Climate Change must be tackled NOW

The tenant farmer on my land in Spain, a really wonderful person, had an interesting reaction to the moon-landing which, because I'd seen it on TV, I described to him. "What do the astronauts ride through on their way to the moon"? he asked. "Is it water, like the sea?"

I had and have great respect for Diego who was a very intelligent and wise man who wasn't afraid of confronting new realities. I just don't have any respect for those with more up-to-date information who don't like challenges to their preconceptions, whose humor and sociability is congenial and serves them as blinders. Okay, they have their shoulder to the wheel, but when that wheel is grinding up the future to provide them with a fleetingly pleasant now, I shudder in their presence.

I would like to come back at this mentality you just mentioned, Tartarin.

The problem with environazis such as myself is that we have fully recognized the modern human prevalence of short-term welfare on long-term wellbeing. The lack of the second, we have also recognized, will at a certain point cause the absence of the former.

Despite his often beautiful prose, I think george, and so many of our fellow humans, have to learn to appreciate the morale in this: the eco- in economy and ecology comes from the Greek oikos for 'house', in this case the planet. The logos of the house -- the ecological study -- shows us that the nomos of the house -- the economical ways -- are on a speeding course towards the collapse of the house. The dogma of benefit, I'm afraid, is causing this collapse. You can slowly boil a toad to death and he'd never know it. Even worse, his last thought would still have been an economical one -- must-eat-fly -- instead of an ecological one: must-avoid-heat.

I hope we can save some beauty in this world. But for that to happen, the logos has to prevail on the nomos again. Urgently.

On this observation of twoness, and on the affinities which lie behind it, you and I, george, have achieved oneness (God! That's too Freudian for words!)

wolf

George does not merely write lovely prose, he also writes (and thinks) with caution and humility....brief pause to consider if the preceding is overstated...pause continuing...actually, I believe that to be so.

We three - yourself, Tartarin and I - come out of a different set of experiences and notions on this topic than does george. The thing of it is, if we are right, then it will be people like george who can listen, and can engage us in conversation and idea exchange, and who are possessing of a value set which is not merely about self who will become our allies in the future. On the other hand, if WE are wrong, george will have a lot of money and can lend us some.

Interesting point Tart. I suspect there are as many forms of this malady as there are preconceptions resistant to challenge. How willing are you to challenge yours? What do you use for your blinders?

On the subject at hand, unlike you and Wolf, I have substantial direct professional experience with the all too ordinary biases of some environmental advocates, the flaws in their models, their selectivity in analyzing data, the often illogical devices they use to defend their fixed positions and impose their will on others. I have also encountered elements of the very human and ordinary factors motivating this behavior. The bottom line is that environmental zealots are just like the rest of us, except that, like zealots of all stripes, they are certain of their convictions. They do not doubt. They do not deal with counter evidence and their certainty propels them past their contradictions. Their 'science' is not science: it is religion.

Again, I am no Pangloss. I don't suggest there is no harm being inflicted on the planet by the modern industrial systems that support our lifestyle. I work for and advocate many measures to improve the design of these systems and correct the harm done. I also study and deal with the absurdities in many of the remedies environmentalists propose to impose on the rest of us, and have seen that in many instances more not less environmental harm would result if they had their way. Finally, unlike the worst of them, I give some value to the continuity of human life in my evaluations of alternatives.

I'm a bit of a doubter myself. I do know that the global warming will not bring death to all earthly life. But the ecosystem as we know it -- that I am sure of -- will not remain as it is. It will be ship-wrecked. A warmer planet embarks us on a wholly different ecological trip, improbably as paradisiacal as we the one we have known until now. In that case I do believe environmental zealotry to be the wiser, and pseudo-rational composition to be the more foolish attitude here.

Possibly someone might persuade George that human life and the rest of the life on the planet (Wolf's toad, the disappearing aquifers) are inseparable. We have generation upon generation of Christian theology to overcome here -- the idea that man is superior and distinct. It's a handy notion for the careless and greedy... until they become simmering toads themselves.

My last post and Blatham's crossed in the ether. I have read his and now feel a bit shamed by the remaining traces of stridency in mine.

Blatham,

"Oneness" - That was good ! Well up to your usual standard.

Thanks., I note that you 'paused to consider', but believe you gave me the benefit of every doubt when you did.

I agree we are all passengers on the same train, and none of us knows for sure where it is going. Might just as well be considerate as we ride, and take advantage of the opportunity to understand each other, if only for the entertainment it provides.

Tartarin, come on babe - be nice. Where in Spain? Love that place!

The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain ... ... ...

Wolf !! At last something I can accept. (Well almost - I thought the pseudo-rational bit was a wart on an otherwise good expression.)

Do you really believe human history on earth has been a stay in paradise? What about the Plague? earthquakes? mini ice ages? famine and pestilence? Contemplate the destruction when the agitated Mediterranean finally broke through the land bridge at the Bosphorus releasing the deluge that formed the Black sea.

Our ecosystem has never been static. Constant, dynamic change is the rule in observable nature.

Reasonable doubt is the hallmark of a thinking human. I believe that much of the harm people have inflicted on one another has been done at the hands of those who were sure beyond doubt they were right and who were willing to forcibly impose their wills on others.

No need to persuade me that the various elements of life on the planet are, to a degree, inseparable. (However note that this statement demands qualification. Species disappear and new ones emerge continually in a dynamic system. inseparability is true only in the large and it does not require the absence of change).

The idea that man is superior and distinct in that superiority has been proven to innumerable observers (Christian and otherwise) merely by his ability to dominate all other species.

You make sweeping and unsupported value judgements, and characterize those who hold otherwise as "careless and greedy". Certainly OK by me that you believe all this. However not an effective way to either persuade those you scorn or to cause them to reconsider. What is your purpose?

I cordially shake hands on our agreement, george.

But pestilence, nuclear weaponry and other unwelcome appearances have threatened entire hemispheres, yes. Global warming however, and the resulting climate change, is the first real global threat -- what's in a name. It has a nefarious effect on the very essence of a biological presence on Earth: the balance between solar shortwave heat absorption and long wave heat reflection is being distorted by the artificial greenhouse gases. You can't get more global than that. Life depends on this balance, and when it tilts, you get a whole new ball game, one of which I'm not sure whether it's open to us humans. As greenhouse gases increasingly trap infrared heat in the stratosphere, the Earth is on its way to a certain point at which the planetary ecosystem will loose features that are non-omissible to the well-being of the human population: sea levels ARE rising, summer droughts ARE raging, and this is the mere starting point of this whole artifical greenhouse creation.

And I beg you not to underestimate the feedback mechanisms global warming will inflict upon itself from now on (an increase in the Earth's temperature creates more CO2-evaporation from soils and sea surfaces; creates lots more forest fires, which we have seen as well; creates sharper weather conditions which causes more antropogenic CO2 emission by increased use of cooling and heating energy, and so on). The rate of the warming is steepening as we speak because of these positive feedback mechanisms. As in a garden greenhouse without supervision, the life will slowly wither away on this planet as well if they aren't halted.

This never before seen problem will NOT slow down on its own initiative. So let's do something.

It's a matter of respect, George. Those I respect practically get their toes sucked. The rest lose their toes and sometimes....

That said, diplomacy is very much to be encouraged when one is dealing with people who are intelligent, genuinely interested in progress. Blatham and Wolf think there's hope. I don't. Why? Because you openly support an administration which is so blatantly destructive of international and community and environmental values. Get off the Bushmobile, and I'll have some respect.

The problem is that the Bush-orks have somehow managed to convin$e a considerable number of people in commercial, energy, intelligence, and military circles that this administration represents the true American values and that the world doesn't know what it's missing.

It suffices to consider well-being as essentially tantamount to well-fare to pierce through to the real, universal values of our small existence on this planet. I don't think these are about money. The proof is that this lust for money and power, which george has recognized to be truly reflected in the Bush administration, has provided him with less respect or pleasure than a few kind words by blatham and myself.

The lust for money does not always bring one money. It goes in hand with a lust for power and some other lusts we don't need to discuss here, especially where politics are concerned. To sit back and complacently think that the environment will do fine without any human control belies the fact that were are superior to animals, can make judgements, can concoct the science to turn back the degredation of the environment. All for a remarkably low expenditure which will in the long run bring everyone a better quality of life. You do want to be alive to enjoy the money, right?

Dear Lightwizard, there are no tricks. The only science we need in order to counter ecological damage is the insight that the obsessive dogma of eternal economic growth is simply unsustainable. We need to produce more wisdom and less goods.

I know that's a tough cookie to swallow for those who see economic activity and career ambitions as the sole purpose in life, aims which are forgiveable. But 'the sky is the limit' and the raging competitive race that accompanies it are now recognized as dangerous ideas. Wrong ideas, by the way. The typical stock market society that we so take for granted is the result of a starving absence of sense. There is no limit to the sky -- a race is not needed, competition between men is not needed. We, and our life's environment, can do just fine without it.

Wolf,
Your reporting on the feedback mechanisms for atmospheric warming is highly selective and that supports and perhaps explains your incorrect conclusion. You imply that the earth's atmosphere is in an unstable equilibrium and that the net feedback will send it into an accelerating warming mode. That is simply not true. The facts and the science neither suggest nor support that view. Higher atmospheric temperatures and higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will greatly accelerate the growth of green plants and the fixing of carbon in them. You left that out. While warmer oceans surfaces may raise the partial pressure of dissolved gases and therefore increase evaporation it will also increase their solubility in the water - moreover the carbon in water does not remain in a gaseous form, first it forms carbonic acid and then it combines with the abundant dissolved calcium to form calcium carbonate . You left that out too. There are very many other factors in this complex dynamic as well.

From what source did you get the notion that I recognize that a '"lust for money and power" is "truly reflected in the Bush Administration"? I do not believe that and have never acknowledged it. As to the sources of whatever respect or pleasure I may find in life, I suggest that you do not know.

Tartarin,

Sadly you choose to reserve good manners and basic respect to those who agree with you - a most uncivilized position in my view. There are words in the language used to describe that kind of demonizing of people who hold opposing views or beliefs, none particularly flattering. OK by me if you do, but unfortunate for yourself.

Lightwizard,

You beg the question. There is not agreement either here or in general that greenhouse gas accumulation can be reversed for "a remarkably low expenditure" or that doing so will "in the long run bring everyone a better quality of life". Indeed I believe both propositions to be false. The mere repetition of them by you and Wolf neither proves nor persuades. These topics were fully addressed very early in this thread and I commend those pages to you.

True, but the increase in CO2-absorption because of more plant growth or the CO2 dissolution in warmer oceans seem to have a totally insufficient potential to absorb the 6,3 gigatonnes/year we humans spew into the atmosphere. You need a lot of plants to take all that in.

And then there those other greenhouse gases we so rarely talk about, but who will have a very negative impact as well if unmitigated.

The early pages were not convincing -- one can quote scientists on either side of the pole with agendas we can't really get into because they are so conflicted (and sometimes amorphous) on both sides. There's enough concrete evidence to point to global warming being a serious problem in the future -- George W. Bush so much as admitted it and he likely has been advised by those in his body of advisors who have even better information than what has been published. Why would the Clear Skies Bill be instigated (or orchestrated, depending on how you look at it)? It was the time table in the Kyoto Treaty that basically lamed it. Time for advise and consent with the world's polticians and diplomats to do something and a compromise is in order.

If Bush admitted climate change as a problem, the real threat must be a multiple exponent of this.

I do think Bush is absolutely the wrong man to be in the position of authority he is in right now. He evidences almost no intellectual curiosity in, nor affinity for, the sciences. His social and economic ties make his perception and decisions highly suspect, and what has come out of his mouth, not to mention consideration of the appointments he's made, suggest to me that he is precisely the sort of fellow who will not, or cannot, do anything else but ride his personal gravy train over the edge.