In Climate World Series, Time to Call the Bullpen
For 20 years, we've left the problem to politicians. Let's try something else.
Mon Oct. 12, 2009 3:00 AM PDT
I didn't make the trip to Thailand for the pre-Copenhagen negotiating session last week, and I'm glad I didn't. For one thing, the weather was doing its best to remind delegates what global warming feels like: Bangkok can do hot and muggy like no place on Earth. For another, nothing much was happening—the big countries continued to refrain from making any promises about how much they'd cut emissions or how much they'd fork over to help the developing world leapfrog past fossil fuel. As Kevin Grandia, editor of the invaluable DeSmogBlog put it, "At the pace I have seen here in Bangkok there is little hope that these issues will be resolved by the time the negotiations end here on Friday. If these issues couldn't be resolved in two weeks here, it would take a miracle for them to be in the can for Copenhagen."
Meanwhile, in Washington, senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer issued the Senate version of climate change legislation, which most environmentalists took as a modest improvement on the modest bill the House has already passed. It works the same cap-and-trade way, at the same all-too-deliberate speed. And it had barely been introduced before the president's climate czarina, Carol Browner, said there was no chance it would make its way through Congress in time for Copenhagen anyway. Which everyone kind of already knew—but still, if there had been any buzz to begin with it would have been a buzzkill. About the only good news: Norway announced it will aim for even deeper cuts, reducing its carbon emissions 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 if other developed countries will go along. Given Norway's position in the world carbon league, this is akin to the guy who stopped drinking in 1967 announcing he's getting on the wagon—it somehow served only to underscore the depressing reality of climate gridlock.
Advertisement
Advertisement
In short: The scientific method has successfully identified the biggest problem the world has ever faced. It's worked great. The political method has not worked so well. In fact it's lurching toward something between abject and embarrassing failure.
And yet the game isn't quite over yet, because one team has barely begun to take the field. And that's the team you're on—the, uh, people. For 20 years we've left climate policy up to the kind of people now failing to solve things in Bangkok. We've had experts of every kind, but we haven't had—outside of, say, Norway—enough of a movement to be heard.
Which is why, all the bad news aside, I'm in a good mood. We're just under two weeks away from our global day of action at 350.org, and the movement has gone viral, turned into a monster. It's the first campaign ever built around a scientific data point (scientists now tell us that 350 parts per million is the most carbon we can safely have in the atmosphere, a number we're already past). Every day new people appear who are organizing big actions; yesterday we found out that organizers in Iran have managed to organize four actions for the October 24 day. They've even set up a website in Farsi. Ditto for events in Yemen, ditto Palestine, ditto Burundi. Thousands of actions, each more creative than the last. Artists too: Here’s Barry Lopez writing an exactly 350-word short story, the first in a series of writers that will be popping up in the next two weeks. I'm going to be in organizing mode these next 14 days, with not much time for reflecting: If you hear from me it will be in a hectoring tone. Like this: If people in Iran can get it together to organize an action, so can you.
This article is part of our Assignment 2020 project, a long-term reporting effort on the most important story of our time.
Comments
Disingenuous eco-hucksterism?
Submitted by GarySeven on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 9:28 AM PDT.
Heat is a byproduct of radiation, solar, thermal, radioactivity, whatever. The little molecules get very excited by whatever's acted on them, and they run around rapidly in little circles, giving off their little BTU's, and it's all nice and cozy. People are kind of like molecules, well, maybe bacteria, in our little petri dish of an ecosystem, and we run around in little circles and give off our BTU's also, along with hundreds and thousands and probably even millions of metric tons of garbage every year. Every year. The whole thing with CO2 and carbon footprints and all that jazz is a more complicated way of saying that we tend to defecate where we eat, unless we approach the situation with some kind of organized plan in mind. And, even then, you have issues like what happens when the sewer backs up, or, in micrcosm, what happens when the toilet breaks on the space station. In space, no one can year you cursing at the manufacturer, and getting the plumber up/out there, well, it's a dirty job, but even NASA has to have flush toilets, even if they're really fast ones.
I think you could come up with a sub-heading called 'welcome to the 21st century', when people are wringing their hands about diminishing forests, melting glaciers, and so forth, but no one will buy and wear a second-hand pair of pants, walk, or so much as slow down on the freeway, or, for that matter, shut off a light that they aren't using. And, we see a lot of examples where technology is supposed to carry the load to make up the difference in spite of people that just don't think their way through the day, and can't be bothered. Then, you have stuff like power shortages, and everyone gets really upset, and then you're into the hand-wringing, shirt-rending, seal-hugging stuff, and everyone puts on the Big Show of suddenly being very concerned with the environment, and 20 minutes later, they're back online and into their day-trading, and shopping for real estate etc.
If you're into bumper stickers, they used to have a couple that read something like: 'We treat the world like we've got a spare one in the trunk', and the more popular 'everyone wants to go back to nature, nobody wants to walk', but, truth be known, I think we like our creature comforts, our refrigerators, cable, electricity, shelf-stable food, the modern conveniences and stores that sell them, the McLifestyle, as it were. But, what to do with all the trash?
Well, garbage. The news tells about a Gigantic Swirling Sea of...Stuff, floating out there in the Pacific, somewhere, has seagulls and dead sea life all snarled up in it, unused remote controls and probably a couple sofas and 6-pack rings and all that kind of circling around, waiting for water friction and a couple millenia to take their toll on the situation, eventually solidifying into a large island which, like the Flying Dutchman, will haunt coastlines all over the world, Frito wrappers flying proudly in the wind, leaving AIDS needles and used condoms and Deity only knows what else(and frankly, we don't want to) in its' wake, along with the festering corpses of all the sea critters that just can't well digest any of that stuff. There's a mental picture that makes you consider writing Congress to resume nookilur testing...but, garbage disposal, dirty job though it is, has to be done. Maybe Korea, master shipbuilders that they are, will address themselves to the task, and build a gigantic floating barge-ship that can mechanically digest, and then incinerate any material harvested up with some kind of chain-feed 'baleen' sifter. Of course, an apparatus like that would take BTU's to operate, and we're trying to reduce global warming, not add to it.
But, what's that, you say? Mother Nature has her own heat sources, independent of pesky, noisy, polluting, soda-swilling hyoooomannnz? Yeppers. Solar radiation, Volcanoes(even ones on the bottom of the ocean, and the Seagrass in drydock, so no way to go down there, and adjust the thermostat on those babies), natural geothermal, coal seam fires that've been burning as long as people have been wearing shoes, if not before, and then there's the simple fact that we basically live on the outer candy shell of a large ball of molten rock(see 'volcanoes' above), that, from time to time, sees fit to change its' general disposition, sometimes violently, without any antagonism or prompting from soda-swilling hyooomanz.
Should we strive to learn about and attempt to reduce our environmental impact? Soooitinly! But, should you sulk around in a tree, tearing holes in your hempen garments, beating yourself in the face with your leather sandals, tying knots in your hair, and shaking your fist and yelling and screaming at passerby? Well, maybe not. I mean, it's a great draw for tourists, and people will gather, and take your picture(especially the police), but, your net positive impact on the whole thing will be pretty minimal. Instead, there's educationers. MUCH better than knee-jerk emotionalism, because the same 'nology that helped create the problem will inevitably have to help build solutions. However, even the best technology cannot by itself entirely substitute for couch 'taters AND others seeking to amend their habits a little, which isn't just eco-groovy, but will also probably help said 'taters' live a little longer. Especially if they stop eating quite so many tater CHIPS. Ah, yes, consumption. The MurkenSumir(american consumer), statistical character of legend, supporter of Con Me's both foreign and domestic, both hailed and reviled, the bipedal veal calf of corporate expansionism, and ultimately, hapless victim, is the linchpin, more or less, for a lot of this stuff.
My thinking? Don't be a veal calf. Shut the television OFF(they don't call it 'programming' by accident), and go for a 5-minute walk. Burn 20-30 calories. See the trees, flowers, and chirping birds, take a 'hit' off your allergy inhaler, and when you go back in your consumer cubicle, leave the idiot box OFF. For an entire DAY. Sure, you'll get withdrawal pains, and the D.T.'s, but a couple cold showers and a cup of coffee, and you'll be good as new once they pass. You CAN survive without up-to-the-minute advertising. You can ALSO survive without a 'credit card'. Imagine using a plate more than once!(GASP!). Imagine refusing plastic products, or recycling them. Credit cards can be recycled, too. They make great guitar picks!
Take a minute, and look at the cute red-eyed froggie:-------> Froggie sez: Cut that credit card up, and go find me a fly! I'm hungry! Now!
Well, probably, froggie can get his own fly,probably doesn't speak english, and you can buy your own car insurance without the advice of an animated lizard, choose dog food and so forth without talking animals of ANY kind, heck, you take that 1 day with no TV, and stretch it out to a month or so, before you know it, you'll be doing your own thinking, and maybe YOU will construct the garbage-eating ship Of The Future...hey, anything can happen, right? But, only once SOMEbody puts the remote DOWN, and slowly backs away...LOL
Klaatu marachas necktie
Climate Change Frou-frou
Submitted by avannavon on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 2:15 PM PDT.
It is so FASHIONABLE to be on this bandwagon that plodding along with both feet on terra firma seems, well, nerdish. Okay, I am a nerd. That's why I wanted to see the actual data and review it and look at the models and....guess what I found out? This whole thing is a HOAX of the same kind as The Population Bomb and the DDT Scare. Very popular. Very plausible. And....uh....incorrect?
Problem Number One: The actual surface temperature of the earth and the oceans is dropping, not rising, and has been for ten years.
Problem Number Two: The glaciers aren't melting any more than they normally do, they just aren't being replenished with new snow and ice. Ergo, the earth is demonstrably COOLING and DRYING, not warming and melting.
Problem Number Three: Even one substantial volcanic eruption causes more air pollution of all kinds, usually including carbon dioxide emissions, than all the pollution man provides.
Problem Number Four: The planet has a perfectly good checks and balances system in place. If we produce more carbon dioxide, Mother Earth provides more plant growth.
Problem Number Five: The dingbats at Hadley CRU who started this whole "crisis" cherry picked their data source and were using dendrology -- the "scientific study of tree ring growth" to extrapolate their results.
Well, let's all get together and read tea leaves, and if we don't like the pattern, let's just selectively read the leaves we want to read.....and see? It's a bunny!!!
shit
Submitted by rbe1 (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 1:24 AM PDT.
Well stated ! And your documentation for these cosmic conclusions ?
http://www.banat2.net
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 6:25 PM PDT.
منتدى
منتديات
افلام عربية
افلام جنسية
افلام سكسية
مملكة بنات
فلسطين >فلسطين
غزة
افلام عربية
افلام مغربية
اغاني
اغاني
اجنبية
اغاني
العاب
2010
بنات
شباب
لعبة
لعبه
2011
منتديات
فلسطينية
اطفال
منتدى
مملكة بنات الخليج
منتديات الخليج
افلام عربية 2009
برامج
منتديات 2010 مملكه بنات
مملكه بنات
حب
رومنسة
منتى مملكة بنات
منتديات مملكة بنات
مملكه بنات
الحب
بنات
منتدى ممملكة بنات
حب = حب
رومنسية + رومنسية
صور+صور
صور=صور
برامج
منتدى
منتديات
افلام عربية
افلام جنسية
افلام سكسية
مملكة بنات
مملكه بنات
منتدى فلسطيني
فلسطين
علم
وطن فلسطيني
الفلسطينية
افلام عربي
عزاويه
احلى غزة
مسلسلات
مسرحيات
اغاني 2010
افلام هندية
افلام هنديه
افلام مغربية
خان يونس
افلام عرقيه
صور ا
مملكه بنات ا
علم الحيوانات ا
الحب ا
مملكة بنات الحب ا
بنات الرومنسية ا
الرومنسية ا
منتديات
منتديات جنسية
بنات
مملكة
منتدى
منتديات
افلام عربية
افلام جنسية
افلام سكسية
مملكه بنات
re: avannavon what are you talking about?
Submitted by giovanni da procida (not verified) on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 6:31 PM PDT.
Okay, I am a nerd. That's why I wanted to see the actual data and review it and look at the models and....guess what I found out? This whole thing is a HOAX of the same kind as The Population Bomb and the DDT Scare. Very popular. Very plausible. And....uh....incorrect?
So you didn't actually look at the models and data then? Because even if you disagree with the conclusions, there is compelling data...
Problem Number One: The actual surface temperature of the earth and the oceans is dropping, not rising, and has been for ten years.
Not actually true. The 10 year trend in temperature (according to NASA's GISS) data is up. The temperature for 1998 is higher than the temperature for this year (which I think you'll find is 11 years ago...math errors doesn't help your case for being a nerd), but if you compute the average temperature trend for those 11 years, you get a change of 0.11 ºC/decade, which is an increase. 1998 you may remember as an el Nino year, which increases heat...
Problem Number Two: The glaciers aren't melting any more than they normally do, they just aren't being replenished with new snow and ice. Ergo, the earth is demonstrably COOLING and DRYING, not warming and melting.
The folks at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html) disagree. But as an anonymous commenter on a blog, clearly you know more than them. Where can I read about your study of this phenomena?
Problem Number Three: Even one substantial volcanic eruption causes more air pollution of all kinds, usually including carbon dioxide emissions, than all the pollution man provides.
Lets assume your statement is true. Okay, so consider that major volcanic eruptions don't happen every year. So in years with volcanic eruption, you should see drastic increases in CO2, right? Okay, go look at the Keeling Curve (which measures CO2 in the atmosphere over time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg). Now, where in that curve do you see the effects of, say the major eruption of Mount Saint Helens? That's right. You don't...
Problem Number Four: The planet has a perfectly good checks and balances system in place. If we produce more carbon dioxide, Mother Earth provides more plant growth.
Yes and no. Remember that plants are limited by many things. Light. Water. Nitrogen and phosphate. That is why people add fertilizer to their gardens and farms. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the air may slightly increase plant growth, but only until the plants are limited by something else. Half of all the photosynthesis happens in the ocean. Open ocean phytoplankton are limited by nitrogen and phosphate. Again, go back and look at the Keeling curve. If plants can take up enough CO2 to keep the atmosphere in balance, why is the curve increasing?
Problem Number Five: The dingbats at Hadley CRU who started this whole "crisis" cherry picked their data source and were using dendrology -- the "scientific study of tree ring growth" to extrapolate their results.
What do you mean "cherry-picked"? Can you provide a source for this claim? As far as I know, the Hadley Center actually makes physical measurements of temperature over time. The study of tree rings is done by other scientists. Again, you may disagree with the findings, but there is data to be gleaned from studying tree rings.
Well, let's all get together and read tea leaves, and if we don't like the pattern, let's just selectively read the leaves we want to read.....and see? It's a bunny!!!
Perhaps you should do less reading of tea leaves, and more reading of the scientific literature...
About your rebuttal...
Submitted by hankdennemann (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 10:05 AM PDT.
The "folks" at the National Snow and Ice Data Center do not necessarily disagree with the first poster's contentention that the glaciers are melting at the same rate, they just aren't being replenished with as much snow each year.
You take the poster to task for making this argument, but then you link to a page that describes how NSIDC monitors the decrease in glacial mass--not the increase (or decrease) in the rate at which the glaciers are melting each year. While NSIDC has determined that glacial mass is indeed decreasing, that is all they have determined--they have not determined why.
The complete absence of data on that point hasn't stopped environmentalists worldwide from proclaiming that global warming is the reason--a conclusion that, in twenty years time, will seem as ridiculous as the flat-earth theory. Seemingly intelligent people who believe in the scientific method have cast aside all logic and reason in an attempt to justify some quasi-religious policy stance. I don't get it. I am a committed atheist who bristles when the religious right clamors to have intelligent design brought into the class room. Now I have to contend with the religious left making policy decisions on the basis of arguments which, at their core, are no more valid than creationism.
Top notch work, liberals. The next time you try to reason with a Christian, you might want to remember how you yourselves cast logic to the side when it no longer suited your purposes.
And yet another click on the
Submitted by giovanni da procida (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 11:33 AM PDT.
And yet another click on the Snow and Ice Data Center Page would have taken you to their page on northern hemisphere snow, where they state:
The 28 year trend in snow extent derived from visible and passive microwave satellite data indicates an annual decrease of approximately 1 to 3 percent per decade with greater deceases of approximately 3 to 5 percent during spring and summer. Precipitation in regions of seasonal snow cover appears to be constant or increasing slightly in some locations over the same time period, which suggests that diminishing snow cover is the result of increasing temperatures.
See the difference? The original poster made a bunch of statements, none of which were sourced in the current science. I provided links in response. You read the first page in a link, decided it didn't agree with your preconceived notions, and decided not to go further in depth...
You can disagree all you want with the data. But pretending that there is no data makes you look as foolish as the flood geologists...
Horse hockey--a true liberal
Submitted by Monte (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 5:01 AM PDT.
Horse hockey--a true liberal biased article.Try getting some real facts together and quit relying on amatuer scientific data.The world is cooling.
Time to come up with another
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 5:35 AM PDT.
Time to come up with another environmental boogey man. Global warming "science" is being debunked more and more with each passing day. From the "hockey stick" which was shot down early to the convenient loss of original data in the first global warming scare study we are seeing a shift in scientists from across the spectrum producing actual studies (and allowing others to peer review these studies) debunking the doomsday predictions. The DDT debacle caused and is still causing the deaths of millions each year. Let's hope science and reason can keep the environ-crazies from allowing this to happen again.
The greater good
Submitted by Ken Black on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 6:54 AM PDT.
I am really not seeing what the naysayers of environmentalism truly have a problem with.
Are you all saying that breathing fresh clean air, drinking clean water and sustaining reliable food sources are a bad thing!!??
Call it what you will, global environmental concerns are for the greater good and are obviously not just a political or greed driven agenda. You see everyone benefits.
Why else would countries such as Iran or Yemen, both staunchly opposed to any "Western" ideas agree?
As for things are getting cooler - even elementary school kids understand that when ice melts the water gets cooler before it gets warmer.
Global warming nonsense
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 7:01 AM PDT.
Every century sees anti-technology types who clad their agenda in various cloth.......
Luddites all....global warming is but the latest foolish claim made by watermelons....green outside, red to their core.
This is not about climate but about socialism's latest anti-capitalist excuse.
How is any of this about socialism? There is not one thing about it that is anti-capitalist either. No one is saying this needs to be solved through a political means.
Think outside the box. There is a need, start a business and fill it. Sounds fairly capitalistic to me.
We have the technology to do things more efficiently with less harm involved.
Think forward rather than rest on your laurels.
Or maybe your ok with someone else doing it and then you can pay them. Heh, capitalism at its finest.
Dude, Cap and Tax is ALL ABOUT gloabal wealth redistribution
Submitted by OllieK (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 8:15 AM PDT.
Ken Black, you really, I mean REALLY, need to buy a vowel. So-called "climate change" is not about clean air and clean water (both of which are much cleaner now than they have been in the last 80 years), it's a massive scam to take wealth from industrialized countries (except China, India and others - major polluters, by the way) who are seen as consuming too many of the earth's resources, and give this money to poorer countries (so they can industrialize and catch up with the big polluters). Warm mongers want to send America and Europe back a century or so for the sin of being productive and efficient, while at the same time rewarding Africa, the Middle East and who knows where else. The Ken Blacks out there need to wake up and smell the socialism; its proponents are pushing to control us all.
Screaming socialism when one disagrees doesn't help either...
Submitted by Ken Black on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 2:57 PM PDT.
First off, I happen to be wide awake, as are many others. What I am talking about is creating change through innovation. The general idea behind Cap and TRADE is to keep other developing countries from making the same mistakes that poison this planet. I am not saying I agree with it. While possibly thinly veiled, it is still capitalistic, as credits can be traded. Again, I still don't believe that either. My point is, there is a better and more efficient way. If you feel threatened enough by the idea that your fossil fuel mining company or energy company could be harmed by someone making the world a better place, then adapt and beat them to it. Still nothing socialist or anti-capitalist there. Doing nothing to advance while wasting time running down the socialism complaint list is exactly what will drive socialism through government intervention.
All I am saying is private enterprise has a HUGE opportunity here to capitalize on making the world a better place.
And, yes, climate change, global warming or whatever label you would like to put on it, has everything to do with clean air, water, etc. - It used to be called ecology.
Wrong title
Submitted by mikem (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 7:35 AM PDT.
Lets clear something up. Its not global warming anymore, its climate change. Why is that? Because it covers the liberal ass no matter which way the tempature goes and allows them the press for governement control of more of you life reguardless of the facts.
Global Warming Gridlock
Submitted by Ernie Banks (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 7:59 AM PDT.
This article is way off the mark. In global warming, the scientific method has not identified the greatest problem we have ever faced. All the global warming models predicted higher temperatures since 1998. In fact, temperatures have gone down. If we apply the scientific method, we would conclude that the theory is faulty and needs to be revised. But no - it is better to bury your head in the sand and ignore the data.
To reduce man-made CO2, an entirely different marketing approach is required. Don't market it as global warming; market it as better security. The world depends on oil from the mideast; money from that oil is used to finance terrorism. Moreover, the world's economy is susceptible to massive shock if there is a interruption of that oil supply.
We should reduce our dependence on mideast oil to improve our security. Republicans will agree to that. Then you get a consensus and can pass some legislation.
But if you keep beating the drum of a disproven theory, you'll get no consensus and the legislation will remain stalled in Congress.
Even the Global Warming horn tooters...
Submitted by Robert Zimmerman (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 4:39 PM PDT.
... at the BBC have had to come out and admit the facts. Temperatures over the last eleven + years have shown no increase, contrary to all their predictions, based on their alegedly all-inclusive "models".
BBC: What Happened To Global Warming?
Excerpts:
- "But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
...
Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."
...
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new. "
So, if their wonderful models take the PDO and solar cycles and everything else into account, why did they fail so spectacularly in predicting the last 11 years of temperature NON-increase?
Let's say ANYTHING other than "our computer models, which we reference daily in our efforts to force government policies, have failed"!!
global warming
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 8:25 AM PDT.
yes by all means lets cripple the economy of the entire center of the country dependent on coal power. then we will destroy the desert water table with solar power stations and pave over pristine prairies and tender ecosystems with miles of road systemsand highpowered wires, to build bird killing inefficient windmills which will REQUIRE backup with expensive carbon emitting natural gas burners. oh yes it will be so idyllic....
that was awesome Giovanni
Submitted by Abe (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 12:19 PM PDT.
Nice rebuttal Giovanni! I think the U.S.A. and every recent adm has issues it feels is more important. I suppose the U.S.A.'s secrets are priority and probably imprison the Obama adm. For example, he has not fulfilled many campaign promises and none of his major promises. It seems like the adm is actually a continuation of Bush's policy. In a way the Obama adm and preceeding adm are imprisoned once they take office.
So, Bill McKibben's advocacy and his call for personal responsibilty may be the answer. I hope so. That is unlikey and I'm a sucker for saying this. It's not what I want to say. I work hard, I'm reliable, I'm a great pet owner. "I'm a do right, home night's man".(Wille Nelson reference) But, we the people no longer are in control of issues like this. This is an increasingly frightening view I see across all sources of media. This kind of anger and fear is going to have consequences.
New Copenhagen news.
Submitted by stumbs (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 12:33 PM PDT.
Some new Copenhagen news: Obama's peace prize and what that means for Copenhagen, a new front in African unity, and Norway's ambitious goals, while still selling oil.
http:envirogy,wordpress.com
We should take our part in
Submitted by Benjamin (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 3:04 AM PDT.
We should take our part in attaining for a sustainable environment.Global warming issue became the global concern. I have read some blogs that supports advocacy taking care of our mother earth to reduce the possibility of the effect of the climate change. Negligence on this issue can cost a lot of damage and devastation on some properties. It is worth to have payday cash advances to encourage group of people to came out with the best move to fight the problem brought by the climate change.
Good discussions... even the
Submitted by Barry on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 8:58 PM PDT.
Good discussions... even the press is picking up on the fact that climate change is something best studied over centuries versus 10-year trends. See:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/comm...
My observation is that today's environment exhibits cleaner air and water than 50 years ago. Farming practices are lowering soil wastage. Any CO2 increases in the atmosphere have a minimal impact compared to water vapor changes - water vapor is a much greater greater "green house gas" by both volume and effect. CO2 has become the favorite boogey man of the new millenia and provided a rallying cry for those emotionally based liberals that care little for facts and hard science. They would rather hold demonstrations than demonstrate logic. For example, explain how a .11C temp increase over ten years matters to glaciers that exist in temperature zones well below freezing most of the year... the 0.11 delta between minus 10 and minus 9.89C is still below freezing.
Oh well.
what a load!
Submitted by danceswithtrees (not verified) on Thu Oct. 15, 2009 7:40 AM PDT.
When was all of this EVER debated? A bunch of libs came up with this years ago and if you don't "buy into it" you are uncaring for our poor earth. I LOVE nature as much as the next guy but dear ole mom has made it for millions of years either way whether we tax our selves to death or not.
I say America needs to take an ENERGY INDEPENDENCE STANCE. "We need an all of the above" energy policy. Drill off our shores (like Norway) natural gas and mostly NUCLEAR energy (like France) THIS is what we need for our hurting economy. THAT is what Americans care about most, give us JOBS, not job killing feel good BS!
regarding DeSmogBlog
Submitted by Donna Laframboise (not verified) on Thu Oct. 15, 2009 3:10 PM PDT.
The author of this piece refers to "the invaluable DeSmogBlog". Your readers may be interested in my parody website: http://www.DeSoggyBog.com
DeSmogBlog's philosophy is profoundly anti-free-speech. The essence of its argument is that if you hold an opinion in opposition to its own you are a liar who is therefore not entitled to freedom of expression. Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself. They actually say this.
Such an attitude is scary and dangerous. Neither Mother Jones, Bill McKibben, nor anyone else who values civil liberties should be singing the praises of DeSmogBlog.
A power that can affect,
Submitted by coetsee (not verified) on Sun Dec. 27, 2009 6:42 AM PST.
A power that can affect, persuade and cause changes to someone or something. In order to influence people, you first need to discover what is already influencing them. What makes them tick? What Influence can be defined as the power exerted over the minds and behavior of others. do they care about? We need some leverage to work with when we’re trying to change how people think and behave.
onlineuniversalwork
My observation is that
Submitted by coetsee (not verified) on Sun Dec. 27, 2009 6:43 AM PST.
My observation is that today's environment exhibits cleaner air and water than 50 years ago. Farming practices are lowering soil wastage. Any CO2 increases in the atmosphere have a minimal impact compared to water vapor changes - water vapor is a much greater greater "green house gas" by both volume and effect. CO2 has become the favorite boogey man of the new millenia and provided a rallying cry for those emotionally based liberals that care little for facts and hard science. They would rather hold demonstrations than demonstrate logic. For example, explain how a .11C temp increase over ten years matters to glaciers that exist in temperature zones well below freezing most of the year... the 0.11 delta between minus 10 and minus 9.89C is still below freezing.
Oh well.
onlineuniversalwork
A power that can affect,
Submitted by coetsee (not verified) on Sun Dec. 27, 2009 6:47 AM PST.
A power that can affect, persuade and cause changes to someone or something. In order to influence people, you first need to discover what is already influencing them. What makes them tick? What Influence can be defined as the power exerted over the minds and behavior of others. do they care about? We need some leverage to work with when we’re trying to change how people think and behave.
A power that can affect,
Submitted by coetsee (not verified) on Sun Dec. 27, 2009 6:51 AM PST.
A power that can affect, persuade and cause changes to someone or something. In order to influence people, you first need to discover what is already influencing them. What makes them tick? What Influence can be defined as the power exerted over the minds and behavior of others. do they care about? We need some leverage to work with when we’re trying to change how people think and behave.
onlineuniversalworK
Experts have talked about
Submitted by coetsee (not verified) on Sun Dec. 27, 2009 6:53 AM PST.
Experts have talked about this before. How many times have you read about the importance of ‘adding value’ for your audience? How many times have you read about ‘building trust’ with your readers/prospects?
Many, many times. You know it well. Every marketing guru has spoken about this topic. I’m sick of hearing it. But it STILL bears repeating.
onlineuniversalwork
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
