own.

So I will tell you a few things I support.

1. Use international agreements to increase carbon sinks like the Amazon. This would also help with many other environmental problems ( creating large deserts, species loss ) not directly related to global warming. ( International)

2. Raising the MPG standards for vehicles. Do it now and keep increasing it. Also, allow states some power in this field. (federal)

3. Elect a new president that works with the states as incubators of innovation instead of against them. This would allow individual states to be creative. It is amazing that Bush who came from a party that used to argue for the right of states wants to stop them on marriage laws and environmental laws. ( states)

4. Use design guidelines in communities that help out with energy use. Passive solar is underutilized. ( communities)

5. Ride as a way of commuting in the new Arroyo bike path the city of Simi valley is working on. ( individual)

This solutions would be in our best interest regardless if humans are causing global warming or not.

I am still amazed at the people that want to do nothing. Even Bush admits it is a real problem. Do you think he has been tricked?

Brian L:

You really seem to want to debate someone who is "not adding much to the discussion." Your actions speak louder than words.

The point of the matter is that I believe the concept "self-sufficiency" cannot be achieved without heavy protectionism of the domestic energy market. And, is this viable for the consumer? I believe it is not. If we raise these trade barriers, what will those countries do in response to our export markets?

With regards to the corn laws. Yes, the result was the price of corn went up domestically for consumers. When they were repealed, the prices went down. If applied to protecting US energy producers, where would the price go?

If you believe as you said "trade barriers bog the discussion down", then are you suggesting consumers pay more for alternative energy than what they've been doing? How would you get them to buy energy that is more expensive than other existing cheaper sources?

As part of self-sufficiency would you suggest opening up those drillers off the coast of Santa Barbara? Opening ANWR? Where should we put all the refineries locally? Do we want nuclear plants?

Do we really want to do it all in the US in the name of self-sufficiency?

How is oil at home more "unique" than oil abroad? I don't really follow what you are writing there.

According to a CNN article in 05 we consumed 36 million more gallons of gas than we produced. Wind, solar, hydrogen, biodiesal, and hybrid cars... How do you propose for us to self-sufficiently bridge this gap while keeping prices near where they are or declining?

A "Scientific American article, I'll have to find, discussed in detail how difficult it would be to create the infrastructure of a hydrogen economy to make this a reasonable proposition.

Ethanol? If we went with ethanol, we'd be importing more food than ever before. Last, Ethanol actually consumes more energy to produce it than it produces when used.

Next, if we did cut domestic consumption wouldn't oil producers just cut production and supply with it keeping prices similar to where they are right now? That is the nature of the cartel. Or, oil companies may even raise prices because they are shipping less and no longer making it on volume? Wouldn't this exercise just lead to making gas 5-10-15-20 dollars per gallon?

A hybrid car would decrease our trips to the pump, but that wouldn't mean producers would send the same amount of oil into the US that we are getting today as demand declined. They would adjust supply accordingly.

This could have serious consequences on our economy and I think realism is important to the discussion.

Sure if any of these alternative sources undercut oil prices that'd be great. But, so far, that hasn't happened. I don't think being skeptical is the same as being defeatist.

Brian L : When you say "we should decentralize our assets", do you mean the government should decentralize them or companies should?

At least you said I was courteous.

Brian:

I think all your ideas are pretty good ones, especially letting states address their own problems in this regard. In terms of MPG standards, how does the government arrive at them?

What if they are too high or too low based on the technological capability of the car manufacturers to meet them? We can all say we want 100 MPG or 50 or 25.

What do you think the appropriate MPG is healthy for the environment and is not healthy? How did you arrive at the number?

Brian:

I also wanted to point out something going on in the county. I currently serve on the Air Pollution Control District Advisory Committee and while I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone, but myself here, the county Air Pollution Control District is working on the following with regards to climate change:

1: Assisting with Implementation of California's Global Warming Solutions Act.
2: Updating APCD's legislative platform to address climate change.
3: Supporting green fleets via district incentive program.
4: Preparing a report on tree planting.
5: Preparing an estimate of energy use in Ventura County.

I can get you more info if you're interested.

Looks like our local government which is stacked with Republicans want to fight climate change.

Before we can go forward we must get a movement together and show that this issue doesn't divide us. There are only a few fringe people that favor doing nothing.

The local approach attracts my attention. Thanks for bringing it up.

I like this Scott Blough Kid.

It really is a sad commentary that we live in a society that is re-active and not pro-active. Healthcare for example, we all know it is a system in collapse, but nothing will change until most of us cannot afford healthcare. In terms of global warming even John McCain has said it is real, but we all know nothing will happen until major cities like New York are under water. Personally I think we can each do our part by taking steps everyday to reduce our carbon footprint. Even if you do not believe in global warming you can take steps that save you money and if you are wrong about global warming maybe you will also be helping to save the planet.

It's apparent we have the best health care system money can buy.

G.S. It is true that we pay the most for healthcare in the world. In terms though of what we get we are ranked near the 3rd World in infant mortality, longevity and overall health. We rank 36th in the world according to the WHO. Our companies have a hard time competing against countries that offer universal healthcare because it costs half of what we pay.

I do believe in the saying "think globally act locally." I am glad to hear that Scott is serving on the Pollution Committee for the County. I also believe the SVCC is making progress by addressing recycling of construction materials.

We all need to consider not only recycling our own waste and our vehicles MPG, but we also need to look at our consumerism.

I have read that a more significant reduction to your carbon footprint is reducing your consumption of meat. Raising livestock to be consumed adds sginificantly to carbon emissions. If we ate more vegetarian products there would be less need for grazing land which could in turn be used for crops that are directly consumed by indiviudals. Kinda like cutting out the middle man.

On a global level. Jobs and manufacturing have been outsourced to foreign soil. The cost of doing business in America is prohibitive. We have driven our jobs overseas for the corporate bottom line. Our nation is driven by Wall Street. We are a nation of hyper-consumers.

China is supposed to host the Olympics and the air quality is currently measuring hazardous for athletes to compete. Why because China is manufacturing products for American's on their soil. The EPA is the NIMBY for manufacturing.

Our lust for the profitable corporate bottom line has driven manufacturing to foreign countries that do not have to bow down to the EPA. Has this helped our environment or handed it over to a more liberal government that can cut manufacturing costs because of subjecting their workers and citizens to unsafe environmental conditions.

We are now finding that the pollution from China has found it's way to our soil. There is evidence of pollution from China in our air, soil and glaciers.

Our children are playing with lead laden toys manufactured in China.

The real challenge that we as Americans need to address is how to restructure our manufacturing regulations that will keep jobs on our soil and regulate manufacturing evironmental standards locally and internationally.

Americans greed for the latest toy or gadget at the lowest price needs to be addressed. Americans desire to have it all now, pay for it later needs to be addressed. Our gluttony and desire to live in the biggest house and drive the biggest cars needs to be addressed.

I provided a link regarding the Three Gorges Dam in China. I saw a documentary about this project. When a nation comes together great things can happen.

Do you think that America could take on a controversial project like the Three Gorges Dam and have it approved by citizens? I am not saying that we should take on something this extreme or that the Chinese solutions aren't without problems.

My question is do we have it in us to make sacrifices to the bigger issues. Sure reducing your individual consumption is a start, but I think it is the tip of the iceberg.

I see a lot of greed and indifference to others plight surrounding me. I see young adults that have no hope for living in the area that they were raised in.

Do we have what it takes, time to look in the mirror.

Donna you listed many great points! I don't see being "Green" as a liberal or conservative ideal, I even read the Simi Valley City Council is discussing ways to make the City go "Green". I recently installed 23 watt flourescent light bulbs in my home, they put out a 100 watts worth of light and they come on instantly, put out a great deal of light and will last 7 years and will save me about $74 a year for each bulb I replaced. This was an easy thing to do, will save me money and will help reduce my carbon footprint.

Economic stimulus plan - Chinese solution -

Three Gorges Dam - Estimated 180 billion yuan (22.5 billion U.S. dollars)Pollutant emission reduction
According to The National Development and Reform Commission of China, the average consumption of coal to produce one kWh of electricity in China is 366 grams (2006).[10] Therefore, the Three Gorges Dam will potentially reduce the coal consumption by 31 million tons per year, cutting the emission of 100 million tons of greenhouse gas,[11] millions of tons of dust, 1 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 370 thousand tons of nitric oxide, 10 thousand tons of carbon monoxide and a significant amount of mercury into the atmosphere.[12]

Economic Stimulus plan - American Solution
Consumerism, flat screen TV's, vacations, hopefully consumers do not save as this would not help the economy - Estimated $160 billion U.S. Dollars - How much of this will be spent on products manufactured on American soil?

I do not believe we should be bailing out people who have been irresponsible, banks, realtors, developers, individuals, government and politicians.

People who are frugal, save and live within their means are paying for credit-addicts consumerism. The value of the dollar is being driven down, the rest of the world financial market is hurting because they worry we won't continue to consume at our present rate. Where is the incentive to save, we reward consumerism. Our government is like a drug pusher - giving credit to our credit addicted citizens.

Dakota West,

Good for you, I installed flourescents throughout the house as well. I return all the containers from the garden centers when I am done with them along with my hangers at the dry cleaners. This way they do not need to be recycled through the landfill and I suport our local businesses. I bought reusable bags for the grocery stores, but I always forget to bring them. I do bring back the grocery bags.

Donna, I still cannot understand why some people are so threatened by "Green" ideas? I think it has become a real problem that we are no longer feeling responsible as a society to future generations. The trillion dollar deficits they are running in Washington DC is a great example of that.

Projects like the Hoover Dam could no longer be done today. We also don't build nuclear power plants or new gasoline refineries because of the legal hurdles associated with government regulations and litigation from environmental groups. I won't get into a discussion about whether these are viable forms of energy, I'm just saying that these kinds of projects cannot be done in this country.

Our nation seems to have lost it's desire to do great things. Gone are the days of programs like the Hoover Dam, Mount Rushmore, and putting a man on the moon. These days our government is in the business of growing government and expanding entitlement programs. When president Bush proposed sending astronauts back to the moon and then off to Mars he was ridiculed, with many people around here suggesting that the money would be better spent on public education and universal healthcare. Not to say that education and healthcare aren't important issues, but if the only thing we can do is expand government programs then we have truly lost our way. There is value in a nation pursuing bold, brave ideas. It wasn't that long ago that the USA was always doing things that nobody had dared to do before.

Donna hit on an important point. We have lots of laws to protect our own environment, but what we really do is export our pollution. We didn't build an LNG terminal in Ventura County, but that won't change our need for natural gas. Instead the terminal will most likely get built in Mexico with the natural gas piped north to America. So in essense we have also outsourced our pollution. That is a great example of American NIMBYism.

I also agree with Donna that much of this is driven by American consumerism. Perhaps the real solution is abolishing the federal income tax and instituting a consumption tax. That would give Americans incentive to save and reduce their spending. But realistically I don't ever see that happening.

Great things can still be done, but what you are talking about Bubba are things of the past. We need another visionary like JFK or FDR to move our Country in that direction.

Great things can and will be done in this nation. I don't think we should give up but instead build a movement for change that starts locally.

Scott,

I think you should write a brief summary of your air board meetings. I know it will likely sound boring but good government is usually not exciting.

The front page will be yours if you do it.

One thing that concerns me greatly about Obama is his willingness to negotiate with terrorists. I don't think you'd ever hear John McCain or Rudy Giuliani make such an absurd statement because they both know the enormous downsides of going down that road. The second you start doing this, you open yourself up to tremendous vulnerabilities on a national security level.

Mongo,

You are right you wouldn't hear McCain or the guy that is about to drop out ( why even bother talking about him anymore? The GOP rejected him already.) saying we should negotiate with terrorists.

You also didn't hear Barack Obama say that either because he didn't.

He said he would talk with some nations that we currently don't talk with directly.

Brian:

I'll think about your offer. My main problem is time right now.

Excellent points by Bubba and Donna being made.

In terms of China, if a nation violates basic human liberty to assemble, speak, pray, and own property there is little chance it will respect the environment.

Mongo, the only candidate/president in recent history I can remember negotiating with terrorists was Reagan. His staff did it before the elections and his administration did it again after the Beirut bombings, when US policy took a wacky change of direction and actually sought out the assistance of islamic militants and terrorists, in its proxy fight against the Soviets.

All the pundits seem to agree that Bush gave the worst State of the State Speech last night in the history of America! He should have spent the entire speech apologizing for all the terrible things he has done to our great country! Thank god he is almost out of office!

Scott,

I agree that progress should not come by trampling on human liberties and freedom of expression. Member's of my church and good friend's of mine were missionaries in China in the early eightie's. They taught english and history at the university. They were not allowed to evangelize, their mission was to live by example, they ultimately had to flee the country with the shirts on their back due to unrest.

I found it very haunting to see the people of China dismantling their homes and those of their ancestors to make way for the flooding that the Three Gorges Dam would create. It is a stark contrast to our process for development and change in America.

I will restate my original question...do American's have it in them to make personal sacrifices for the greater good? Can we agree on what that is, or will personal greed, partisan politics, NIMBY's and cumbersome government regulations hinder our ability to make necessary changes for the greater good? That is what we all need to ponder upon.

For those people who are still open to contrary scientific research about Global Warming, I'd suggest that you download (at http://snipr.com/1yjm1) a recent scientific paper titled "A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Treering Proxies". As shown in Figure 1 of the paper, temperature fluctations over the past 2000 years have significantly exceeded variations from recent decades. In particular, the Medieval Warm Period was about 0.3 degrees C warmer than 20th Century values.

In other words, there's no scientific proof that the slight warming of the past century represents anything more than normal long-term fluctuations. Nor is there proof that we are experiencing any sudden catastrophic climate change. Nor is there uncontested evidence that human beings are responsible for whatever warming may be occurring, since human CO2 emissions obviously did not cause the Medieval Warm Period a thousand years ago.

Scott B. -
You have redeemed yourself for whatever my opinion is worth but I still have one issue with your thinking.

I am not talking about a petroleum-based economoy - I am thinking about long-term change. An actual Apollo-type project to wean us off of oil and onto a decentralized grid. The decentralization is not an idea or a theory that needs to be invented by the gov't or some industry. It occurs when we all become generators of power thru whatever available means are at our disposal. This is a locally-driven requirement based on sun and wind patterns, water, thermal energy, etc. I am not trying to be an inventor or driver of a particular technology - what I am attempting to do is ask people to think outside of the box we currently reside in.

Your view of self-sufficiency makes sense inside the box. My view obliterates the need to discuss it as we become innovators and exporters of technology that creates self-sufficiency for everyone.

For dpwiener,

The logging industry pays a "non-profit" group to discount scientific data gathered from tree rings saying it isnt meticulous enough and not indicative of long-term climate patterns. Then they report data that is admittedly used over a 30-year moving average which clearly shows what you have stated above. That is convenient since some of the hottest years on record have only occurred in the last decade.

Just wanted to point this out since some people arent going to look for who is funding the "research" you are citing.

DPweiner,

Why do you think Bush has rejected the arguments against global warming and now says it is real and human caused?

Brian -
I know the answer means more coming from people who picked Bush to be their leader but I can answer the question for you...

Simply put - it costs him nothing. He is almost out of office and is worried about his legacy of being completely insane. He will not do anything about climate change though - he is an oilman.

Donna:

Can you be more specific in terms of sacrifice? What should we give up and why?

DPWeiner:

I'm interested in both the science of saying it doesn't exist just as much as the science that says yes it occurs. My question to you is more strategic in nature. By denying global warming exists aren't you and others missing out on an opportunity to expand private property rights-based solution? Instead, the only solution appears to be conceded to the left who supports a Washington-based centralization scheme.

BrianL: I'm still very pleased you wrote I was courteous. No one compliments good manners on here. Have a good one...

Brian L: One could just as easily make the argument that pro-Global Warming studies are biased. A scientist who fails to go along with the Global Warming orthodoxy these days is likely to be shunned and castigated and have difficulty getting grants for his research.

Ultimately scientific studies have to stand on their own merits, regardless of who sponsors them. If the underlying data is accurate and not cherry-picked; if the methodology is correct; if possible alternate explanations are accounted for; then the conclusion must be respected.

Certainly all scientific studies and research, whether "pro" or "con" on Global Warming, should be subject to rigorous criticism and analysis. But when someone claims that the issue is "settled" and refuses to respond to questions or errors or new data, that's usually a pretty good indication that they are trying to move the issue out of the realm of science and into the realm of politics and advocacy.

As for as the assertion that "the hottest years on record have only occurred in the last decade", that appears not to be accurate. The years 1980-1998 exhibited a 0.5 degree C rise in global temperatures, but temperatures during the past decade have remained stable (see http://snipr.com/1yjyo).

Brian, my guess regarding Bush's motives would be similar to Brian L's (without the hyperbole). At this stage of his Presidency he's worried about his legacy. He's not a scientist, he's a politician, and right now Global Warming is the politically correct thing to believe in. He won't actually do anything, but he'll verbally join the consensus of elite opinion.

One other consideration might be the fact that Al Gore has won a Nobel Peace Prize and an Academy Award for his climate doom-mongering. Bush doesn't want a confrontation with Gore over the issue, thereby feeding the view that if only Gore had been elected in 2000 instead of Bush we might have averted planetary disaster. Instead Bush invites Gore to the White House (as is traditional with Nobel Prize winners) and says complimentary things and claims to be a Global Warming convert. It's a way of diffusing the political tension, but again without taking costly actions.

DPweiner,

So you think Bush is being pushed around by Al Gore and it given to doing what the media demands he does? You must not respect him very much.

Brian, let's just say that although I don't suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, I have a lot of problems with Bush. I'm glad I didn't vote for him.

dpwiener :
I understand how biased arguments work on both sides. I havent put any sources for data out here as you have. I am not attempting to rest the case for global warming on the refutation of your data. In fact, I am saying your data is dubious in origin and that's it.

Plus, you have interpreted the article from Newstatesman to say what you want it to...I read it to mean currently stable compared to the sudden rise in the period before 1998. We arent dumping CFC's & NO in the atmosphere like we used to - so maybe this "stability" is man-made!! Maybe this "stability" is just the flatter part of a logarithmic function. Which one of us is right? In my view - it doesnt matter!

What I have said amounts to that it doesnt matter to me whether global warming is solely a man-made event or not. There is an unacceptably high price being paid for every gallon of fossil fuel that is converted to heat and gas and all of the cost is not paid at the pump. We are polluting the air, the soil, our bodies and we are paying the price in taxes, health and national treasure & security. I dont need studies to prove that - I can see it, I can feel it, I can even taste it from time-to-time.

There is only one reason to advocate for the status quo, you are personally benefiting from the petroleum industry somehow. I highly suspect you are because reason suggests that if we put our minds to it and invest in technology, as Americans utlizing our God-given talent we can probably come up with alternatives to petroleum that in the beginning will augment our energy needs with the goal of someday replacing fossil fuels altogether. That would be a threat to people whose paycheck depends on drilling more wells whether that is in Iraq or the Santa Barbara channel.

We have learned a lot about our planet and ourselves in the last 100 years and we can use this knowledge to try to avoid some of the unintended consequences that keep us wedded to failed policies.

I dont view politicians as generally problem-solvers - they are angling for the next election the day after they are elected. This country will succeed in spite of our politicians not because of them. That is why I am a progressive voter. It aint the man - it's the message. Bottom-up leadership is what Progressivism is all about. Do you want leaders that make up your mind for you? Or do you want leaders that respond to the us - the people?

I think we know the answer when it comes to chosen ideology - you just have to decide whether you want to decide for yourself or whether you are willing to abrogate the freedom God gave you to make up your own mind and hope someone does it for you. I personally dont need my daddy anymore and he's glad for it.

Brian L:

You say "Which one of us is right? In my view - it doesn't matter!" But it matters a great deal whether Global Warming really exists, whether it is human-caused, and whether it would have catastrophic consequences. Unless all those things are true, then political proscriptions which use Anthropogenic Global Warming as their justification are invalid. And even if all those things are true, political proscriptions which are ineffective in solving the problem would still be invalid.

Your desire to move away from fossil fuels based on the other reasons you give is a separate issue. My own opinion is that we will be switching away from fossil fuels anyway due to fundamental capitalistic reasons: they've become too expensive. Oil prices are high enough now, and have remained consistently high over a a long enough period, to encourage the invention of and development of new energy sources. I expect technological breakthroughs over the next few years to produce all kinds of alternatives, such as more efficient nuclear power, solar power, geothermal power, and tidal power. Perhaps some of the more speculative technologies, such as the Bussard Electrostatic Confinement Fusion reactor, or even a variant of cold fusion, will be developed.

As for your suspicion that I must personally be benefiting from the petroleum industry, it's unfortunate that you cannot accept the possibility that a person might honestly disagree with you without having an ulterior motive. It does not say much for the intellectual rigor of your position when you have to resort to ad hominem attacks. Even if I did have a connection to the petroleum industry (which I don't) it wouldn't mean that I was wrong; you'd still have to look at the facts and the logic to determine the truth.

Finally, I think you pose a false dichotomy when you ask "Do you want leaders that make up your mind for you? Or do you want leaders that respond to the us - the people?" I personally want fewer leaders of both sorts. I think we need more individual responsibility and initiative and freedom to solve our own problems by ourselves, rather than expecting government to do it for us.

DP-
It doesnt matter why we research alternative sources of energy. You can argue about the causes of GW or even whether it exists at all until the cows come home for all I care. Frankly, political proscriptions that view cleaner, safer, more local sources of energy are justified irregardless of any anthropogenic factors. Their validity does not hinge upon the existence of anything except that the current model is expensive, polluting and unsustainable.

My desire to move away from fossil fuels is not a separate issue at all - my desire stems from the unsustainability of the current system whether GW is our ultimate demise or the price of a barrel of oil brings our economy to screeching stand-still.

I suspect that your view about my suggesting you are somehow benefiting from the petroleum industry is clouded somewhat by your insistence that I was attacking you personally. When someone's paycheck depends on a particular thing, that someone will have a remarkable tolerance for not seeing the philosophy of that particular thing they financially depend on. It is a valid suggestion given your advocation for the status quo.

Government has a valid purpose - especially the government as it was originally envisioned by the founding fathers who were quite studious in their deliberations. That they achieved so many timely articles of governance is a testament to their deliberate process. Personally, I view government as a tool (in this case, a hammer) - nothing more complex than that. You can build a house with it or tear it down. I choose to use it for constructive purposes - the opposite of how it is being used right now.

I did not postulate a scenario based on numbers of leaders but on quality of leaders. Nor am I somehow suggesting that by having leaders that are responsive to bottom up governance somehow a crutch for us all to lean on.

I suspect we want many of the same things from life but I have no such illusions about individual responsibility. No one gets through life all on their own - it just doesnt happen. Nor is it realistic to suggest that government should not help the least of us - that is simply uncivilized. To suggest otherwise is to live with a deficit of kindness and empathy. I know how easy it is to lose everything - it doesnt take much. Not even a bad decision on your part. We are a very wealthy nation that can afford to take care of the people who do right by her - that is except for the massive greed and wanton fraud of the few.

Now that all of the front runners in both parties have spoken and said they believe in global warming do you still think it is a scam?

Why is it that Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, George Bush, and our own governor have all been duped?

Oh, and the middle eastern government that started this entire post?

And BP which has renamed themselves Beyond Petroleum?

They have all been the victims of a con job?

Why would you vote for any of those people who are so easily conned?

It seems like you think the Republican leadership is all afraid of Al Gore and can't think for themselves.

Brian, it's politically popular to jump on the global warming bandwagon these days. It's like the "no nukes" campaign in the 70's. Republicans are just as susceptible to popular opinion as Democrats. Just because Al Gore and a bunch of college students are ramming something down our throats it doesn't mean we have to accept everything they say at face value.

Shame on McCain for buying into the scam. I'll probably still vote for him to keep Hillary out, but that was a major disappointment for me.

Just out of sheer curiosity, if GW is a scam what would be the purpose, who would the winners and losers be?

I think my party is right and I am hopeful they will try to do something about it.

You think your party leaders have all been duped by some college students with the help of Al Gore. What does that say about them?

To keep supporting a party that in your mind is full of people that fall for what you think is a scam is pretty much the definition of being intellectually bankrupt.

Before I make my case, let me start by saying one thing - "Party on, Wayne! Let's head to the frat party, shall we?"

My party's leaders were not duped in any way. If you read my post carefully, which your college education had obviously failed to teach you adequately, you would have surmised that my point was simply that politicians will be politicians and glom on to the popular issues in order to attract votes. That doesn't mean they were duped. It simply means that they're being politically astute.

Now, off to the frat party with you!

There are plenty of examples of politicians from both sides jumping on a bandwagon when it was politically expedient. Didn't John Kerry vote for the war in Iraq before he was against it? I recall that Senator Clinton also voted for the war. It seems that after 9/11 most democrats were either caught up in the moment or under tremendous political pressure to go along. So they did.

But now that there is popular sentiment against the war you have politicians conveniently hopping to the other side. Funny how they didn't re-discover their personal convictions until public opinion polls went the other way. This is not a new phonomenon folks, this is politics. If the majority of public opinion believes in global warming then there will be pressure on most politicians to go along, regardless of their personal views.

BTW, history is full of examples of majority opinion being dead wrong. Hey, whatever happened to that pesky hole in the ozone layer that was going to destroy humanity?

Mongo-
Just out of sheer curiosity, if GW is a scam what would be the purpose, who would the winners and losers be?

The winners would clearly be the environmental whackos who have far too much influence already in this country due to their fear-mongering and all-or-nothing mentality. The losers would be anyone trying to make a living out there who happens to cross the enviro-Nazis in the process.

Bubba,

The problem with the ozone layer has been largely addressed through international action. Chemicals like CFC's and the old way or cooling a car have been eliminated or controlled.

But thanks for helping make the point that collective government action can be very effective.

It didn't go away on its own.

Mongo,
Your hyperbole was exquisite but you failed to explain yourself.

Exactly how do the environmentalists win? Do they get money? Do they form some sort of country of their own choosing? Do they amass so much influence that life as we know it ends when plastic is banned or something?

How do working people lose? Do we have to trade in our polyester overalls for hemp hard hats? Maybe I wont be able to buy fake butter and artificial sweeteners?

Have you really thought about this scam idea that you are marketing? I would think you should be able to follow the money if there is massive fraud being perpetrated on us all. Are we going to make environmentalists the nouveau riche or something? Is going green just code for going GREEN? Just want to know in case I want to buy what you are selling...

Funny.

OK, Brian L., here's the deal:

Environmentalists benefit because their influence grows even larger than it is already, which, in my opinion, is way of out proportion to the environmental issues we face on a daily basis (even if global warming is eventually proven to be true).

Anyone trying to start a new business suffers because of all the undue environmental regulations that get heaped on them (moreso than they face already), which effectively act as a disincentive to start-up companies and entreprenuership in general. This affects working people by reducing the number of jobs in the economy.

Capiche?

Mongo,
I'll address your second point first - anyone trying to start a business is more likely going to suffer from 1)lack of capital 2)lack of paying customers. These are the driving factors in starting a business. The Bush economy is not helping either of these issues much but it is helping to solidify the position of large corporations in the markets that these small businesses might hope to compete in. (If you are in the "security" business, start-ups are doing well with all of the hand-outs from Homeland Security). So you are dealing with priority #8 or 11 or whatever. Not a good argument since someone could just as easily be trying to start a business because of the new markets being created by the environmental concerns before us.

Your second point - if environmentalists were only about amassing power then the movement would be shaped quite differently than it is. Most people, if not all, who are involved are not getting wealthy by fighting off the polluters of this world. What they are doing is stressful and often unrewarding but they view it as necessary. My point being there are better ways to make a living.

But if you try to tell any of the people who have spent their precious time and money fighting off Boeing and SSFL that their influence is out of proportion to the issues we face from up on the hill, I think you would generate some well deserved and hearty laughter. You could help them release some of the tension they have built up over the years - good on you!!

Your logic is based on popular myth perpetuated by an oiligarchy (mis-spelling intended). Try starting your own oil company and then see who your real enemy is - your competition will eat you alive before the environmentalists ever heard your name!!