The Rude Awakening
Edinburgh, Scotland
Monday, May 28, 2007 ------------------------- - A saturation of weather information,
- China's (and Houston's) great brown cloud,
- How to become a free market investor and much more…
------------------------- Joel's Note: Partly to alleviate some strain on our Rude inbox and partly to feed the seemingly insatiable thirst or all things global and warming, we present the second installment of a mailbag dedicated to climate change. Henceforth, please direct politically charged opinions to your local politician…or scientist…or banker…anybody, really. For all things pertaining to issues raised in the Rude Awakening, feel free to address them to us here at aussiejoel@the-rude-awakening.com . ------------------------- Dear Rude, I agree with cleaning up our act. There's an unamortized cost to industrialization (most of which I'm in favor of… Hoorah for not dying in childbirth! Yes!) paid for with our lungs and other precious bodily parts. The Great Brown Cloud over China (or Houston, for that matter) is something I'd rather not have here. Since I live in a basin where the woodsmoke can get pretty vicious in my neighborhood (wind good, inversion bad), and the asthma rates go up every winter around here, despite the precautions taken, I have to agree that gunky air is bad, bad, bad. I also think that Bangladesh and Florida going under water from rising ocean levels is also bad, as is possible severe climate fluctuations in Europe from desalinization leading to destabilization of the Gulf Stream current is also bad. Ever look to see just how far _north_ London really is?
I also strongly recommend reading John Barnes' MOTHER OF STORMS. More energy in the system means a more active \system, that's just plain old physics. Yes, there are likely to be marginal effects in colder climates/times, but more heat generally does mean more activity in any system, and not just in a nightclub on Saturday night. So believe what you want--but let's clean up our act. Green Christians realize that stewardship means keeping things in good shape, because they believe the Master will someday return and want to know precisely how that pigsty got there <joke>. We have a nice planet. Let's make it better.
Jean Lamb --- Free Market Investor Alert --- The World's Greatest Growth Stock: The richest investor on Earth just bet $572 million on this stock - and watched it soar to $1.31 billion! And it looks like he's hanging on for more… The FREE report I'll send you shows you why now's your chance to jump in too, as this mega-stock triples every dollar invested over the next 24 months… Grab It Here - The Free Market Investor Special Report ---------------------------------- Dear Rude, One must keep an open mind as new research constantly challenges popular views. We have had glimpses of other theories through our regular reading of Science News, but a recent book we read about weather patterns through the eons opened our minds even more. I can heartily recommend that you and your readers get: "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate" by William F. Ruddiman.
Dr. Ruddiman, who is a retired climatologist, seems to think man has affected weather to some extent-starting ten thousand years ago with the advent of agriculture. He postulates that if not for the industrial revolution and our usage of fossil fuels since then we would be in another ice age. It is definitely a good read. I enjoyed your views on weather. One should never stop questioning and learning.
FL
Las Vegas -------------------------------------- Dear Rude, As a scientist with research experience on global warming, I was somewhat dismayed to see the uncritical report by Chris Mayer entitled "Putting the 'green' in Greenland". The references cited have been totally discredited by the scientific community. In particular, Fred Singer is one of a handful of scientists who have been recruited by conservative think tanks to cast doubt upon the conclusions of the worldwide community of atmospheric scientists. He is a member of no less than 12 such think tank organizations, all supported by funds from Exxon-Mobil. The efforts are, interestingly, directed by the same strategist who was behind the effort to confuse the public on smoking issues in the 1960s and 1970s. As you may recall, tobacco companies hired their own scientists to conduct studies on cigarette smoking, concluding that there was no demonstrable link between smoking and cancer. This flew in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary from the medical science community. The lawyer-strategist knew his business, namely, to create doubt in the public mind about the issue. The public, unaware of the implication of complicity between cigarette companies and their own "research scientists", was not in a position to judge the veracity of contradictory claims. Therefore the conclusion: doubt!
The same stragegy is being used by the same lawyer working for Exxon-Mobil, working through think tanks, some of which have very imposing names to impress the public (and to distance the reports from Exxon-Mobil itself). The scientists involved by-enlarge are not active atmospheric research scientists. Most importantly, they are on healthy retainers from the think tanks (which get their funds to support the scientists through oil companies, among others). Their sole role is to create doubt in the public mind about global warming. If they are credible scientists, they should be publishing their evidence in the scientific literature.
For example a professional colleague of mine is in the area of astrophysics, and testified before Congress that global warming is due to increases in solar radiation and is not caused by greenhouse gases. Her claim has been soundly refuted by scientific data from satellites, which show beyond a doubt that there has been no increase or decrease in average solar flux greater than 0.1% in the past 25 years. The global temperature increase in that same period would have required a solar flux increase of at least 0.5%. she plods on, confusing policymakers who do not know how to ask the proper questions, and raking in substantial funds from 10 different think tanks. And Exxon-Mobil continues to win on the "doubt" issue.
The think tanks have very unfortunately turned the issue of global warming into a politcal issue. A serious look at the origin of the IPCC studies reveals that over 2000 scientists from over 50 countries are involved in the studies, representing a wide range of both political and religious persuasions. This international effort is non-partisan in the best sense, and casts a very sad light upon efforts of think-tanks and the current Administration to re-write science! Sincerely, Richard D. Schwartz
Professor and Chairperson Emeritus
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
U. of Missouri-St. Louis --- Housing Research Report --- Three Solid Layers of Protection Against theNext Wave of Falling Property Prices Ahead I want to show you three very powerful yet simple ways to protect yourself. They're simple to follow. And they're yours FREE, as part of something new that my team has put together. I call it the Emergency Financial Survival Toolkit: Triple Protection Against the Coming Collapse. Click here to obtain your copy - The Survival Report -------------------------------- Dear Rude,
We both know that politicians only spout the truth when it is to their benefit. We also know that digging out truth, facts, provable theories takes time, an open mind, and most importantly -- a lack of apathy etc. etc. Thus we have the current political spin doctors spouting political correctness in order to preserve their current power/money positions by pushing this CO2 tripe at an apathetic public.
I am a geologist. Greenland has fossilized palm trees. Ooops!
Bob in Okc ---------------------------- Dear Rude, Whether or not you believe that there is global warming, the world can benefit from taking actions anyway. The benefits: - Our petroleum and coal resources will then be able to support future generations for more centuries before being depleted. (Why deplete ANWR now, when it will be worth trillions more in a few centuries, and less likely to impact wildlife?);
- By using more efficient appliances, cars, lighting, etc. our utility bills will be lower;
- By building better insulated homes and office buildings, we'll have lower heating and cooling bills;
- By burning less carbon-based fuels we will have bluer skies and breathe better;
- With more homes and buildings sporting photovoltaic cells on their roofs we will have a more decentralized energy grid, making the U.S. less vulnerable to a series of terrorist attacks that could quickly send us back to the stone age with a few well placed stealth attacks on major power lines;
- Even by doing something that doesn't cost a penny, namely orienting new homes to face south (like most homes did in the 1800s), our heating and cooling bills will be smaller by 15-20%, and as a byproduct, our homes will be brighter during those dark winter months, and can better support indoor plants for a healthier indoor environment.
Steven G. |
