Have you noticed the "full court press" from the energy lobby?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091103/sc_afp/climat...
"Columbia University geochemistry professor Wally Broecker lamented the mislaying of cash when it comes to the environment and creating new, greener technologies.
"The total amount of money spent on C02 capture in the atmosphere is seven to 10 million. That's the amount a professional ball player makes in a season. That's absurd," Broecker said.
"As far as preparing, we are doing almost nothing and that is really terrible," he added.
"Fifty percent of people in the US don't believe in evolution. The same mentality goes for global warming," he said. "We are not a very deep thinking population."
Comments
I hadn't noticed, but I live on the opposite coast from Washington DC. It's not surprsing that the oil and coal industries in particular are trying to prevent carbon regulation from happening. However, some electrical utilities support it. My energy comes from PG&E, which supports cap and trade, probably because much of the energy they produce doesn't come from fossil fuels. They're already a step ahead.
Broecker really nailed it. People like to think we're really smart, but most people don't scratch past the surface on complex issues like global warming. That's why we see so many questions about local weather, warming on other planets, global warming has stopped, etc. We're lucky if people at least watch An Inconvenient Truth. Most people just get their climate science info from Glenn Beck or Anthony Watts.
Your question has really brought out the deniers today. Randall says "it's not my fault you haven't convinced me". What a total cop-out. Ottawa Mike had the same sentiment the other day - that deniers won't face any consequences if they cause catastrophic climate change. Now that's some serious denial. Not only do they deny climate science, but they deny the consequences of causing catastrophic climate change.
If my doctor tells me I need surgery, it's not hard for him to convince me. Sure I'll ask for his reasoning, maybe get a second opinion, but I know I'm no medical expert. But the Randalls and Ottawas would have us ignore the doctor's expert advice, and on our death beds blame him for not convincing us that we needed the surgery.
Then we get Jayd who calls Richard Dawkins - a brilliant physicist - an "IDIOT" because he connected evolution to atheism. WTF? I swear these deniers have such bizarre thought processes. Of course Jayd has admitted to being a highly religious person, so he's probably just letting his biases get the better of him (again).
Then you get Conservative who seems surprised it's getting colder in November. Yikes.
i like the way you build this prose, in simple terms as Hitchcock could have performed in his landmark movie. In attitude, up till "Psycho", there were no authentic "shocker" movie made, edited in this form. additionally having the famous guy or woman of the movie murdered interior the 1st quarter-hour became unprecedented (Janet Leigh became between the biggest stars in 1960). that's a masterful occasion of how Hitchcock threw his objective industry off look after. Hitchcock as quickly as quipped, It took just about as long to movie and edit the in simple terms approximately a hundred separate products of movie at the same time for the bathe scene than it did to make something of the movie. in the process the superb "harming a fly" fade-out that ended the movie Anthony Perkins face words to a skeleton the previous few frames. movie composer Bernard Hermann's "screaming violins" background music for the bathe scene became between the movie's many "firsts" and has on account that been copied lower back and lower back. Very ingenious way you lead your tale into this, Bri, (mirroring the way Hitchcock could have written this). Bravo interior the cleverness of your juxtaposition.
Actually it sounds like both sides are doing a full court press. I don't know where Wally Broecker got the 7 to 10 million spent on CO2 capture, I know of one company that has most likely spent a lot more then this studying carbon capture over the past few years. As for we are doing almost nothing, part of that is the fault of the environmentalists who keep blocking any type of energy source even if it is solar or wind power without at least 7 years of environmental studies proofing that no wildlife will be harmed or displaced.
Sorry Paul, but if you look at the day night cycle along with everything else, your added blanket philosophy doesn't quite pan out especially since dry CO2 retains heat for a few hours longer than air.
Even if the disbelieving public are simply mistaken, whose fault is that?
It's the responsibility of people like Broecker to make their case.
Even if you think we skeptics are rubes in the vein of the OJ Simpson jury, you still have to blame the prosecutors for not making us understand. We ask for tangible proof and the best you can offer is a very short-term cooling in the stratosphere - but since by the same token you insist that what happens on a decadal scale is irrelevant, that by definition isn't enough.
$10MM for CO2 recapture but how many billions to study the issue (well, let's be honest - to prove man-made warming), spent by the UN and nations around the world, over the last 25 years? And what do you have to show for it?
wally needs to get a grip....comparing Evolution and religion with enviorment and co2 [which are different] is apples and oranges
and he should know that politics and economy issues are more important...throwing more money at something often is not the answer ie education...or stimulus spending
Im all for not polluting but at what cost? just to say no more coal,,no drilling for oil and 100 mpg cars will not work...especially AT 10+% unemployment
carbon tax? it will kill us in a different way...by shipping pollution to china and india
Evolution has nothing to do with AGW. I don't believe in evolution because some scientists told me to. I actually bothered to learn about it and found the evidence to be extremely compelling. The same cannot be said of the vast majority of alarmists who swallow whatever tripe is thrown their way as long as it fits their warped world view.
I would rather compare it to the South African science advisors to their former president who denied the link between HIV and AIDS.
FYI many measures to reduce emissions have a low to negative cost:
- industrial energy efficiency (negative cost)
- destruction of industrial gases such as N2O, PFC, HFC (very low)
- avoiding deforestation (low)
- wind power (low.... much lower than nuclear)
- natural gas based cogeneration (low to negative)
- efficient cars and appliances (low to negative)
- building energy efficiency (low to negative)
Why do you think this is?
The number of people that do not beleive in evolution is high for one reason. People like Richard Dawkins. IDIOT SCIENTISTS like Dawkins have used evolution to say that there is no god. Such stupidity should be frowned upon and even outright protested by the scientists, but instead they embrace Dawkins idiotic ramblings as if those ramblings represent science. Now, people who believe in God and actually have reason to beleive in God more than they do anything else that anyone has ever told them, have to choose between the science of evolution and the existence of God. You are surprised they choose God?
If you have a scientific mind and can read the research and understand the scientific method and logic, you can easily reason out that there is plenty of support for evolution, but absolutely no support for suggesting that this means there is no god. Most people do not think like this.
It is because the scientists have overstated their case and some have made claims that cannot be backed by science at all, that many people refuse to beleive them.
The same is the case with AGW. You have enough evidence that GW is occurring, you have only a smidgen of true evidence that it is caused by man. You have however, tried to scare teh public with 7 degree increases that nobody believes. You may have consensus on AGW being a problem, but when you throw in lies about 67 meter increases in sea levels, 7 degree increases in temps, when we have seen the temps level off for the past 10 years, what can you expect but that people are going to doubt.
You know what? They should. Scientists should be more careful of what they state and being able to back up what they say. If they want to be believed, then act like scientists, not politicians or theologians.
N. Loth,
You think that socialism is asking for evidence before passing blame? I think you really need to look up socialism. How about a society that taxes the very air we breathe? How about a society where politicians flying in their personal jets, make us feel guilty for our huge levels of pollution? How about a society where we pay third world countries for our effect on the climate, when we haven't even been given proof of that effect. What about a society where more and more taxes are placed upon the middle class. How about a society where everyone is taxed so much that they have no motivation to try and improve? This would be a society without the American dream. A society ruled by the elite. A society where class structure rules. A society like Europe, India, China, etc.
As much as you seem to hate America, my simple suggestion is to get out and live somewhere else for awhile. I have, and I have talked with people from Africa, Europe, Russia, China, India, etc. There is no place like America for opportunity. That opportunity comes from the ideals of capitalism that many seem to despise, but has had the effect of increasing lifespans, decreasing infant mortality, all while still decreasing population growth.
Paul,
I know blankets work. I also know that adding a blanket when I have on 20 is not going to make much of a difference. Furhter, since we add .28% of the GHGs, I certainly know that adding one blanket when I have on 399, will make no difference at all. Thus I can be a skeptic and still have the common sense to know that blankets work. QED.
N. Loth,
Really, you want to ask whether Californians lives are any worse? IDK, those brilliant people have managed to bankrupt our economy and now my tax dollars are going to pay for them. Perhaps californians don't make for the best example.
Dana,
Once again there you go misrepresenting the truth, that unusual (sarcasm implied). I known he is a brilliant physicist, but he is an IDIOT for thinking that science can either prove or disprove God. It can do neither. It is absurd claims that have so many religious people both muslim and christians against the entirety of evolution. If he would simply state the case for evolution without adding his idiotic easily refutabletheology arguments, people may not have so much trouble accepting evolution. It becomes exceedingly hard to accept it when it goes against everything you know. Luckily I can look at the science and not the opinions of the scientists and say evolution is true, but has no bearing on if a god exists or not.
I'm going to take your complete misquoting of me as a compliment though. It shows that you are unable to effectively argue against what I say, so you must put up your little strawman argument. Good job once again proving yourself right in your own strawman ladened mind.
Watch out the 1 degree temp change over the last century is going to kill us all!
Oh and I said spiritual as in believing in a god, not religious as in believing in a god of one particular religion. But you have also admitted to being an atheist, so by your own philosophy, nothing you do or say matters, because you will turn into dust as will everything you do. Therefore I will choose to see your opinions about religion biasing what I see as truth as being every bit as worthless as your philosophy places your entire life.
Have you noticed it's getting colder?