Comments on: An inconvenient tiff: climate scientist chides his home team

By: bobshanbrom

bobshanbrom — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:26:27 +0000

I don’t understand this statement by iskid that global warming is more important than immigration. Immigration, turning low-consuming peoples into apex-consuming USAmericans, is a huge contribution to global warming.
I can’t give exact figures but I can draw a good picture. Of the 700 million or so people who will be added to the world population in this decade, the 33 million or so who will be added to the US will account for about 1/3 of the additional ghg impacts as well as about 1/3 of the increase in ecofootprint.
Were the US to stabilize its population it would be like reducing the world population by some 250 million average Earthlings per decade.
Sustainability, each nation living within its ecological, economic and political borders, is what I think our focus should be.

By: iskid2astop

iskid2astop — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:51:39 +0000

Libtree,
Thanks for the encouragement. Your generation was very interesting in regards to its reaction to the environmental problems. I think it was a fixed fight to some degree, because the movement was so much more reactionary, and a minority, and the science wasn’t as developed. I’m feeling encouraged too.

By: libtree09

libtree09 — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:22:48 +0000

iskid2astop,

Your comment is quite encouraging, my generation was shocked by Silent Spring and rose, somewhat clumsily, to begin to question things but failed miserably and fell behind Europe in recognizing the seriousness of the problem. Acid rain woke me up, hiking and seeing the destruction and then the problem with water, there was a time when you didn’t worry about drinking from a stream. So go fight like hell…a planet is a terrible thing to waste.

By: libtree09

libtree09 — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:48:31 +0000

Yes, cleaning up pollution is a win-win and that is usually my fall back position when ambushed by data. It’s a…shouldn’t we err on the side of humanity argument that has been used in quite another context I believe.

By: iskid2astop

iskid2astop — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:44:06 +0000

I’m glad that there is a scientist who is being slightly reserved with what he has to say, because as a scientist, he can’t PROVE anything, so he can only hypothesize based on his data, and I’m glad he is recognizing the inconsitencies in his data set. Climate change is cause problems, not total disaster.
Libtree, I don’t claim to understand it all either, but I try to at least understand some of it. That could be because of my relative youth, because to me, this is a serious issue. If I had to choose between say…..immigration and climate change, I would say climate change is waaaay more important to me, and most of my generation.

By: Jeff McMahon - Scorched Earth - Global warming believers more likely to prepare for bad weather - True/Slant

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:31:58 +0000

[...] in 21 weeks Austin Considine American CrossroadsUpdated 1 hour agoActive Topic:Politics1 hour agoAn Inconvenient Tiff: climate scientist chides his home team Jeff McMahon Scorched Earth6 hours agoWho will blink first in Iran? Phil Zabriskie Brush [...]

By: Jeff McMahon

Jeff McMahon — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:26:05 +0000

Libtree, you’re absolutely right that the debate can be frustrating for the public, and only more frustrating when the scientists who agree begin to disagree. But what if we look at it this way: isn’t it worthwhile to clean up air pollution whether or not it causes global warming?

By: libtree09

libtree09 — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:01:37 +0000

I tend to avoid conversations about Global Warming. Not that I don’t think it exists but instead either argument always descends into one study or another and as a layman it is all just gibberish to me. Recently George Will wrote a column suggesting that so and so University had some evidence that polar ice was not melting as much as first believed. The authors of the study noted they were misquoted or represented. So an academic friend of mine, who thinks Global Warming is nonsense and that researchers are supporting it because, well, that is where the grant money lies. So when Will was rebuffed I asked my friend what he thought of it. His response was typical of the debate, “It is not the amount of ice but the depth that matters and in that Will has it right.” Ah, depth versus area, there is something I could debate all night.

It is maddening to make any sense of it all. Listening to Gore is frightening but it is confusing to find the facts for yourself. Which I suppose is the point of Exxon research.