Science Is Under Violent Attack on Global Climate Change
As a civilization, we’re in trouble whenever politics trumps science — and we’ve seen plenty of that lately. That’s why the world is so frustrated with the inaction of the COP meeting in Cancun, as we listen to diplomats drone on in vague, glib language while scientists beg for resolutions to save us from what virtually all of them believe to be impending disaster. Clearly, mankind is never well-served to put its scientists in a position of subserviance to big money/power, where they feel they must toe the line on any issue, whether it’s global warming, cold fusion, “clean coal,” etc.
Yet, while I’m a bit reluctant to raise this issue, I would argue that we face an even bigger problem when religion and science cross paths. For example, last year, Illinois Congressman John Shimkus, who aspires to be chairman of the super-powerful House Committee on Energy and Commerce, quoted the bible (the books of Genesis and Matthew) as reason not to act on climate change, reading:
And He will send his angels with a loud trumpet call and they will gather his elect from the four winds from one end of the heavens to the other. The Earth will end only when God declares it is time for it to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth.
Shimkus continued, asserting, “There is a theological debate that this is in fact a carbon-starved planet, not that we have too much carbon.”
I hesitate to challenge anyone’s faith, but I don’t hesitate for a second in recommending against electing lawmakers whose policy decision-making process so clearly and aggressively fly in the teeth of critically relevant scientific discoveries. I’m sorry if I’m coming off as disrespectful here, but I urge our civilization to come up with a better way in dealing with the lethally important challenges we face.
I hope a few people will comment and provide some ideas here.
Patience Mr. Craig ,patience is the key for the dilemna.
Politicians have masters different than a scientists.
Regards
shrinivas
Introduction:
Solar turnkey equipments venders & plant consultants,
In Renewable Energy Power Generation Projects
Service providers & Technical consultants
Turnkey projects, 1 MW to 500 MW
TECHNO RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS
Project Technical Consultants.
Technology providers for
Solar PV, CSP, CPV,
Parabolic Trough, Tube Receiver, HTF Systems, Fluids,
Central Receiver, Towers with heliostat Mirrors
Molten salt storage systems,
Sun Tracking data DNI recording software systems,
Hybrid Green Energy, Used Plants from EU,
Technical Project Model Consulting,
Plant Integration & configuration,
Geothermal Rigs,
Used reconditioned / New Wind turbines 0.50 kW to 6000 Kw,
Bio Gas Plants models,
Land Fill project – international tie-up for promoters,
Renewable Energy data Equipments,
Project Technical Engineering,
Plant Integration
Network of Services
Represented in Spain, USA, Netherland, Australia
We facilitate solar projects by assisting our customers,
1. Product Sourcing: Identify products that best match our client’s needs.
2. Project Evaluation: Evaluate cost and benefit of commercial, CPP projects.
5 MNRE, IREDA Technical proposal guidelines.
We can provide you the following services in power generation projects procedures of development from our international principles with 40 years of experience in industrial plants.
Project Planning and basic studies
Development of project’s Technical expertise International tie –ups
Technical assistance in building projects
Overall project and building management
Basic details and engineering
Experts in all project phases: throughout Basic Design (Energy Balance),
FEL/FEED (Front End Engineering),
Detail Specifications & manuals.
3D modeling for MTO´s, or any PMC/Owners engineering activities.
Contact;
K G R Rao
Managing Technical Consultant (Projects)
TECHNO RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS
St-4. Lane-3, 304 ,Karthikeya Nagar,
Nacharam,
Hyderabad,
India
raokganesh@gmail.com,
9394882815.
Skype: solartres
It has nothing to do with Faith, but politics. In a previous post, I used the sick-kid-example: if your youngest kid gets ill, you don’t run a poll with your not-physician neighbours, you run to the nearest ER. Same thing here: we have a serious, even urgent, technical problem, with strong economic implications (and hence, political issues, since those gents have some sort of addiction to the later), and as such we must rely on technical arguments. I am not a US citizen, but at least in my country, when we elect a politician, it’s supposed to do as he promised, else he/she won’t have a second term.
No surprises here. As a species, we haven’t learned much.
Yes, I think the hubris of the humanities is holding matters up. It happened before in societies that collapsed. I think it’s going to happen again. I speak of the Hohokam in AZ in 3BC who, in spite of not raising domesticated animals and only used wood modestly, a life ‘apparently’ based sustainability, with the increase in population food became scarce, environmental changes, imposition of irrigation strategies/over-farming and social responses, er ‘ceremonial activities’ weakened their system’s resilience and made their system vulnerable to the climate extremes. And the Norse society in Greenland in the 1720s sticking to established patterns, elaborating on its churches and ‘ideological conditioning’ of the population instead of its hunting skills. And so it goes today…
Yes, I am a firm believer that we humans have exacerbated this climate instability, and eventually we will likely be digested by Momma Earth–thinning out the herd of humans/humanity, ridding itself of ‘human blight.’ No reason for us, humans, to be exempt from this process. It’s just evolution, and we’ve just exacerbated the whole DAMN thing. Indeed, we are immersed The Whole Obscene Era which follows the Holocene.
DEFINITION: The Whole Obscene Era. Humanity’s entire monument will be a one-millimeter-thick layer of radioactive sludge with a serious mass extinction, followed by the Sane-o-zoic Era, dominated by genuinely intelligent fauna – cockroaches, that sort of thing. – Anonymous
I think our species has underestimated the effects of the potential, future climate instability and volatility. 2010 exhibited extreme weather events worldwide from start to finish with heat waves, floods, blizzards and droughts. Perhaps the masses are starting to connect the dots?
Sorry, no alternative to offer this time. In my opinion, I do not think we are in a position to mitigate this climate instability at this juncture in time, nor should we–we belong to the Earth, she does not belong to us. The positive feedback loop to is in full-effect.
Politicians, as you’ve said in your book, are on an election cycle for making things work {or putting them off}. The people who believe we need to do something will do what they can, but the most of the people are so firmly entrenched in the status quo that they refuse to see change as anything but evil.
I am a Christian, and believe the bible, but the truths in the bible can be taken out of context to suit whomever. The bible also tells us to exercise stewardship over what God has given us. Good stewards do not destroy what they are to be taking care of.
I’ve been fighting a {thus far losing} battle against my local electric cooperative for two years now to join the TVA Green Energy Switch Generation Partners Program so we can use renewable energy, but the man who runs the place refuses to join, refuses to go with the time of day metering that’s coming, or make any other changes. He has no vision.
Craig, while every politician may not be enlightened, or even all that bright, these are the people we elect to serve as the trustees of the public weal.
That’s democracy! Imperfect, but preferable to any alternative.
Is the world really ‘frustrated’ at the failure of Cuncan? I believe very few people actually expected anything practical to emerge, and even fewer cared.
In truth your observation that ‘[quote] Clearly, mankind is never well-served to put its scientists in a position of subservience to big money/power, where they feel they must toe the line on any issue, whether it’s global warming, cold fusion, “clean coal,” etc [unquote] lacks a validity.
Most of the inhabitants of this planet do not trust the opinion of scientists or experts predicting Doom. Partly due to the ‘cry wolf’ syndrome. Too many times have we been told of the evils of capitalism, and the inevitability of Doom to the planet, only to see the prediction evaporate and anti-capitalist economies and ideologies collapse into real human misery .
Smugly pointing out theoretical peril without any practical alternatives, is never going to rouse public support.
Clean Coal, Nuclear, etc seem to be imperfect,but viable solutions to an increasingly energy hungry population.
Utopian solutions with dubious and untested technologies are not decisions which the electorate will endorse. Politicians are not slaves to ‘big oil/money/military/industrial complex’ or any other conspiracy theory. They are slaves to public opinion, and public opinion wants certainty to increasingly impossible questions, as a result the politician will fence sit while looking like taking action.
In certain countries we could fund huge infrastructure projects, at no cost to the tax-payer, by creating vast rain forrest’s that would solve most of our climate change issues.
Why don’t we? Well, curiously enough this would take a massive increase in the supply of bearer bonds. Any attempt would be stymied by the US DEA, claiming that this would aid the laundering of drug money. So the environment is paying the price for the ideals of the puritan fathers dream of a prohibitionist society.
Green Blog Post from:Thursday, November 18, 2010
Joke of the Day- Rep J Shimkus believes god will save us from Global Warming–
When I read something like this a few things jump out at me and I really wonder ‘what and who’ my Neighbors to the East, in Illinois voted for? With Leaders such as this Governing our Nation its painfully obvious why we are in the Mess we are in. The Old Adage of the Blind leading the Blind. I expect nothing less from the Republican Party who accepts the Largest Contributions from the Fossil Fuel Industry.
Snippets and My Commentary on the Article from>http://theenergycollective.com/nathanaelbaker/47076/god-will-not-allow-global-warming-proclaims-rep-john-shimkus-seeking-top-us-con?utm_source=tec_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
* John Shimkus (Republican-Illinois), who has opposed cap and trade legislation because he believes God will not allow the earth to be destroyed by global warming, is running to become the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman.
* “The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood.”
* “largest assualt on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced.”
* His position on carbon emissions includes the belief that reducing carbon dioxide will be detrimental for plant life.
While researching who his biggest Campaign Supporters are at http://www.FollowTheOilMoney.org. It shows that he has accepted $545,831 From the Fossil Fuel Companies. [ 60% from Coal and 40% from Oil ] With a contributions such as these I can see how anyone could be swayed to Vote for the Damaging Fossil Fuels that hinder USA and keep us in the Pockets of the Oil Rich Nations.
I truly expect nothing less; but, hope for change, from our current Republican Leaders.
I urge everyone to Contact your State Leaders. The following Link will direct you to your States elected officials. Tell my Politician-tellmypolitician.com/
God Will Not Allow Global Warming Proclaims Rep. John Shimkus, Seeking Top U.S. Congress Energy Position
November 12, 2010 by Nathanael Baker
U.S. House Representative John Shimkus (Republican-Illinois), who has opposed cap and trade legislation because he believes God will not allow the earth to be destroyed by global warming, is running to become the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman.
In 2009, at a congressional hearing on cap and trade legislation, Rep. Shimkus said, “The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood.” This week in an interview with Politico, Shimkus reaffirmed these views: when asked about climate change he stated once again that God will not allow the world to be washed away in a flood.
Watch Shimkus’ statements at 2009 Congressional hearing on You Tube: Rep. John Shimkus: God decides when the “earth will end”
Shimkus has also called an energy bill incorporating cap and trade measures for carbon emissions as the “largest assualt on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced.” His position on carbon emissions includes the belief that reducing carbon dioxide will be detrimental for plant life.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee oversees legislation related to issues including the supply and delivery of energy, public health, and air quality and environmental health. Three other Republicans — Rep. Joe Barton (Texas), Rep. Fred Upton (Michigan), and Rep. Cliff Stearns (Florida) — are seeking the chairmanship of this committee. Upton is considered the favourite to win the position.
I urge everyone to Contact your State Leaders. The following Link will direct you to your States elected officials. Tell my Politician
About the Author Nathanael Baker is the Managing Editor of EnergyBoom. He has been immersed in the areas of renewable energy and climate change for two years. Before joining EnergyBoom, Nathanael was the Director of Research for the DeSmog Blog. In this role his services included providing research to the New York Times and The Economist. A resident of Vancouver, BC, Nathanael has previously written and performed research for the British Columbia Provincial Government. Nathanael holds a B.A. in History from the University of Victoria.
Scotty
Scott’s Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.scottscontracting.wordpress.com
Joke of the Day-
Rep J Shimkus believes god will save us from Global Warming–
When I read something like this a few things jump out at me and I really wonder what and who my Neighbors to the East, in Illinois voted for? With Leaders such as this Governing our Nation its painfully obvious why we are in the Mess we are in. The Old Adage of the Blind leading the Blind. I expect nothing less from the Republican Party who accepts the Largest Contributions from the Fossil Fuel Industry.
Snippets and My Commentary on the Article from>http://theenergycollective.com/nathanaelbaker/47076/god-will-not-allow-global-warming-proclaims-rep-john-shimkus-seeking-top-us-con?utm_source=tec_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
* John Shimkus (Republican-Illinois), who has opposed cap and trade legislation because he believes God will not allow the earth to be destroyed by global warming, is running to become the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman.
* “The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood.”
* “largest assualt on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced.”
* His position on carbon emissions includes the belief that reducing carbon dioxide will be detrimental for plant life.
While researching who his biggest Campaign Supporters are at http://www.FollowTheOilMoney.org. It shows that he has accepted $545,831 From the Fossil Fuel Companies. [ 60% from Coal and 40% from Oil ] With a contributions such as these I can see how anyone could be swayed to Vote for the Damaging Fossil Fuels that hinder USA and keep us in the Pockets of the Oil Rich Nations.
I truly expect nothing less; but, hope for change, from our current Republican Leaders.
I urge everyone to Contact your State Leaders. The following Link will direct you to your States elected officials. Tell my Politician–http://tellmypolitician.com/
Find Complete Article Here: http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/joke-of-day-rep-j-shimkus-believes-god.html
There was a recent poll in our local (Montana) paper, asking to vote YES if you believed in climate change and NO if you didn’t. It appeared about 71% didn’t, 25% did, anda few percent didn’t know. Of course, in another poll, 15% of people said the sun rotated around the earth….
In the face of such blatant ignorance of facts, we can expect more delusional politicians. Hopefully they will not be re-elected!
Politicians come from most every background and with nearly every bias. Although it makes sense to want to prevent some from getting power, and even act on that desire, the good news is that we do have a system that tends to moderate more often than not. The past two years are evidence of what happens when too little variation exists. Whether someone agrees with the policies enacted and thinks them beneficial, or not, the point is that most of what has been legislated satisfies mostly one ideology, and only a portion of those who believe that way. But, as a rule, someone who might believe as Shimkus does will have a difficult time leading people in Congress who don’t unless they moderate. If it were meaningful, I could just as easily find quotations from the opposite end of the spectrum. And, in fact, with either case, I suspect the motivation is much more to get a sound bite that plays well with a constituency, than a real emoted belief. On the opposite extreme, I need only mention Alan Grayson of FL, without quotations, and the similarities are obvious.
Not only is the intersection of religion and politics dangerous for the people, so is mixing science – true science – and politics. Although I’m a “believer” in the fact that the climate is changing, whether man can change it at this point or if ever is a fair and unresolved debate. And I am horrified at how unscientific and political the “scientific” community has become about the topic. They are their own worst enemy. The only intersection between science and politics should be financial and funding for research in my view. Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case. Stem cell research is a perfect example of the community moving forward regardless of federal investment without damning regulatory hindrance. To date, it has been policing itself well, also. The climate debate falls short by a large degree, especially with respect to following common, basic principles of allowing scrutiny and skepticism to refine and get to truth.
Our knowledge out paces our wisdom.
Two trips to DC in Nov and Dec for Global Entrepreneurship Week and the Energy Innovation Conference confirmed how deliberately indifferent politicians choose to be with respect to climate change regardless of their affiliation.
While many politicians and Americans have decided to take the bury one’s head in the sand approach, what we badly need is an educational campaign–minus the spin–that clearly articulates the science using tangible examples illustrating the economic, environmental and health consequences of climate change to every household. We need to inject the same sense of urgency into and call for innovation around climate change as there was to put a man on the moon in 1961.
We need to stop fighting the religious battle of “global warming”. While the naysayers are typically ridiculous, the overconfidence of those who think we can predict the behavior of our atmosphere is also suspect.
The clear answer is in developing lower cost alternatives, and that is where the energy should be focused.
There is some fascinating new work coming out that says the IF the wind industry could (legally) take advantage of the same partnerships (MLP’s) that oil can gas are able to use, that the price of wind generation would unquestionably be below nat gas generated electricity today. Wind is incredibly sensitive to financing rates (since it is all about CAPEX with no fuel cost), and an MLP structure is estimated to drop the WACC for financing wind from 8%-10% to 4%-5%. This is what the industry lobbying group s/b working on…but of course there are entrenched interests as always.
The DC science lobby which includes the National Academy of Science and other inside-the-beltway groups that live off the federal dole has lost its credibility with the public because it always want to spend more of the taxpayers’ money on science, refused to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act and it has not communicated well with the public because of its extreme arrogance. Today we are reaping the returns from this arrogance – a radio show host that doesn’t understand simple physics has more influence that the President of the NAS. If public money is involved in an issue, it is automatically a political matter. It was interesting that when President Obama cited the importance of government funding of research, all of the innovations he cited were from DARPA, an organization that spends only a small percentage of government R&D.
Wow! I lot of different thoughts. I think most of the World does not understand basic science and scientific principles. Yes the World is warning, but there is no science based evidence that we humans are causing it. Certainly the way, we humans waste energy in our World is horrible. Yes there is a finite supply of oil, gas, and coal. We should be good stewards to our planet’s limited resources. Unfortunately, when you take a bunch of scientists who are starving for finanical resources to study climate and you offer them money to show that the human race is a cause, they get very creative and do things to keep their funding. But science is hypothesis and then proving the hypothesis is correct. Just ask Galieo how well this worked in the 1600’s when he said the Earth rotates around the Sun and Church was the ultimate power. The polititical community are far from understanding basic science. Most are comming at the system from a legal standpoint are trained to be reactive, not proactive. Looking to the future is being proactive. All that Washington is looking at is the 2012 elections. As lawyers, they prefer to chase ambulances, and never thought for a moment about getting in front and avoiding the accident. Politicans will never agree on anything, will argue without resolution, and continue to get paid by the hour. This is what we are stuck with. So why in the last 36 years when Carter said no more imported oil (25%) are we now at 66% and both parties have done nothing. When a disaster happens next like a war in the Middle East, the politicans can react. God help us!
Remember the KRAMER prize, human powered flight, collected by Dr. McCreaty.
Lay in waiting for someone to collect it for many years, then finally, technology
and inovacion allowed the factors to come together, and human flight was born.
Polititians were in the way, like grime on the edge of the newspage.
That’s the way it will be with electric vehicles, technology and innovation will all come together and be able to compete with fuel, and the daily exhaust of a million barrels of fuel will begin to clear.
The big-oil guy’s are very afraid, and although they are pleased with the price of factory made EV’s, it is the stuff that can’t be prohibited that will see electric vehicles succeed.
The rewards are gigantic, the challenge is tempting, and so thousands are engrossed in reducing or substituting fuel. Now GM is sorry they sided with big oil on the EV-1.
Energy can’t be fooled, it takes a certain amount to move a given amount of mass, what will be revolutionary is the same human breakthrough as human flight… the manipulation of weight, and accomplished work for the effort.
Craig, I share your frustrations. However I’ve come to the conclusion that trying to effect change within the context of the right versus left political paradigm is a losing battle. You may as well watch championship wrestling and hope the “good guy” wins. The essential root of our problems is that we’ve given a non-elected central bank a monopoly over our money supply. Nobody holds anything close to this amount of power, and their agenda is to create more debt. Nothing does this better for them than endless wars all over the world. Until this problem is resolved, if it even can be without collapse or a revolution, people like us need to be as efficient as we possibly can using the crumbs of capital left over from the military-industrial complex.
Love the analogy to professional wrestling! I’m going to remember to use that!
Craig’s observations and the comments are more than ample to the topic.
Human population is growing exponentially. Unfortunately, most are extremely unknowledgeable, and many are stupid. This used to be taken care of by natural processes.
I personally believe in the complete separation of religious and secular activities and beliefs. Too bad the country I live in no longer subscribes to that. I leave it to the more astute historians as to whether it ever did. It is a lunatic idiocy to wait for the rapture and not be taking care of business while one was at it. Too bad about the missing natural processes.
I used to believe that I would die in the global thermonuclear conflagration we were headed towards. Doesn’t seem to be the case, and this failure in my predicted destiny is the only thing that gives me even the slightest shred of hope about climate change.
Every aspect of my intellectual self says that we are already heading towards the cliff with no brakes. Humans are terrible (this word is not strong enough) at making any strategy in long cycle events. As disingenuous as our political leaders are in the aforementioned, they are simply us. I then refer to my prior paragraph herein.
Yep, humans are just another kind of virus. Climate change may end up being the “not with a bang, but a whimper” version of global thermonuclear holocaust. We all get to stay tuned.
We needn’t debate whether mankind can do viciously deadly and permanent harm to the biosphere without actually “destroy[ing] this Earth” (however that might be defined) – and, incidentally, those passages are not in fact direct quotes from the Old Testament or the New Testament (Google them), but are instead words from the man’s mouth attempting to foist a literalist interpretation upon his listeners. Oh, and, in the end, the existence of faith requires free will – and free will (whether it’s faithful or not) can push lots and lots of very nasty buttons.
We also needn’t debate about whether mankind is actually causing climate disruption – although the weight of the data plainly favors the conclusion that we are, and there is plenty of money flowing from the carbon-intensive fuel industry into the realm of pseudo-science to delay, deny, obfuscate and subvert final clarity in the evidence.
Quite aside from the questions of whether mankind can make life on this planet increasingly scarce, short and miserable, and whether the ancient carbon we’re spewing by the megaton into our modern atmosphere is having deleterious effects, consider these facts:
We here in the US have about 2.18% of the world’s oil within our borders – that’s 3 years of our current rate of oil consumption if we ever have to rely solely on our own oil reserves. We now directly pour about $700 billion every year into lots of countries that (perhaps for good reason) don’t like either aisle of our government very much. Not included in that figure are the value of the brave and honorable men and women who put their minds and bodies in harm’s way to defend our access to those foreign resources, and the vast sums of taxpayer dollars spent to arm, equip and transport them, and the lost productivity we suffer as a nation resulting from those costs over the short and long term.
What do you think will happen when the billions of folks just like us in China and India come up to our petroleum-thirsty way of life? Will there be anything like enough to go around even if vast new reserves are discovered? The simple numbers in population and potential production yield a short answer: NO! This is a national security imperative that all the Red people and all the Blue people (and all the purple people in between) should be raging about inconsolably. Somehow, the same moneyed interests that control the media in this country don’t feel that these subjects are worthy of discussion.
So take your SUV up to the mountains and enjoy the remote wildlife while you can – and don’t forget to write all your friends, your spouse, all your kin and your progeny a nice little note of apology for having ignored the biggest threat this nation ever faced – because this isn’t about future generations… Not only our sons will suffer, not only our daughters will pay, we talk of our parents children – we who sit here today.
Conversely, if you want something done correctly, get the lard out NOW and fight – in any and every peaceable way you can think of – to achieve real reform that puts a permanent end to the election auctioneering we now have in this nation (whereby our people in leadership positions are bought by the highest briber), because unless that problem is solved, none of the others ever will be.
Craig,
I fully agree with you on science and religion. Religion and state should be kept separate except to the extent that politicians should keep in mind those religious values that support respect and love for other people on which all the major religions agree but don’t always practice.
Although it’s true that we don’t totally understand the climate and how it is affected by CO2, there is more than ample evidence that we will probably be in serious trouble unless we quickly and drastically reduce CO2 emissions. Even if the probability were less than 10% that we are affecting the climate, the potential consequences would be so great that they would be unacceptable.
“NUTS!!”
Many good responses here, Craig, et. al..
I am reminded that beliefs are like prisons. They are largely unaffected by reason or fact, but will constrain the mind and the body it controls to its peril and even death.
I like what George Carlin said; “The earth will be fine, you idiot! It’s us that will be dead.”
The ego’s main defense for insane thinking, and the conclusions it forms with them, is to project it’s cause outside itself, where it cannot be corrected.
I can accept that God did create this world, as some revered scribes state, but nowhere is it established “where” it was created. Think about this, grasshopper. In your mind is all capability and unlimited possibility. But you must free your thinking from that you believe you are invested in or dependant upon to realize it. All modern spiritual paths of this world reflect this idea. Bible thumpers and fundamentalists are not on the list.
The problem began when environmentalists told us the sky was falling & the sea rising. We would be controlled by taxes & higher costs to force us to reduce carbon. What if environmentalists helped big poluters improve their systems, help to tell people what companys were doing better & what businesses could improve. As long as there is a ditch between environmentalists & mean evil business nothing will get done.
The only requirement from government should be for people to plant more trees in the open fields of suburbia. Taxing carbon will do little to improve the problem, & the money you think will be gained to help the environment will just go into other’s pockets & other programs. Much of which will generate more carbon & polution.
Actually, the problem began when our legislators allowed corporate entities to “externalize” the costs that their products and processes incurr upon the commons. This woefully lethal accounting disaster was much compounded when our legislators allowed these legal fictions to a) exist outside of a tangible public benefit, b) have unlimited lifespans, c) purchase other legal fictions, and now d) hold all the advantages of legal fictions while at the same time claiming the birthrights of natural persons.
Indeed, as laws are made necessary by the inability of persons (and legal fictions) to restrain their passions, one could say that the problem began with greed.
The concern we must address now is where, when and how the problem will end. Holistic accounting will prove a good beginning to that end. Before any progress can be made, we must act as natural persons to pull our legislators from the pockets of legal fictions, and bar those fictions from claiming our birthrights.
Seek relevance, a young lady once told me. Politics seek consensus. People seek convenience and comfort, we need Responsibility.
I fully believe that probably the biggest factor affecting the state this planet is the number of people combined with their desired standard of living, and hence the best way to tackle climate change and the general overstretching of resources, is to control the growth of population, which should be on a voluntary basis but this will only happen when people think rationally about the effect of humans on this planet. My other strong belief is that until people stop believing in fairy stories and that mystical invisible persons or entities can somehow save us then we (the human race) have probably little chance of survival in the long-term, i.e. a very large portion of te human race don’t think rationally. To put some numbers to the problem; at a population growth rate of 1% (about what it currently is) we will all be able to hold hands together while standing on the Earth before we reach the next millennium celebrations, at this rate by the year 2950 we will all have approximately 2 m² each of dry land to stand on.
If the human race wishes to survive then an awful lot of its members have to stop living in cloud cuckoo land and realise that the solution to solving the problem of survival is down to us and no one else.
I have nothing against people of faith per se as long as they let those without it and who know what to do, get on with the real job of saving mankind, and probably most of the other animals currently living on this planet, the planet its self will survive regardless.
With regard to RE, renewable energy that is, I tend to agree with the famous scientist Buckminster Fuller, who once said “there is no energy crisis, just a crisis of ignorance”.
Wow, I love that quote from Fuller. I read a bunch of his work earlier in my life, but I forgot how aware he was of the impending issue with energy. Thanks. Btw, here’s a cool video that mentions this specifically: http://ideasforgoinggreen.com/there-is-no-energy-crisis-there-is-a-crisis-of-ignorance.html.
Just reading through the comments, after posting my last one, I wondered how many respondents are ‘Brights’
What is a bright?
• A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
• A bright’s worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
• The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview
The movement’s three major aims are:
A. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
B. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
C. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.
If this sounds interesting, more info at http://www.the-brights.net/
That’s fantastic, Nick. Thanks for the participation. I’ve always believed that regardless of one’s religious beliefs, the imperative to take care of our home is pretty clear. It’s hard to imagine a loving God who doesn’t ask us to treat the planet and each other with kindness and decency.
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. Misquoted and out of context, the scriptures he was referring to are about God establishing his kingdom replacing earthly rulership. One of the reasons the Bible gives for the necessity of such actions is in Rev 11:18″ to bring to ruin those ruining the earth”.. You don’t need to be a religous person to have a passable familiarity with the Bible, just a desire to be literate. Misquoting and missapplying any text reveals a lack of effort and laziness. Taking care of the planet earth is necessary if you are religous, mistreating the home God gave us and tempting God to treat us as destructive tenants. If you are a secular humanist, then taking care of the earth is just as critical if not more so: this is the only place we have to live and nobody else will help us. There are no heroes, just us…
Excellent point, Chip – nearly every faith commends compassion toward all life and, in particular, Christians should see their role as being good stewards of this jewel of a planet and not abandon nature to the cruel whims of the most ignorant and powerful among us.
In any case, neither faith in God nor recognition of climate disruption are at all necessary to see the crushingly pressing need to get off oil for an entirely secular reason that has nothing to do with CO2 or methane – National Security!
For the sake of clarity, I thought I’d also include an excerpt here from Democracy Now which details the comments of this Illinois Congressmember:
_____________
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s turn to John Shimkus of Illinois. He’s the new chair of the Subcommittee on Environment and Economy. In a March 2009 hearing, Shimkus dismissed the existence of global warming by citing biblical scripture that says God would not allow the earth to be destroyed.
REP. JOHN SHIMKUS: So I want to start with Genesis 8, verse 21 and 22.
“Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.”
I believe that’s the infallible word of God, and that’s the way it’s going to be for His creation.
The second verse comes from Matthew 24.
“And He will send His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.”
The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood. And I appreciate having panelists here who are men of faith, and we can get into the theological discourse of that position, but I do believe God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.
Today we have about 388 parts per million in the atmosphere. I think in the age of the dinosaurs, where we had most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet—not too much carbon.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s the Illinois Republican Congress member John Shimkus, the new chair of the Subcommittee on Environment and Economy. Ryan Grim?
RYAN GRIM [senior congressional correspondent for the Huffington Post]: Yeah, and what’s really remarkable about that clip that you just played is that it wasn’t something that was, you know, surreptitiously recorded at some obscure Christian conference where he thought he was speaking just to the faithful. That comes from a congressional hearing, where you have scientists that come before the panel in order to talk about the dangers of climate change. And that’s his response.
_____________
George Washington admonished us to “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism” and he might as well have warned us about pretended faith. After all, John Adams wrote – in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (ratified by the Senate), “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Likewise, James Madison wrote, “Religion and government will exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.”
It is not just science that’s under attack, but Liberty – that most precious gift torn from the claws of a tyrannous monarch by the blood sweat and treasure of real patriots. It is a gift not bestowed by any law or dogma, merely respected or violated by them.
So, let’s do our best to sideline people who use scripture or faith or patriotism falsely to push their own misguided political ends, and focus more people power on the real problem standing in the way of the people’s power and good sense – bribery.
As long as “campaign contributions” are judged to be Free Speech, and legal fictions to be the equals or betters of natural persons, our leadership (regardless of their rhetoric) will be bought and controlled by the highest bidder, and the inhuman moneyed interests behind our current trainwreck of national priorities and policy will press on full steam ahead and carry us all over bridgeless cliffs.
You state facts as though every scientist in the world agrees with your thesis — and that’s all it is, a thesis, not fact. As you may know, some 30,000 scientists have signed a statement saying that carbon dioxide is not causing global temperatures to rise, and particularly man-made carbon dioxide. Prove it for yourself with this simple but reliable and scientific comparison:
1) Get a line chart from a reliable source, of your choosing, of global temperature during the past 100 years.
2) Get a line chart from a reliable source, of your choosing, of the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the last 100 years — and it is growing.
3) Now, lay one line chart over the other and you will discover for yourself that THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THE GROWTH OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.
4) Take your research one step further. Get a line chart from a reliable source, of your choosing, of global irradiance and lay it over the global temperatures chart. Lo and behold, there is a close correlation between solar irradiance and global temperatures. Shazam, you’ve solved the (undetermined) rise in global temperatures, if only somehow you could control solar irradiance from the sun!!
One caveat: Do not us global temperatures from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), especially their 2007 annual report. This is the report with global temperatures that Phil Jones — the former research director for IPCC — has admitted were falsified to make it appear hotter so the doom-claiming “scientists” could continue to collect hundreds of million dollars for research, much of it from the UN. Employed by East Anglia University in England, Jones resigned from the IPCC post in shame in 2009 and later that year stated to the media, “there has been no appreciable global warming for the past 15 years.”
Incidentally, when other scientists and meteorologists asked Jones if they could have the raw temperature data from around the world so they could make their own analysis, Jones said that the raw data was “lost.” (Yeah, and the dog really did eat my homework.) So you cannot rely on the IPCC data, nor the World Meteorological Organization, because it is also a UN agency and gets much their data from IPCC.
Any reputable organization not connected to the UN is fine, as long as you ask for “raw temperatures” reported from around the world — nothing from a “computer model” which is how IPCC conned the world with its falsified data.
The only good reporting being done on climate change nee global warming is in the London media, particularly the newspapers. It’s a shame that what we get here is, in fact, politicized and slanted to side with the UN.
Now, it seems to me that the problem is basically a scientific one that has been used by the political circle around the world to try to get money from rich nations (like the U.S.) and give it to poor nations, which is a socialistic construct.
Renewable energy folks would do well to concentrate on the biggest problem — economics. Regardless of how you frame it, cost is a major factor with alternative energy and that’s where you should focus your energies and resources. If we can get alternative energy costs down, we can persuade the political leaders.
Thanks for weighing in on this, Ron. I’ve certainaly come across this argument, though I’m sure you’re aware that it’s at odds with the findings and beliefs of the vast majority of climate scientists. In any case, it’s fine to be a “denier.” For you folks, I would simply suggest that we skip that subject and focus on the issues petaining to our energy policy that have nothing to do with global climate change: health, national security, the national debt, terrorism, peak oil, ocean acidification, etc.
Craig,
I became a published scientist before I received my BS in biology. I have been a ranger with the National Park Service and have led a local campaign, fighting landfills and corporations who joined together to pollute the groundwater, for the Sierra Club. I am always atuned to the place of science in our society. Like you, I am worried about the religious campaign to undo hundreds of years of scientific development.
Unfortunately, history tells us that politics and religion have been closely linked since the earliest civilizations. The Egytian pharohs were the high priests of there polytheistic religion. During the decline of the Roman Empire, emperors were gods and today we not only face the threat from the religious right but also the moslem jihadists.
Lastly, we must be careful that science itself does not become a religion, in and of itself. Many americans are poorly educated, to them and even more poorly educated people around the globe, sceince is more magic and religion than a logic based system of inquiry. Also, sceince has its own self important population , who believe that they deserve the reverence not only of the general public but also of their collegues as well. When ego enters the scientific equation it is no longer science but verges on religion.
Sincerely,
JB