Al Gore is being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize due to his work educating world leaders and the American public about the dangers of Global Warming through his book and movie, both entitled An Inconvenient Truth. This came not long after the State of the Union Address in which the President briefly mentioned that he's like Americans to reduce their fuel consumption by 20% in the next 10 years - a statement that local and national news networks all but ignored. No one, including the President mentioned the various ways to encourage conservation and discourage fuel consumption. Here are a few of my suggestions:
1. Provide tax breaks for people working within 10 miles of their home or those using public transportation. Of course, this would require updating the public transportation system, extending bus routes, and planning future communities in a way that allows the people living in them to travel no more than 10 miles to work, school, or shopping locations. Of course, it would be even better if everything we needed were within walking distance, but that would be too much to ask.
2. Require better gas mileage for all cars.
3. Tax SUV's, Hummers, and trucks for personal use that require huge amounts of fuel. Offer tax breaks to those driving hybrids or cars using alternative fuels.
EDITED: Religious people all over the world have rejected the theory of Global Warming, including our President, who should be impeached for doing so. Since the planet was made by God, and we in God's image, many believe that we could not possibly do anything to destroy either. Religious leaders of all kinds have been rejecting scientific principles since the beginning of time. As conscious citizens, it is our duty to convince them that the care of our planet and ourselves is not only in all of OUR best interests, but it is most likely what God would want us to do (if she exists). And, wouldn't it stand to reason that if we ARE creatures of God and the Earth is her masterpiece, that we should take the best possible care of both?
So that Americans can continue consuming obscene amounts of fuel:
3,088 US Soldiers have been killed in Iraq (this figure DOES NOT include soldiers who were wounded in Iraq but died of their wounds outside of its borders)
23,114 US Soldiers have been wounded in Iraq
Friday, February 02, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
Damn right it's real, it's very real indeed and the sooner the US as a whle wakes up to its wider global responsibilities the better!
Nice to see you highlighting this UWL.
Chicago already has a system where we can deduct our public transportation costs from our paychecks tax free. As someone who travels almost exclusively on public transit, I definitely agree that the transit infrastructures must be updated. I also totally agree with using taxes as carrots and sticks to encourage more mindful consumption. We already use the tax system to encourage other socially desireable behaviors (marriage, home-ownership, children, college) why not also energy consumption?
Sorry, UWL, I'm going to disagree here. The polar ice caps on Mars are shrinking along with ours which points to a much larger cause than a planetary one. The sun is in one of its hotter phases lately, and this is something beyond our control.
I am in favor of reducing emissions and keeping our water clean. We must be thinking generations ahead of ourselves. My big concern is landfills and what they may do to our underground water supply. In comparison to other countries, I'd say the U.S. is much cleaner on the whole.
I'm not with Daniel that America needs to wake up. Americans don't want weird science stuffed down our throats. Plus, Al Gore getting the Nobel prize doesn't gain credibility with me. The sun's effect is too great to study and trace the effects of emissions on global warming. If the earth is at it's warmest in 300 years, which is what I heard, what happened 300+ years ago that made the earth so warm at that time? Too many variables to consider.
As to your solutions, it's interesting that you consider greater government intervention, (i.e. taxation, gov't controls, etc.) to manipulate the public. I do like the tax incentive part of your solution, though.
Mars is cooling overall actually, though its southern ice cap is shrinking.
Government intervention is not the solution to many problems, but where it can help is in changing the economic equations every business has to work with. If all cars are required to have catalytic converters, the result is reducing tailpipe emission of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons. If they are not required, then comparing the cost of a catalytic converter (a few hundred dollars) with doing nothing (zero dollars), will always result in nobody using catalytic converters.
It's all about making it less expensive to do the right thing. In the catalytic converter example, there is a cost to doing nothing, but it is a cost borne by everyone, not the car maker and buyer, so it is what economists call an "externality", i.e. something we don't have to worry about. Requiring catalytic converters simply changes that externality into a cost of doing business.
The US would never have gone to the moon, without governmant making it a national priority. For anyone else, the cost of doing it is greater than the cost of not doing it, so why would anyone bother?
Apollo cost $135 Billion in 2006 dollars. But without it, we would have nowhere near as advanced microelectronics, which allow you to read my words even though I am typing them far away. How much economic value has been added by the computer revolution, which was a direct result of the Apollo program?
Not only is it real, but it's taken the world, what--15 years to convince all the naysayers? With a little luck we might get an opportunity to do something about it within the next 15 years.
I have no fight with the warmers. What was the warmest year on record? I dont know the answer to this but I do wonder. I do dislike your #1. Although any tax on me wouldn't really hurt my income I would think that you would have a different take than that. I mean how can you be against someone bettering themself even if it is 11 miles from their home?
just a thought
js
UL,
I wasn't surprised that you disagreed. Christiams have rejected scientific study for thousands of years. Yes, the sun is getting hotter. Yes, the polar ice caps are melting. That does not discount the fact that we are destroying our own atmosphere and destroying our planet beyond repair. Maybe we should expand the definition to include ALL envirionmental damage.
To all,
We should be allowed to send all those who disagree with Golbal Warming to the moon. If they're not going to help us take care of the planet (one many of them believe that GOD gave them), then they shouldn't get to live on it.
UWL:
I'm not surprised that you attribute an anti-science attitude toward the Church, when in fact, if you are a student of history, you'll find that the Church promoted science prior to the renaissance. You may regurgitate Galileo again, but don't bother. You'll again show your misunderstanding and prejudices.
I really think that if you are a teacher, you would make a greater effort to check your facts and your opinions. MSM prejudices and the Daily Kos are hardly good resources to understand Church History.
Let the fireworks begin.
I don't look at either the Daily Kos or MSM. I link to articles, but I do my own research. There you go, assuming again. Maybe you should check YOUR facts. What about AFTER the renaissance? And again, this referred to ALL religion (in fact my exact words were, "religious leaders of all kinds"), not just Christianity.
To be honest, I feel that any discussion with you is futile as you are so set in your opinions that you will not learn from anything that doesn't directly substantiate them. The worst kinds of people are those that have knowledge at their fingertips but refuse to believe in facts.
UL - Please be reasonable. You owe it to yourself.
PARIS — In a bleak and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is "unequivocal" and that human activity is the main driver, "very likely" causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950. Source
These guys know a little more about it than you do. Don't allow yourself to be blinded to this truth because you consider it a "leftist" issue. The Earth is neither conservative nor liberal.
Let's all for a second think about the motivation behind those who say humans are a major contributor to global warming and those who disagree.
The former believe they are saving the earth and making it a better place. The latter want to keep their profit margins high. Absent the overwhelmng proof, who would you believe - someone doing something for money or someone doing something out of altruism with no personal gain.
...and before you even say it, Al Gore hasn't made a dime personally off this crusade.
How about looking at it this way: If there is a chance that we are making life unlivable on this planet (the only one we have so far), wouldnt it be wise to stop doing the things that may be destroying it?
Years from now, if further studies show we’re wrong, that we havent been warming the planet, then we can all slap ourselves on the forehead and have a good laugh with our grandchildren. Then we’ll all go out, get into our electric hum-vees (charged with solar power) and go have a picnic someplace in the clean air.
The primary objections of opponents seem to be that it will cost us a lot of that thing that Americans truly worship, our God The Almighty Dollar.
I thought the religious view is that humans have free will, so we actually can be the agents of our own destruction.
I would think God and the devil would both be onside in this. God doesn't want us to destroy our world, and if we heat it up enough, we'll have hell on earth, putting the devil out of a job.
CY:
These guys know more than me, so I shouldn't be blinded by the truth. Gee, that's an interesting way to argue. Lessee, anyone whose smarter than me, I should believe as speaking the truth.
What you do NOT include is that there were other smart persons who were so sickened by the lack of integrity of the scientists in pushing their political agenda that they got up and left. So, did the ones who left leave because the ones who stayed were smarter? Do the smartest people know the truth? For that matter, are you and those on this blog who are sweatin' smarter than me? Gee, I lurned somethin tuh-day.
UL - Snark, as yuou have told me b=numerous times, is not an argument. Answer the question.
And the all important question is...?
Do you agree that humans are accelerating global warming by, among other things, excessive hydrocarbon emissions and reducing carbon emission will slow this acceleration?
Cranky, you left him an out. You said "excessive". Since "excessive" can be seen as subjective, he can say in his opinion it is not excessive, and therefore that is not causing accelerating global warming, and therefore the reducing emission part is moot.
He might also try to weasel out with "accelerating". As far as I understand, the warming is not currently accelerating, but if it continues at the current rate, the theory says it might start feeding on itself and accelerating. The concern is a tipping point may be reached.
And what is this nonsense?
"other smart persons who were so sickened by the lack of integrity of the scientists in pushing their political agenda that they got up and left"
What real scientist would "get up and leave" in a scientific forum? Science is not some closed society issuing pronouncements from on high. You can study the material and do the math yourself. You might get it wrong, and some scientific circles will wrongly ridicule a neophyte making mistakes due to not understanding the material. But the most important thing in science is "knowing that we know" something. You get up and leave if the forum itself has no credibility. But you stay and fight anyone who decides their ideology should dictate what the results are.
It's all done publicly, and visibly, so other scientists can repeat experiments and corroborate or refute knowledge.
Bud - In arguing semantic details he would be admitting he is standing on shaky grounds logically. He is delibarately not debating this because he knows he has no valid argument.
I would expect the next response, if there is one, to be accussations against my subjectivity, relativism, in this case or more rhetorical bombs with little or no cited data.
I really think the answer is in the motivation behind the people on both sides argument. What big oil companies are doing is just like the big tobacco companies denying cirgarette smoking is dangerous to our health and paying politician, pundits and experts to parrot their lies. They don't want regulations that may cost them any money.
Okay boys. I'm here. You don't have to speculate on what I will say.
In answer to your question, Cranky, I would say I don't know. I don't have the smarts to comment. Besides, who cares what little ol' UL thinks? In a situation as appartently dire as the "Global Warming" people suggest, we need good science to back it.
When reports state that 2006 was the warmest in 400 years, I have a hard time contemplating how accurate records were around the world back in 1607, plus how pervasive was this record keeping to make the analysis completely sound. Another question which arises is what was happening in the world where the temperatures were so dangerously warm back then? Was it due to mankind as well? Did we repeat history again? I'm still convinced that the effects of the sun in all of this are being deliberately underplayed.
If good scientists disagree and call GW a crock, I want to know why before an anxious group of liberal senators will push us to sign some rather punitive treaties in the name of ecology.
Do I want cleaner burning fuels? Yes. I would LOVE to see hydrogen fuel cells in cars. Eliminate the polution from automobiles altogether. Cut ourselves free from MidEast oil. Give it time so that our economy can make the adjustments.
UL - They are not saying it was warmer 400 years ago. They are saying that they only have reliable records going back 400 years and last year is the warmest on record.
We have good science, as cited repeatedly, you refuse to admit it.
All good scientist agree and explain why over and over and over etc. There is not a credible body of scientists disagreeing. There are a few on the fringes and on the payrolls of green house gas producing industries that make your point but they are discredited and their science is not valid.
The only other people denying any of the fact of global warming are those with a financial stake in burning fossil fuels at the expense of the earth's atmosphere, and their lemmings.
This is not a left or right issue. Mother Earth is not a Liberal or a conservative.
I don't have an argument here simply because I don't know all the facts. I am giving you my impressions.
Though "Mother Earth" is not liberal or conservative, the worship of her is. Plus, the issue of GW is entirely a liberal/conservative issue. I don't deny that there is good science now, I'm saying there is bad science now as well. Science which picks and chooses it's "evidence" according to political intentions is bad indeed. And there is no doubt in my mind that bad science takes place. To castigate scientists who deny the results of the GW science tells me that the objectivity is lost and that something else is at play here. Could it be for political interests? In addition, downplaying the major contributor, the sun, is to me foolish and unscientific.
The fact that there are those who want us to follow Kyoto and future oppressive eco-treaties does not mean we do it. There are subversive Marxist organizations in the U.S. who want nothing more than to penalize the U.S. The self-hatred they exhibit is disordered thinking to say the least.
As I see it, Big media has lost its objectivity and is trying to scare the hell out of people. And for those who are susceptible, it works. I say, let's eradicate the use of fossil fuel simply because it IS cleaner, and makes us less dependant on foreign suppliers.
UL - The Sun being, as you say, a major contributor in warming the planet displays a vast gap in your understanding of the subject. The sun is responsible for ALL warming of the planet.
Our atmosphere regulates how much of the sun's radiation gets in and how much radiates back. Much like a green house. That is a simple explanation. As more greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere more of the heat from the sun gets trapped. That is why the globe is warming.
Solar variation, to which I believe you are referring, has had a negligible effect on climate change;
"Reconstructions of climate over the past millennium show a warming since the 17th century, which has accelerated dramatically over the past 100 years. Many recent studies have attributed the bulk of 20th-century global warming to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."
It's the greenhouse gases...
This one takes the cake, "There are subversive Marxist organizations in the U.S. who want nothing more than to penalize the U.S. The self-hatred they exhibit is disordered thinking to say the least.
Please names these groups and cite your evidence.
Your discussion of good science vs bad science is fair enough and the irony is delicious as it applies to this subject and the position your have taken.
Once again, I see your last post as nothing more than a collection of rhetorical bombs.
UL,
Isn't the well-being of the Earth something worth studying, regardless of whether or not you believe it's being destroyed? As someone who believes tha God made the Earth, I would think you'd want to understand it so that you can take care of it in the best way possible. But that's just me.
CY:
I thought you like rhetorical bombs, since you're so good at using them. Don't like it, eh?
You're assuming like most anti-scientific methodologists that the sun's warming is a constant. Uh, have you been reading the papers lately? Of the recent huge solar flares in December? Of the solar flares that have been hitting us for about a decade? Come on man, be sensible. Your political drive is obscuring your scientific capabilities.
UWL: Your little statement is a bit off line. You assume I don't care about "God's Earth" since I don't agree with you. Nice try, but your statement doesn't touch me. In fact, my concern for the earth is not only "climatological," but moral and political as well. The political ramifications of Kyotos' and other well-meaning but mistaken views of reality would have a harmful effect on our country.
Let's face it, UWL. You don't like us religionists. Why don't you propose an extinction of us troublemakers in favor of saving the earth for our progeny. You could muster up all sorts of myths on how evil we are, how we religionists are not just denying a heliocentric universe, as against Galileo, but against an anthropocentric view of Global warming. Hey, if we continue to hold the majority opinion against global warming, the next generations will suffer immensely. Best to rid the earth of the religious vermin for the sake of "Mother Earth."
Just a suggestion for future posts, since you have been hitting these subjects so hard lately...
UL - Regarding the Sun - I can see you didn't read the link I sent or you not have said something so ignornant. Do you fear the evidence that refutes you? Go read it and answer each one of your own question. Then come back and discuss like a big boy. Your last response was quite childish.
Scolding over, Now what rhetorical bombs have I thrown in this discussion?
Oh yeah, and you don't hold a majority opinion against global warming. You hold an uninformed, ideology driven, and quite frankly religiously disingenuous, opinion.
Also, Solar Flares don't throw heat. I almost laughed when I read that part of your post. While Solar Flares do affect earth's electromagnetic field they don't raise earth temperature. The Earth's magnetic feild generally protects us from solar flares
But then again if you understood the issues you would understand that our atmosphere is capable of regulating the temperature of earth unless the balance of greenhopuse gases is upset. That is what is at issue here.
Read on another blog -
The crucial flaw in the argument of those who claim the present dramatic rise in temperature may be produced by natural causes is that they cannot identify any natural causes that would account for it. We have not experienced any unusual level of volcanic eruptions, methane gas emissions from the ocean floor, meteor strikes, forest fires, cow farts or whatever.
What has happened over the last two centuries the could account for the massive increase in CO2 levels and global temperatures? There’s only one rational answer: The Industrial Revolution.
I don't need your help coming up with posts, and you seem to be hitting your arrogance a little hard lately. Unlike religion, I don't require that those who disagree with me be smoten.
CY: Thanks for setting me straight. I'll be more informed next time this asinine topic comes up again. And for sure, the sun has not increased it's heat output, right? Your sure about that?
UWL: Aw, me arrogant? And you make such clearly derogatory and ludicrous comments against religionists and church history...I suppose you say these things with tears of compassion in your eyes, right?
Oh, and if you're going to refer to the divine as she, it would be grammatically correct to use the term "goddess." Just a suggestion, if you're taking them.
FYI:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
Here is an exerpt:
Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.
So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.
You quoted an opinion piece...
Sea Ice is growing in the Southern Oceans because it is breaking off of Antarctica.
I'm the one with the English degree, so I know how to refer to her. Actaully, god is a gener neutral term, and many professions are no longer using gender qualifiers to distinguish between male and female. Angelina Joli is an actor. My OBGYN is a doctor, not a doctress. I choose to use the female qualifier, but Godess is incorrect as god does not have an assigned gender.
The term "goddess" DOES have a gender grammatically. In Greek mythology, you don't refer to Zeus as a goddess, do you? Venus is a goddess, right? Right. So you are definitely incorrect about the term god being a gender neutral term. Also, it would be equally correct to refer to Jolie as an actress, and your example of "doctress" is idiotic. Our town has a garbage collectress.
"God" is male grammatically, though in Christian teaching, God in essence, is neither male nor female. However, I'm content with continuing the use that has been established for five millenia. God is referred to by Christ as Father, and Jesus Christ is certainly a male human being as well as God. Christ also refers to the Holy Spirit as "he" as well.
Long live political incorrectness!
Long live arguing about mythology!
and the truth too!
All relgion is based in mythology. Within those confines you may call it truth. It doesn't matter. You can't prove anything past the existence of a prime mover, and that is tenuous at best.
Back to the matter at hand - Global warming is real.
To ask for demonstration for that which is beyond demonstration is completely idiotic; to say that no proof available automatically means that the existence of God is mythological, is utterly foolish. What a mentally slothful statement!
CY, yours is the rantings of a man who hopes like hell there isn't a hell. At this rate, there's only one option for you to find out if hell truly exists or not. Could you make a more utterly stupid choice? I don't think so, and I hope for your sake that your lack of thinking doesn't prevail.
You also have a very flawed view of "truth." Are you trying to patronize us? Within the confines of a myth we can call it truth? What kind of sophisticated BS is that? What does that mean? You don't know what you are talking about and don't try the truth is relative line; that's been blown out of the water over 2500 years ago.
Proof...I bet you don't consider anything historical because there is no proof of it happening. I'm not saying all this simply to rant. The conclusions drawn from your type of thinking are grave and I don't want to see anyone, including those in this virtual world to make deadly decisions. Yes, dammit, I'm serious.
"Yes, dammit, I'm serious. "
Seriously deranged...
Your religion, like all religion, is myth based. The myth of a benevolent god, the myth of the virgin birth, the myth of the resurrection, the myth of the ascension. ....all myth no fact.
Back to something worth discussing - anthropogenic-added climate forcing has greatly impacted global warming.
...and you can not prove anything past a prime mover. You have tried numerous times here and have always utterly failed resorting to the type of ad hominem attack displayed in your last comment.
That's OK, I can take it. I practice the Martial Arts which you people consider heretical, pagan and eve satanic.
Osssss!
I guess saying it's a myth makes it so, eh yank? Oh, as to ad hominem, I think that's the only type of "proof" you understand. Whatever.
No being a mtyh makes it so.
Myth - a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
Wasnt Jesus made by God?? Wasn't too hard to destroy him. Only took a cross, some spikes and a spear.
Underground:
Mars doesn't have the gravity that the Earth does to deflect solar winds which have nothing to do with the temperature of the sun but has plenty to do with making things a lot warmer for any planet which cannot deflect them.
There is also evidence that Mars is tilting on its axis more now exposing more of its ice caps which would result in the melting. Mars as a whole however is actually cooler now than when Viking landed there in the 70s. If the Sun was getting hotter Mars would also would be affected.
Of course the amount of sunspots can result in a cooler or warmer sun and the "little ice age" experienced in Europe a few hundred years ago can be attributed to an abundance of sunspots at the time. I don't think there is any evidence that the Sun is actually hotter than it was 40 years ago when the ice caps started diminishing. Yes the sun will expand as it burns up its Hydrogen but we have another couple billion years or so before its starts expanding dramatically.
Are you saying that Greenhouse gases such as the ones found here and on Venus have nothing to do with temperature? And are you also saying that Cars, Agriculture and Coal plants don't emmit greenhouse gases?? Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?? Mercury is closer to the sun but Venus is hotter. Why?? Because Mercury has no greenhouse gases to trap in the heat and at night, it actually gets colder on Mercury than any place on Earth. This is not the case with Venus. Night time temperatures are roughly the same as daytime temperatures and it has nothing to do with the Sun but everything to do with greenhouse gases and the ability of Venus to trap in heat.
Post a Comment