Oh well that’s just great
ABC News: Sarah Palin Defends Experience, Takes Hard Line Approach on National Security
On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, Gov. Sarah Palin took a hard-line approach on national security and said that war with Russia may be necessary if that nation invades another country.
I’ve just realized: this is why the neocons don’t want to do anything about global warming. Because it’d mean that Russian winters aren’t as bad as they used to be.
September 11th, 2008 22:19
I’m actually getting kinda nervous. My brother’s almost 18 and what with the abysmal rates of people volunteering to join the armed forces maybe they’ll bring back that old timey tradition of forcing people to go off to war!
September 12th, 2008 10:21
Hey, now. Just because Napoleon and Hitler failed, there’s no reason we couldn’t march on Moscow…
September 12th, 2008 13:20
So we say we support democracy and other nations who are attempting to be independent but when a larger nation, attempting to build a strangle hold on Europe with some oil pipelines (and there is much more to this story than Russia trying to help the citizans in an area known as South Ossetia which is within the Georgian border), invades a smaller nation. We should just stand by. If we do nothing militarily, then we get the Darfur argument. Make up your mind.
Should we just withdraw into our own borders? This is a global economy, a global political situation, a global environment. We are a blessed nation and we should use our position to do good.
September 12th, 2008 13:26
Global warming…really? Can’t believe that you believe that. The world weather/climate environment is a huge equation with thousands of variables. You really believe that we can control it. Very full of our own awesomeness to believe that we are causing something to occur or that we can change something of that scale. We can’t even control a hurricane (despite some theories that Bush created Katrina - so is he stupid or smart)…we try to control floods yet every so often one occurs.
When you use models to predict things on the scale of world wide weather or climate, you have to make assumptions and those assumptions vary and those who propose these things have agendas. Like my Dad always said, follow the money.
September 12th, 2008 17:09
+1 for irony,
-10 for epic fail.
September 12th, 2008 19:36
“We can’t even control a hurricane (despite some theories that Bush created Katrina - so is he stupid or smart)”
Umm… what idiot suggested that? Bush?
September 13th, 2008 00:50
A lot I could reply to here, but I don’t want to drop a wall of text on you, so let me just pick this one for now:
Why’s that hard to believe? We already have the technology to actively make the world uninhabitable right now. The idea that our existing technology could accidentally be making the world incrementally less habitable doesn’t seem that much of a stretch.
September 13th, 2008 10:23
MikeG, gtfo. kthnxbai
September 13th, 2008 21:50
MikeG, I’ve had similar thoughts in regards to the size of the Earth compared to the small percentage we’re fouling up, and what kind of effect it has. But where you lose me is where you then leap to the conclusion that it can’t reasonably have any effect. I can only conclude that you have worked your way through that “huge equation with thousands of variables” and determined that we definitively are not having any impact.
No? Then as Mikki suggests, kindly stfu and gtfo. In something this large and complex, doubt is reasonable. It’s your kind of absolutism that reeks of “very full of our own awesomeness”.
Or maybe to put it more simply, effect != control. Nobody ever said we can control the global climate. It’s not at all hard to imagine that we can have an effect on it.
September 14th, 2008 19:24
Wow…thought we could exchange views…what’s with the stfu’s and gtfo’s…
spinn…a wall of text can be found for either side…and to what degree is that incremental effect…my perspective tells me that the air is cleaner, the water is cleaner but those are localized, not global…
Gawain…never said we did not affect the earth, just said that the type of catastrophic change in climate is a bit much to think we could cause it…wipe out a species here or there, sure…destroy a habitat, sure…but global warming, bit of a stretch there…
Blitzkrieg…just google some quotes to find out who blames Bush for Katrina…
Mikki…when I have to look up ‘kthnxbai’, to find that you could have written okthxbye…I say no more to you.
September 14th, 2008 21:53
I’m not…hm. I’m not sure what you meant by “a wall of text can be found for either side”. I wasn’t trying to say anything by that, just that my experience is that people don’t read a lot of text.
If you don’t think we have the ability to change the climate, it’s because the word “smog” long ago worked into the vocabulary and people are used to the shock of it. Imagine if you told a farmer in the 1600s that the machines of Man would one day dim the skies for hundreds of square miles, perhaps farther than he had ever traveled in his lifetime. He’d think you were insane or full of hubris.
Even in small ecosystems you can see the effect man has. A few factories on a river dumping uncontrolled substances into it takes decades to clean. Toxic chemicals buried under a landfill take a huge effort to scour and make usable again. This isn’t scalable to the larger climate? Why not? I’m guessing you figure the outlaw of CFCs was also some scientist hoax?
Tho really I think I can’t fault Mikki once you suggested there are theories that Bush created Katrina. At that point you just sound like you’re trolling.
September 14th, 2008 22:20
Bush IS to blame for the aftermath of Katrina, considering he put a horse enthusiast in charge of FEMA.
But the way you phrased it made it sound like he formed the hurricane by hand, which I thought was as equally a dumb idea as your impression that “wiping out a species here or there” is no biggy.
September 15th, 2008 00:09
I don’t think he was saying it’s no biggie, but that it’s understandable that it’s possible. Because, sure, we’ve seen it happen a number of times and it’s fairly well established. The possibility of man-made global climate change is wholly new for our species, so in a lot of ways we’re all on new ground.
I just have faith in science. And faith in the people who say man’s having an effect. And for nearly everyone (certainly everyone here) it’ll still come down to faith anyway. But in my opinion “well heck, I just couldn’t see that happening” isn’t a valid argument against it. Or evolution, for that matter.
September 15th, 2008 00:30
Eh, you’re right. Caught me on a bad day at a bad time. I still think you’re full of crap, but that’s no excuse for dickishness.
Allow me to re-direct: the gist of your post was that mankind subtly affecting the overall global temperature over time is somehow vastly less feasible than the ability to directly control a hurricane or flood, and that since we cannot do the latter then the former is out of the question. The very premise is absurd, so any further discussion on the point is moot.
September 15th, 2008 01:41
Since no one has addressed the other issue– One, Georgia invaded South Ossetia first. Two, the US shouldn’t make commitments it doesn’t intend to honor. Three, war with Russia is not a fun macho game; it’s nuclear war and we all lose.
Or wait, is that the neocon answer to global warming? Nuclear winter?
September 15th, 2008 15:27
If our leaders keep poppin’ off at the mouth about starting a war with Russia, don’t be too surprised if Russia beats us to the punch. It’s not very wise to attack ANY nation, but that one in particular is a terrible idea… zompist is on the money with what would be the outcome of that one.
As for climate change, two big factors; One, which is a whole ‘nother discussion unto itself, we are currently undergoing some sort of global (if not galaxial) change that will come to fruition by 2012. Theories and speculations run abound as to what this change is — research them all, judge for yourself, then wait and see how it unfolds.
Two, and the more likely factor, not only are we destroying ecosystems at an unstoppable rate on both land and sea, but think of vehicles. Planes, trains, automobiles, ships, jets, you name it: all of these things are changing the weather. With pollution? Could be. Millions of multi-ton objects travelling at unnaturally fast velocities throughout the world in the air as well as on the ground? Bullseye. Not to mention the concentrated levels of heat emitted from each of these objects. If you think these factors don’t affect everything on the whole, especially weather, I suggest you look into “Chaos Theory”.
Weather control is highly improbable. Attempting to influence the weather might be possible, but I would expect that to yield very dire consequences.
September 15th, 2008 19:53
I think Mr. G’s also missing out on a key distinction: his perception tells him the air and water are cleaner, but he is no more able than I am to personally and inherently able to discern methane from carbon dioxide from nitrogen in the air, mercury in our fish, E. coli on our spinach, or Oxycontin ir our water. Human perception is drastically limited, and we have to figure things out elsewise.
But what money should we follow, Mike? I’m at a loss to figure out how an eco/green movement would find immense profits from carbon cutbacks. Perhaps the solar and wind power industries, but coal and oil are already eating their would-be tax credit lunches. Forests don’t really have as much cash to buy lobbyists as the lumber companies do. Judging by how often they ask me for funds, the Sierra Club isn’t exactly rolling in dough, either. Even creating an artificial market for carbon won’t preclude Exxon from trying to make a buck on it. What money is on the side of the anti-carbon lobby that makes climate change science so suspect?
Nuclear threats aside, Bush’s Iraq surge pretty much ran us out of the last of our deployable soldiers, so a war with Russia should wrap up relatively quickly. My cynical side would enjoy it, if only because getting creamed might finally force the U.S. to confront the fact that military power is terribly gauche.
September 16th, 2008 07:10
Where do I begin?
spinn…your examples (smog, pollution) are localized events and, no doubt, man has caused those…but man has also addressed many of those…however, a larger, global effect is a bit of a leap especially when there is an equal number of scientist who doubt the cause and effect relationship (site the carbon dioxide/temperature relationship and which causes which to happen)…
I too have faith we can address any situation but let’s not get hysterical…and suggest buying carbon offsets (oh, sharper, that is where the money will be made by companies like Generation Investment Management) or suggesting that we will know how the weather will change over the next few years when we barely can estimate 10 days out…
zompist…most experts site that South Ossetia is a part of Georgia…it was Russia that invaded South Ossetia…
and to all within a few minutes I found numerous blog theories that President Bush, using some secret Navy thing, either created or steered the hurricane…I never said that I believed it or would support it…what I would like to know is why President Bush is always the first one (and usually the only one) to blame…why not start with local (Mayor Nagin) and state (Gov Bianco) or at least include all three…
September 16th, 2008 11:00
[1] I didn’t say I have faith we can address it. I said I have faith in the people who say that the human race is having an effect on the climate. (By which I mean: I believe their claims are more accurate, as I am not a scientist and can’t personally verify their claims for accuracy.)
[2] Carbon offsets come with their own problems. If you plant a whole lot of trees, there is an ecological impact. “Lots of trees” does not necessarily equal “a good thing”.
[3] That’s a snappy line, but “weather” does not equal “climate”. Just because we can’t accurately predict the weather doesn’t mean we can’t talk about climate changes.
You seem to be simultaneously saying “there are a lot of things we don’t know” and “I know for a fact that what we’re doing can’t have an effect on the global climate”.
September 16th, 2008 14:18
Heyyy whoa whoa wait a minute. What do you mean, you have faith we can address it? How? If man has no effect on the global climate, aren’t we pretty much screwed?
September 16th, 2008 14:36
The recent conflict began when Georgia invaded South Ossetia, occupying its capital. The Russians counter-invaded, and also pushed into Georgia.
Outsiders generally want the borders of the Soviet republics to be respected, even though they were drawn by the Soviets for their own administrative convenience, not as future national boundaries. But, you know, outsiders don’t live there. Ultimately the South Ossetians should decide their own fate… a principle Americans once supported (cf. Declaration of Independance, 1776).
September 16th, 2008 16:26
I’m going to presume here that financial ability is all that will determine whose portrayal of climate science wins public support. That is the most reasonable way I can think to “follow the money” as you originally asked, MikeG.
Under that presumption, I find it exceptionally hard to accept your argument that an industry whose foremost participant was created in 2004 for a specialized carbon emissions market that does not yet exist in the country most responsible for carbon emissions was somehow able to outfund the entire U.S. carbon energy industry. GIM is a private company and I haven’t been able to easily find a market capitalization for them, but I would guess it to be a fraction of Exxon’s 2Q profits.
Please, Mike, show me how prospective future money is so easily able to drown out the cold hard actual cash that can be tossed about by those with an active current interest in promoting climate change skepticism.
September 16th, 2008 21:20
zompist…I am no expert in this country…but according to various sources on the wikipedia page…
‘However, the European Union, OSCE, NATO, and most other countries recognize South Ossetia as an integral part of the territory of the state of Georgia.’
So…I would think that Georgia went into South Ossetia because it was going to secede…and Russia had no business entering Georgia…
September 16th, 2008 21:25
spinn…you have faith in the scientists/engineers, peace…all I am saying is that there are scientists/engineers on both sides and there are arguments to the contrary which are convincing (I am an engineer and have read through some of those dry, multi-page reports)…
what I was saying was that we believe in science and the people behind the science…it is just that your take is diametrically opposed to mine…
*btw, have I said that I like your blog…would like to see more insight into things you observe on a regular day…thx
September 17th, 2008 10:49
It seems to me that zompist’s point wasn’t about the Russians, but about us. By supporting Georgia over South Ossetia, the U.S. has taken a political stance directly at odds with both our original moral principles as well as the moral principles we claim to promote.
If we were truly interested in promoting democracy (where the will of the demos holds sway) abroad, we would probably care a little bit more about the Republic of South Ossetia’s 16 year old declaration of independence and stand behind their decision to either throw in their lot with Georgia, Russia, or go it alone. Instead, we’re trying to gain favor with a potential ally and poke our fingers at a reborn nemesis by cynically deciding for other people who their government will be.
If you want to get deeper into this, you’ll notice that the Wikipedia page mentions that South Ossetia has had de facto independence since the early 1990s. The August 6 edit (before the August 8 Russian invasion) says that the U.S. was totally cool with letting Georgia work out its own plans for independence from Russia when the U.S.S.R. fell. But now, we seem to take offense when the affected nations and peoples try to redraw those lines. Is Georgia more right to invade an autonomous region than Russia is to respond when that region asks for help, and why are we taking a position in the conflict contrary to our principles?
September 17th, 2008 13:42
Yeah, it just irritates me. This should be a simple fact of science, and I hate getting to the “there are arguments on both sides” point. It feels like a cop-out. But unfortunately I can’t make enough of a persuasive argument. one way or the other.
Though ironically, today I tripped into this chartjunk blog, apparently by someone who is irritated by sloppy data presentation. This one shows that the notion “oh, this is just a millenia-long cycle” argument is untrue, at least with respect to CO2 in the atmosphere, if the data collection can be trusted.
September 17th, 2008 15:53
There are a lot of smart scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. And they should be skeptical. Scientists who are sincere should always be skeptical.
Correlation is not causation — that’s pretty much basic Experimental Science 101. There is significant evidence that most changes in global temperature follow changes in the sun. Since we just experienced the lowest number of sunspots in either 50 or 100 years (depending on whether you take the 1/2 spot or 0 spot assessment of the sun in August). The last time we had so few spots, there was a mini ice-age. We will know if the sunspot-trend continues and if temperatures drop accordingly in a decade or two. One theory on why sunspots help warm the planet is that the increased magnetism helps shield the earth from cosmic rays. Cosmic rays (mostly highly energetic protons) are theorized to aid cloud formation that reflects solar radiation back into space, cooling the planet.
On the correlation/causation argument, CO2 is released into the atmosphere from sources like decaying plant matter in top soil when temperatures rise, so it is entirely plausible that CO2 follows temperature more than leads it.
There is no argument (that I’ve seen at least) that H2O is the single largest greenhouse gas. Depending upon whose numbers you believe, CO2 accounts for between 3% and 30% of global warming in the atmosphere — that’s a pretty large range — again, the basis of science is to be skeptical, so if various sources have that much variance, it’s difficult to be too certain about CO2 as a GW culprit.
Lots of random thoughts, I know, but before we condemn third-world countries to continued poverty (and an increased death rate) based on an unproven theory, we should be way more certain about GW than we are now.
September 17th, 2008 16:34
spinn “if the data collected can be trusted”
That is the understatement in all of this…if I can find it again there was a great article on how the collection points for atmospheric data (temperature specifically) have changed due to population movements…once what was an empty field is now surrounded by buildings or air conditioners or, in one case, a parking lot with the device being within 15 feet of hot engines…maintenance on these units has suffered in some cases…
also..here is a good point to follow for arguments against global warming… http://www.oism.org/pproject/ and before the attacks start, I don’t claim to know any of the 31,000 scientists who have signed this petition (they must submit a signed hardcopy to be counted)…
Pandemic…where have you been?
September 17th, 2008 18:35
As Sharper points out, South Ossetia seceded years ago. Saakashvili hoped to reverse this by force, a very risky and provocative act when you live right next door to Russia. The US shouldn’t encourage that sort of defiance if it’s not going to carry through.
As for the European Union and NATO, note that neither Georgia nor Russia are members. Their opinion is nice but hardly authoritative… do we care when OPEC or the Arab League condemns our behavior? Russia is a member of the OSCE but that’s a mere feel-good organization that’s not much more than a charity.
September 17th, 2008 19:53
MikeG: “…most experts site that South Ossetia is a part of Georgia…it was Russia that invaded South Ossetia…”
As sharper and zompist pointed out, most of the world (EU, NATO, etc.) didn’t recognize South Ossetia’s independence from Georgia, that’s true. But since both South Ossetia and Georgia recognized it, Georgia suddenly moving in becomes a big deal. Hence Russia coming to the aid of the heavily Russia-supporting Ossetians (keep in mind, South Ossetia is still strongly connected with North Ossetia, a republic in Russia).
But here’s what I think is funny about the whole thing. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Georgia were all separately absorbed into the Soviet Union, but the first two were arbitrarily added to Georgia by Stalin (a native Georgian, go fig).
Back to present day, Russia’s lease is running out on using the Ukranian city Sevastopol, on the Crimean peninsula, as the home port for their Black Sea Fleet. Ukraine has stated that they don’t plan to let Russia renew the deal, and the US has stated they plan to back Ukraine. Now, the Crimean was originally part of Russia proper (well, so was all of Ukraine, but that’s a different story). But back in the Soviet days, it was handed over to Ukraine by Khushchev (a native Ukranian, go fig), because hey, Soviet Union can’t possibly fall, so who cares.
So here’s the US, standing firm and, in the name of democracy, defending the lines on the map drawn by the Soviet Union decades ago, in the name of communism.
Oh, and spinn, now that I have internet back, I don’t know how I got by without you. It’s nice to have a beacon of sense in an ocean of “zuh, wtf?”
September 18th, 2008 13:16
I pretty much refuse to believe that the origin of the hypothesis that humans are causing global warning was due to someone putting a sensor too close to the tailpipe of a ‘83 Chrysler LeBaron.
Pandemic: If CO2 is either the cause or a contributor, or only an indicator, isn’t it alarming either way that it appears to be 20% higher than the highest fluctuations over the last 600 millenia? (which, again, if the data can be believed, but your argument implicitly cedes that it can.) Or, are you saying it is shocking, just entirely out of our control to do anything about it.
September 19th, 2008 18:26
Well first, more precisely, I’m saying be skeptical of everything. I don’t know that the data can be relied upon (I tried to make it clear that many of the things I referenced were theories). You should attack, attack, attack, and if everything stands up over a period of time and you can make accurate predictions of events based upon your theory (something very difficult to do with a global phenomenon), then you start to gain confidence in the theory. GW causes don’t come close to those criteria on either side of the debate.
If CO2 is indicative and not causative, then what can you do about it? (Piss on the sun? ;) ). Not that humans can’t adapt, but we’re probably not going to be able to beat the sun globally without some significant new technology. A wikipedia graph charts solar activity vs. temperature vs. methane vs. CO2 from present day to 400,000 years back. It’s a pretty remarkable correlation (if, as you say, the data can be believed — which I won’t repeat any more, but you can assume that I mean this on any data I quote). One has to ask why methane follows CO2 so closely. Do mammals just fart more when CO2 goes up, or are both driven by another entity like the sun?
I think most scientists believe humans do contribute CO2 to the atmosphere that might enhance GW. The main question is whether that contribution is significant or really just down in the noise.