Blogcritics Comments on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Comment by Winston Apple on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:01:09 EST

Baronius (#68), Your points are well taken. Although it was not my intention to be "maddeningly condescending," several comments starting with Dave's (#1) seemed to feel that I was. Consequently, before I posted this piece on my own blog, I did a fairly substantial rewrite. Hopefully, by eliminating phrases that inadvertently turned up the heat on the discussion, my main point will be clearer - that we will benefit from reducing energy consumption even if the threat of global warming is a false alarm. - Winston Apple

Comment by Maurice on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:33:50 EST

Damn, Baronius! You talk good!

Comment by Baronius on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Sun, 2 Mar 2008 16:38:13 EST

Winston, there's a lot of merit to the point you're making. The problem is that those first two paragraphs of your article are maddeningly condescending. You say, in essence, that you don't understand why someone would disagree with you. Maybe they're greedy, or religious nuts, or they like to drive their cars fast. That's your launching point for bringing everyone together in a calmer environment?! Look, I'm a pro-lifer, and I refer to people who disagree with me as "pro-choice". That's not a big concession. That's the term they prefer, and there's no need to be a jerk about it. But you refer to people who disagree with you as "doubters and deniers". How about "skeptics"? That term doesn't conjure up any images of neo-Nazis claiming that the Holocaust didn't happen. I also note that a lot of commenters have disagreed with you on global warming, but not one of them has said "me like to drive fast and kill tree". You should look at some of the reasoning that your opponents really use, rather than create belittling hypotheses. I think that most GW skeptics (a) distrust the track record of environmental science, and (b) distrust the motivation of those who politicize it. (A few of us delight in pollution and global death, but less of us than you apparently think!) Understanding that would be the first step toward bridging the divide.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Sat, 1 Mar 2008 12:02:23 EST

It would indeed, Winston. But not quite as elegant, I feel, as Douglas Adams, who in The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy envisaged a race of beings who decided to get rid of a whole useless third of their population - the ones that did fundamentally artificial and superfluous jobs like advertising executives, documentary film producers and telephone sanitizers. But they were humane, so they told this third that their planet was doomed by some impending cosmic disaster and packed them off in a massive spaceship. The ship eventually crash-landed on prehistoric Earth - where the survivors founded the human race - while the remaining two-thirds stayed behind on their home planet and lived happy, trouble-free lives until they were all wiped out by a virus contracted from a dirty telephone.

Comment by Winston Apple on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Sat, 1 Mar 2008 03:45:24 EST

I stated in my last comment (#58) that "I am not an evangelical vegetarian." At the risk of sacrificing my "non-evangelical" status, I would like to pass along the thought that came to me when I read Clavos last comment (#65) mentioning "the old cow farts threat." Considering our treatment of cattle - growing them primarily as a food source - it would be a cosmic joke worthy of Kurt Vonnegut if the human race were to be done in by cow farts. - Winston Apple

Comment by Clavos on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:18:04 EST

"As I understand it the main complaint was methane." Ah yes, the old cow farts threat... [guffaws]

Comment by Maurice on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:15:22 EST

Winston - your reply makes sense and I look forward to future posts. Clavos - thanks for your 2 2 tuppence. As I understand it the main complaint was methane.

Comment by Esperansoel on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:32:24 EST

Come promesso la prof ssa Faliva ha messo a disposizione i materiali visionati in aula. Li troverete nella sezione materiali del Master. Fatemi sapere se avete bisogno di ulteriori approfondimenti. http://cersin.zip.io

Comment by Clavos on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:18:00 EST

Maurice, You asked Winston, not me, but I'm nothing if not opinionated, so here's my tuppence worth about PETA's letter to Al Gore: It says nothing. It alludes to a report by the UN (Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues And Options) which reportedly found that raising livestock for meat is harmful to the environment, but doesn't explain why (though presumably, the report does), and asks Gore on that basis to add eliminating meat from our diets to his list of priorities to save the environment, without giving him any specifics. The letter is to some degree, hypocritical because PETA's main raison d'etre is to stop what they perceive is cruelty to animals, and only incidentally the "saving" of the environment; yet they're trying to enlist Gore to their cause by pushing his button.

Comment by Deano on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:01:58 EST

Don't forget the converse Dave - coins have two sides...

Comment by Clavos on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:01:52 EST

Comment by Dave Nalle on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:28:55 EST

My intention was to convince people to stop getting so upset - to agree to disagree about the issue itself - while agreeing that "we should err on the side of caution," particularly since we will benefit in other ways from doing the things we can do to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Nothing upsets people as much as hypocrisy, and that's what dominates the GW debate. People claiming to be scientists holding irrational beliefs on a basis of pure faith and then trying to suppress any scientific inquiry into the subject like a sort of Spanish Inquisition - that kind of behavior is upsetting and it should be. Dave

Comment by Winston Apple on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:24:26 EST

Maurice, Obviously you, Dave, and any number of other people who have commented on my post, realize that I am concerned about global warming and feel we should be doing everything we can to limit activities that MAY be contributing to the problem. I emphasize the word "may" because I will readily admit that I am not a scientist and I am in no way equipped to know whether human activity is contributing to global warming. It was never my intention to try to convince anyone to change their position. I think that several of the comments to my post make it clear that there are people on both sides of the issue who are better informed, and better misinformed, than me on this issue. I won't even claim to know which side is which. I think the tone of the comments to my post supports my contention that discussions of this issue tend to get heated. My intention was to convince people to stop getting so upset - to agree to disagree about the issue itself - while agreeing that "we should err on the side of caution," particularly since we will benefit in other ways from doing the things we can do to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The few comments that do address my main point seem get lost in the heated exchange. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by that. Although I am relatively new to blog sites, it seems the angry posts draw the most discussion. At the risk of adding even more fuel to the fire, I will respond to your inquiry about my thoughts regarding PETA's letter to Al Gore. I am a vegetarian. I hope Al Gore stops eating meat. It would be good for his health and good for the environment. For what it's worth, I think everyone should give up meat, but I don't ever try to convince anyone of that. I am not an evangelical vegetarian. Despite the efforts of PETA and other vegetarians who do engage in missionary work, you needn't be too concerned about Idaho's beef and pig ranches. The vast majority of Americans will give up meat when it is pried from their cold, dead hands, along with their guns and their car keys. And hey if this global warming thing turns out to be as bad as some scientists predict, you'll be able to broil your meat by just leaving it out in the sun for awhile. (I'm going for the Triple Crown here - earnest, sincere, and a sense of humor.) Winston Apple

Comment by Maurice on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:40:26 EST

Winston, you seem very earnest and sincere. What do you think about PETA's letter to Al Gore? I am all for taking good care of Mother Earth. Using science and practices that make sense. I agree with your title but not some of your assumtions; like your very first sentence (consensus!?!?!). As has been pointed out there are geographical considerations also. Here in Idaho we can drive for 300 or 400 miles and not see a soul. We don't have the smog problems of L.A. or New York. We do have huge beef and pig ranches. Appropriate solutions based on science should be the mandate for all concerned.

Comment by STIGO on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:57:39 EST

london is poo, along with most of europe, nice, but governemnts in europe are all fucked

Comment by alessandro on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:14:13 EST

#53 - Bingo. You win the prize. Cui bono?

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:00:54 EST

London's not so bad - plus when I lived there I didn't have a car most of the time. I had a hell of a time driving my little Austin down the streets of Norwich (where I spent some time doing dissertation research) without hitting parked cars and oncoming traffic. There's a reason why Europeans tend to drive smaller cars... I've read that residents of the congestion zone bitch about the charge even though they don't have to pay it. Their logic on this escapes me - as does the logic of actually running a car when you live in the middle of a city with perfectly fine public transport which will get you pretty much anywhere far quicker than you could drive. For most journeys, there's no practical reason to drive in any major city that has a decent, comprehensive public transit system (London, Paris, New York, San Francisco etc)*. If you need a car to go on trips or do the grocery shopping, fine (and in San Fran you can even rent them by the hour to do just that). But commuting by car in such places? Pointless. _{* Los Angeles doesn't count. It's not really a city anyway, but a conglomeration of about 45 towns that have merged together into a massive urban sprawl. There are even scheduled airline services between some of the LA suburbs.}

Comment by Maurice on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:59:57 EST

I am wasting my time responding to this post. The government makes more money on gas sales than the gas companies. The federal tax on gas is 18.4 cents. The gas companies have a very slim profit margin and make 7 to 14 cents per gallon. We need to investigate the obsene profits the US government makes from the sale of gasoline. The church of Global Warming (GW) divorced itself of science when it continued to preach even when its early fervent precepts were shown to be false. As an engineer I am truly annoyed by claims such as the great CFC hoax that required us (U.S.) to change our behavior based on theories that are so far out they make the spagetti monster seem reasonable.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 04:04:50 EST

I'll leave it to you to imagine how ridiculous a Hummer looks trying to knuckle through the narrow streets of the West End. London's not so bad - plus when I lived there I didn't have a car most of the time. I had a hell of a time driving my little Austin down the streets of Norwich (where I spent some time doing dissertation research) without hitting parked cars and oncoming traffic. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 04:02:09 EST

Dead on with that last comment, Stan. It's the health issues that matter most of all with virtually all forms of pollution. I'd put national security issues in second place. Saving the world by redistributing wealth to the third world is somewhere WAY down the line. Dave

Comment by STM on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 02:27:59 EST

Dave's right, much of LA's pollution problem is the result of its location ... in a coastal basin. It's virtually identical to Sydney in that way, even down to mean summer and winter temperatures - and temperature inversion, where you see that pall of brown smog just hanging over the city on cool, clear, days, is not pleasant. Photchemical smog in these two cities, and also in others on the coast like Vancouver and New York, is a major problem. Sydney has one slight advantage: more weather change than LA in summer, with cool southerlies often blowing in for an hour in the evening and dispersing the smog. It still doesn't get off scot-free, however, and I've seen the brown pall hanging over the Sydney basin against a bright blue sky in winter just as you would see in LA. Although greater Sydney is a very big urban area geographically and suffers also from being part of a very long urban coastal strip, it is not the size of the greater LA area, at least in population terms, and so the problem for LA is really the sheer volume of pollutants in concert with its location ... and it's worth remembering that the Southern California coastal strip from about Santa Barbara down to San Diego is now also just one long urban sprawl. The last time I was there, I developed a persistent, hacking cough after about three days as my throat reacted to the particles in the air, and I was staying on the coast so you'd imagine that places like the San Fernando Valley would get it even worse. This vanished after a couple of days as the body got used to it. I have also had the exact same thing in Sydney, although more intermittently and I'm assured that intermittently doesn't - or didn't - apply in LA. It's for health reasons that we should be cutting pollution of this type as much as anything else, as kids in places like these are particularly at risk with conditions like asthma. I'm not sure climate change is the only factor here.

Comment by Duscany on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:45:31 EST

If engineers could create cars which emitted pure oxygen Los Angeles would still be smoggy (or at least hazy). The reason is that temperature inversions make Los Angeles naturally hazy whether there are cars or not. That's why the Indians here called it "valley of a thousand smokes."

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:37:44 EST

When I was last in London everyone was talking about large portions of downtown basically being closed off from private vehicles. Did nothing come of that? You're thinking of the congestion charge which was introduced by London mayor Ken Livingstone in 2003. Unless you're a resident, you have to pay �8 to drive your car into the city centre. The scheme has its critics but seems to work quite well as far as it goes. There are still blackspots: when I was there in December it was still far quicker to walk down Oxford Street rather than take a bus. The major snag - I've noticed - is that the people who can afford to live in the congestion charge zone are the folks who tend to own gas guzzlers like SUVs and... well, you've lived there: I'll leave it to you to imagine how ridiculous a Hummer looks trying to knuckle through the narrow streets of the West End.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:06:58 EST

Unfortunately, the smog is now making a comeback, due to the ever-increasing volumes of traffic in the city - which, yes, does sit in a basin, albeit a shallow one. When I was last in London everyone was talking about large portions of downtown basically being closed off from private vehicles. Did nothing come of that? As for China, it was announced today that it just passed the US as the number-one producer of CO2. Of course, if you break down CO2 output relative to GDP (a rough indicator of how polluting their industries are), they've been number one in pollution for years. Dave

Comment by Baritone on Let's Turn Down the Heat on Discussions of Global Warming

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:44:54 EST

There are some people commenting here, well, one at least, who are (is) mind numbingly dumb. I'm not naming any names, though. If the shoe fits... B-tone