It always amazes me that "Conservatives" have such a problem with conservation. Of course, it's really that they aren't any more conservative than Che was. How people look at thinning polar ice cap data (from the US Navy) over 50 years and start ranting about crazed tree huggers...

I only wish he could get the same righteous fury engaged over the Democrat's continued obeisance to trial lawyers and teacher's unions as he does about the Republicans being in the pocket of industry.

Maybe because lawyers and teachers aren't really an epic threat.

It doesn't seem impossible that, if forced to move away from fossil fuel use, entrepreneurs might just find other means of providing cheap energy to fuel our economy.

There's the rub. Necessity is the mother of all invention. But where is our miracle? All those billions, all that research, and... nada. Just alot of really expensive technology that can only mitigate. Fuel cells, hybris, photovoltaics, wind, tele-commuting infrastructure, all those 'miracles' are just now scraping the cost/price ratio we've been promised for 20 years, and things don't seem more optimistic.

Maybe this is a planetary evolutionary trait. We aren't smart enough, so Gaia has to snuff us out for the next generation.

via /.

Even the wackos can't save themselves

"Conseratives" would find this a good application of lawyers.

While I'm not really a conservative and therefore can't speak for the breed, I think I can safely say that the questions on global warming tend to be directed more to the question of whether or not it is anthropogenic than to whether or not it is occurring. Some of them may be doing so only because they don't want to do anything about it (indeed, I'll wager that at least some of them are certainly doing that), but I can speak at least for myself in saying that I'm just curious what's really happening. I realize that the 'consensus' is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but it seems to me that science really has little role to play in this debate, as both sides do more pointing to the source of a particular scientist's funding rather than addressing the arguments being raised. But it seems to me that before we start taking extreme action to address an issue, we ought to be pretty damn sure we're taking the right action. That seems to fit the definition of conservative as I understand it.

As for lawyers and teachers, they're certainly not epic threats, but then, I've seen no evidence business is either. And business at least seems to provide some value lacking in much of both the legal profession and teachers' unions. Further, I think you know quite well why Drum doesn't care about those two constituencies, and it has nothing to do with their relative value. It has to do with their importance as a part of the Democratic coalition.

Maybe we don't get our miracle until it really is a necessity. As long as we have the backstop of fossil fuels, the level of energy invested in finding alternatives is not nearly as high. "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."

Gaia? I wasn't aware you were part of the eco-fringe.

Good catch of the Applebaum piece. Sadly, I fear she may be right about our inability to build anything new.

Anybody catch the Nova piece on global dimming? Nice piece of scientific work by a number of people. The gist of the piece was that fine particulates generated anthropogenically have caused a 20+% reduction in ground level watts per square meter over the last three decades. This could explain the lack of accuracy in climate models in that temperature rise is about only half of what the models have predicted. If the scientists are right, the models need to be corrected to take the decrease in albedo caused by manufacturing and other energy uses into effect.

It was noted in the article that the two or three days after 9/11 when planes in the US stopped flying there was a significant difference noted in solar heat generation. The effect disappeared after the planes began flying again.

The key question asked at the end of the piece was: if we cut the particulate matter in the atmosphere will we then see a much larger rise in temperature over a short period of time. The answer appears to be yes.

Maybe what this is pointing out is that we do not know all the answers yet. What other factors could be altering the weather that are not yet taken into account in the existing models? If we do successfully reduce carbon dioxide levels what will the law of unintended consequences do to us?

The key question asked at the end of the piece was: if we cut the particulate matter in the atmosphere will we then see a much larger rise in temperature over a short period of time. The answer appears to be yes.

I wish I'd seen that, hopefully a rerun soon. Amazing that it took so long for them to discover this. Sorta like the frog in the boiling pot.

When I heard about this last year, the first thing that popped into my head was the statement John Glenn said about the difference between his Mercury and Shuttle flight. He said he remembered the earth being much clearer in the 60's.

Your article has inspired me!!!! It is genius!!! It helped me to save the world!!! And i did save it! through bettering the environment!!!

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: