from Ben Stagg: Climate Change – Keep an open mind
This entry was posted on Monday, February 12th, 2007 at 12:09 PM and filed under Articles, Environment. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.
10 Responses to “from Ben Stagg: Climate Change – Keep an open mind”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Balderdash! It is one thing to question the “politicians and journalists,” but is this guy suggesting that the hundreds – even thousands – of highly respected scientists in virtually every field (including two global groups of high-level scientists) are ALSO all wrong? Poppycock!
This guy doesn’t understand the concept of “build up.” Of COURSE “the amount of carbon polluting the atmosphere in the years between 1800 and 1900 when essentialy everything was coal fired, followed by the massive industrial exertions of two World Wars – and even in the 1950’s” contributed to the problem. But it takes TIME for these things to take effect. Add the introduction of fluorocarbons (which were not even invented until the 1940s) – which was almost SOLELY responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer at both poles – plus the SPREAD of the “industrial exertions” beyond the U.S. and Britain, and all this guy does is prove the OPPOSITE of what he says.
As well, I have found no record of any cataclysm near Borneo 75,000 years ago – and not only do I know hoe to use search engines better than most, but my mother is a geologist and physicist (formerly with the NAS), and she says she has never even heard of this.
This guy is simply one more “naysayer” who would like us to believe that Gore et al are simply Chicken Littles. Horsehockey! The problem is real, and increasing at such a rapid rate that even the most conservative of scientists is now saying that it is too late to “reverse” the effects that humans have had on the biosphere, and that all we can hope for – and only if we act NOW, as a planet, QUICKLY – is to “roll back” and minimize the damage.
This guy’s “conventional wisdom” is 50 years old, and has ZERO to do with the scientific facts and reality of 2007.
Ignore him.
Peace.
Posted on 12-Feb-07 at 4:45 pm | PermalinkIan Alterman obviously hasn’t read the ‘Sunday Times’ article which accompanied my comment on climate change.He has identified the penguin, but not the iceberg it is sitting on. Has his mother heard about the ‘mini ice age’ the article refers to which was all of 300 years ago? Would he possibly consider that the Sun might have something to do with the Earth’s climate undergoing change, as the Earth’s climate always seems to have done. I say ‘Keep an open mind’ and he says ‘Balderdash’.
Posted on 15-Feb-07 at 1:23 am | PermalinkWe are of one mind when it comes to freeing ourselves from carbon based fuels, but he has to be right on the reasons why. Of course he has to be. So many people agree.
Now where have I heard that brand of ‘Balderdash’ before?
Mr. Stagg:
Re the so-called “Little Ice Age,” the entire theory remains in serious dispute within the field, even by climatologists. And even were it widely accepted (which it is not), there is no indication that this minor and regionally-limited cooling period was related to sun spots or any other solar activity.
Re your citing of a Borneal “event” of ~78,000 years ago, not one scientist I have spoken to has even heard of this. Would you please provide some support for this claim?
Re natural events that affect the atmosphere, the only one we know of in the past 2,000 year was the cataclysmic eruption of Krakatoa (1883). Not only did the force of the explosion drastically alter the surrounding sea floor, but, according to Wikipedia (which, by the way, is NOT an unimpeachable source), “In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888. The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide gas high into the stratosphere that was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid concentration in high-level cirrus cloud. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.” However, even this uniquely cataclysmic event had a more negligible LONG-TERM effect than one might expect.
Re solar activity, there is no question that it affects the climate. However, the DEGREE to which it does is (pun intended) hotly contested. Indeed, there is little or no broad acceptance of any particular theory of solar activity vis-a-vis climate change.
I want to reiterate that I am not saying that solar activity and natural events can not, and do not, effect climate change. However, there is virtually no debate now (at least among the majority of the world’s top scientists in climatology and related fields) as to the increasing degree to which human activity has “speeded up” climate changes that might or might not have occurred naturally.
One example. Fluorocarbons do not appear anywhere in nature. They are manufactured. And there is now little or no debate as to the almost exclusive relationship between fluorocarbons and the ozone holes at both poles. Indeed, this has now been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the fact that, as a result of the banning of fluorocarbons, the ozone holes have stabilized, and are actually beginning to repair themselves. That said, the overall damage caused by the decades-long holes in the ozone have compounded the effect of trapped greenhouse gases and other byproducts of human activity.
Ultimately, because we know – with absolute scientific certainty – that human activity has dramatically affected climate change for the worse, and because we know – with absolute scientific certainty – that these changes have occurred (for the most part) over a period of less than 150 years, and because we know – with absolute scientific certainty – that the earth is showing numerous and increasing signs of these changes, all of which have a cumulative effect that will adversely affect all life on earth, it seems senseless – if not blatantly head-in-the-sand callous – to be “nitpicking” about “right reasons” for changing our habits.
We get ONE planet. And that planet is unquestionably being subjected to human activity that is aversely affecting it. In this regard, it would seem prudent – if not in our critical self-interest – to err on the side of caution and take every possible step to at very least minimize the future damage, if we can no longer “stop the clock.”
Peace.
Posted on 16-Feb-07 at 11:23 am | Permalink‘The talk of absolute scientific certainty’ regarding our contribution to the warming of certain parts of our planet is a big pill to swallow.
I have seen three programes on documentary TV Channels relating to the Borneo ‘event’ 75,000 years ago. I was a little mystified given that by then Homo Sapiens had spread into Asia and those early Asians would undoubtably have suffered extermination. Two programes ascribed it to an earthquake, the third to an asteriod. The only purpose of its mention was to demonstrate (as did Krakatoa) the disasters that the Earth has already endured and it’s recuperatived powers.
Fluorocarbons and their relationship to the ozone layer is a completely different issue, and a far more demonstrable one.
The increase of 8% in the ice in the Antartic, mentioned in the Sunday Times article neither proves or disproves current ‘Climate Change’ thought, but it does show how statistics can be used to support any number of theories.
I am all for the diminution of fosil fuel usage, but if we really want to face facts the real problem is the number of humans on the planet. What in theory would be great news ecologically speaking, would be the halving of our number on the planet in the next fifty years, and their halving again in the fifty years thereafter, but don’t ask me how that could be accomplished. That is what you might call (other than in China) ‘a politically unacceptable solution’, but if we really want to face facts, then that’s the big one.
So excuse me if I take my ecology with a pinch of salt, which along with just about everything else except salads, I’m told – no doubt with ‘absolute scientific certainty’ -is bad for me.
Posted on 17-Feb-07 at 4:11 am | Permalinkthe rosetta stone for population control is empowering women in the 3rd world .. access to birth control, micro lending (women are much better with money than men who tend to blow it on booze and prostitutes) have worked recently .. that should be the focus of “aid” groups for the next 100 years or so – imho
Posted on 17-Feb-07 at 9:19 am | PermalinkBen and Mike:
Are you sure that overpopulation is the real problem? Or, rather, is it distribution of not only wealth, food and other resources, but population as well?
There is PLENTY of place for humans to live on this planet – even without excessive damage to or impingement upon the various biospheres and other species. And there is plenty of wealth and food for everyone on the planet right now – and then some.
Although it would certainly seem that we have “too many people,” I personally think this is a red herring, and that the REAL problem is a misappropriation of land, food, wealth and resources. Because there is an abundance of all of these, and yet we (i.e., the global community, both political and otherwise) are doing little or nothing to find real solutions in these regards.
Ultimately, while I agree with the general idea of bringing down the rate of increase in the population, I believe that that is only PART of the overall issue.
Peace.
Posted on 17-Feb-07 at 12:43 pm | Permalink“The REAL problem is a misappropriation of land, food, wealth and resources.” – Well, it was in Karl Marx’s time, but now it’s not so much ‘misapropriation’ as ‘stripping bare’. Think of all the Chinese, Indian, Far Easterners, Middle Easterners, Africans almost ad infinitum who rightly aspire, along with their governments, to have white goods and automobiles in the next ten/twenty years!
Whereas, I take on board what Mike says, I can’t help feeling it’s too little, too late. Generaly speaking, if you give a poor (and uneducated) person land, food, wealth and recources, that person will simply have a large family, thereby exacerbating the problem.
The human race is the true pandemic on the Earth’s surface. We are raping the seas, the forests, poluting the air, sucking up non- renewable recources at a suicidal rate.
Yes, thoretically, we are in a position to feed and clothe everybody, but where would that lead us except to an earlier extinction?
I would like to talk about ‘World Government’ and ‘Education for all’, but unless we all suddenly decide to tear up our passports and become a lot wiser, that is simply not going to happen.
If the human species is ‘lucky’, bird flu, HIV or some-such will knock at least half of us out, and we just might survive for a little while longer. A pandemic’s pandemic, so to speak.
This is shocking talk, but it needs to be said. We have missed a golden opportunity to turn things around in the last twenty-five years. Now, we are up shit’s creek.
Posted on 18-Feb-07 at 4:28 am | PermalinkBen:
Sounds like you’ve been reading Daniel Quinn (among others). Have you? If not, you owe it to yourself to read “Ishmael,” in which Quinn, within the context of the novel, notes this very dilemma: that more resources spread further only increases the need for more resources. Or, as you so perfectly put it, “if you give a poor (and uneducated) person land, food, wealth and recources, that person will simply have a large family, thereby exacerbating the problem.”
Thus, although I do not retract my previous comment (since there is yet some validity to it), I take a step back from it and admit that you have an equally valid point.
Re your suggestion that we need some sort of “pandemic’s pandemic” to cull the population, you are correct both that it is “shocking talk” but also that it may well be “necessary” in a way.
This is truly a sticky wicket situation. Damned if we do and damned if we don’t. No good, much less easy, solution.
As you say, possibly up the creek…
Peace.
Posted on 18-Feb-07 at 11:05 am | PermalinkOnce women are no longer second class citizens, as they are in most of the 3rd world, they have less babies. So it’s win win – give 50% of the population the civil rights that they should have in the first place, and save the planet. As for consumption, the anti-consumerism movement is growing .. people like Reverend Billy and groups like Ad Busters (dot.org) are getting their message out. The whole capitalist model has to be rethought – once the rest of the world starts to catch up with the US, Europe, Japan etc there will have to be a new model since we can’t sustain 1st world economies over the whole globe.. Case in point China and India are emerging into 1st world economies right now and it has everyone freaked out. If capiltalism has one thing to it’s credit it’s the ability to adapt to keep itself afloat – there’ll be lots of “adaption opportunities” in the next 200 years.
Posted on 19-Feb-07 at 10:27 am | PermalinkMike has a very good point about women’s growing influence on the outcome of this mess. I just hope that it all goes the way he describes without too much of a loss of personal freedom.
Women’s input into this Global conundrum reminds me of a book I read in 1979 called ‘Glue’ by Benjamin Benedict. It was a funny read and had the ‘Womens International Federation’ as providing the forum for World freedom. It’s out of print but soon (in the next month ot two) can be heard on http://www.benbenbooks.com, along with two other of Mr Benedict’s oeuvres.
Possibly that’s why I said that we have wasted the last 25 years, as this general topic was thought and written about that long ago. The internet as a polster is another thing that I remember this book addressing (even though the internet didn’t exist then) and this may also be a key to the people overiding political dogma.
Posted on 20-Feb-07 at 1:39 am | Permalink