This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.
Our resident geographer, Peter Black, has a new blog called Climate Atlas where he posts maps to visualize many aspects of climate change. Here’s a sampling of his recent posts:
- Worldwide climate anomalies in 2007
- U.S. renewable energy resources
- Regional climate initiatives
- New York metro area with a 10-foot sea-level rise
Check it out and tell us what you think!
6 Comments
First of all: I am not convinced that man’s daily activity influences global warming. Climate change is a natural phenomenon beyond our control.
Second: Human caused global warming does not have a consensus of scientists and, in fact, has a large number of very vocal and well credentialed detractors.
Third: I notice that N. J. Nicholas, Jr. Chairman is listed as “Investor” and an inordinate number of other investor/venture types with probable profit motives populate your board. That makes me wonder about your real motives; save the globe or produce profits. I have no problem with profits but I do have problems with dishonesty and hypocracy.
Fourth: Environmental improvement is certainly noble and deserves attention. However, too many environmental laws and rules are kneejerk actions with unintended consequences: i.e., ethanol as a motor/transportation fuel – environmental and energy concerns from production (at all levels) to tailpipe emissions. Too many US government agencies work at cross purposes and effectively stymie progress thanks to uninformed and unqualified politicians and self-serving bureaucrats.
Fifth (and very important): I hear absolutely no mention of population control. A burgeoning population strains all ecological systems. Food/water supplies, resource consumption for housing, energy and transportation, disease and medicine all become problematic because of human proliferation. And population control is not even on the table!
I have been involved with the US DoE, Clean Cities program, alternative fuels (for reduction of dependence on foreign fuel sources). I will continue that work. However, until population control is seriously discussed, all other discussions are basically meaningless. I will do my part to prevent harm to the environment but will not subscribe to megabucks global warming schemes that threaten to return us to the dark ages.
Take transportation, as an example:
To get from one place to another takes energy, no matter the source – even walking requires energy. The current hew and cry is for electric vehicles (ethanol and bio-diesel having fallen from favor). However those same folks also want to eliminate fossil fuel generation, breach hydro-electric dams and, thus, drastically reduce our supply of electricity. How will that work when everyone comes home and plugs their cars in to the grid?
This week Honda launched the FCX Clarity, a dedicated fuel cell vehicle. The combined sales plan for the US and Japan calls for a few dozen to be leased the first year with about 200 total units leased over the next three years. Imagine the impact that will have on the robust global warming, environmental cleaning programs you envision. They think they may get the price down to $100K in 10 years – big whoop, there. And, for the uninformed, the current feedstock for most hydrogen used in fuel cells is natural gas . . . oops, a fossil fuel.
Fuel cells are touted as the up and coming technology. Well check out the following: http://www.sections.asme.org/milwaukee/history/15-fuelcelltractor.html
Note the date and current resting place. 50 years ago a viable fuel cell plowed a field and ended up in a museum. So, I ask, just how serious are we about alternative energy or environmental issues?
The first two comments by Sagacious,
“First of all: I am not convinced that man’s daily activity influences global warming. Climate change is a natural phenomenon beyond our control.
Second: Human caused global warming does not have a consensus of scientists and, in fact, has a large number of very vocal and well credentialed detractors.” are enough to let you know this is more spin from a Bush appointee or an Exxon-Mobil hired gun.
As a former school teacher, one must learn to ignore the ubiquitous and argumentative (yet clever) little brats and go on to the real point of the lesson. Class – turn to Program Overview in your text and read what the real scientists at UCS have to say.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
Next?
Mary Francis
Mary Francis,
A “former” school teacher, huh. From your comments, I understand your problem immediately . . . a closed mind and ignore anything or anyone who disagrees with you. Not all the little brats are wrong.
How many changes did you see in your textbooks? I don’t know when you taught but when I was a kid, we were about to enter an ice age; apparently I missed it. Although the Pacific Northwest and many other areas set records for lows this year, maybe I haven’t missed the ice age after all.
When Al Gore declared the discussion closed, I knew it was a hoax. Whenever the discussion is closed and detractors are ostracized, the idea or theory is nuts and will not withstand scrutiny. Hence, in your estimation, the discussion is spin and only USC has “real scientists.”
Check with the folks below.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/400-scientists-disputed-man-made-global-warming-us-senate-report/
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2008/06/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html
http://amerpundit.com/2008/05/21/31000-scientists-reject-global-warming/
Sagacious
Please keep comments civil. No abuse and no name-calling, or your comment may be deleted.
Thank you.
Excuse me! To whom does your warning apply . . . mfrancis who accuses me of spin or carrying water for oil companies and calls me a “ubiquitous and argumentative (yet clever) little brat” or me, who suggested she is closed minded?
We are talking about events that, in your estimation, may doom all mankind and you worry about civil discourse. Your basic, and specious, premise (end of the world) is in and of itself abusive and invites heated debate. Al Gore himself, your hero, said that those who doubt him and global warming are equivilent to an idiot who still thinks the earth is flat. He and his ilk brook no opposition and that is, itself, abusive.
So, in my estimation, the majority of the global warming, climate change verbage is abusive, demeaning and name-calling couched in euphemisms.
Now, is this a blog for the exchange of ideas and thoughts on global warming or a touchie-feelie, mutual admiration society that accepts only bland comments that conform to preconceived ideas?
Sagacious
My warning applies to everybody equally, of course. The posting policy appears below the comment edit box:
We’ve got quite a few polite and courteous climate change deniers who post on this blog. Take a look around. We don’t censor. We just want the conversation to be civil. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable!