INTERVIEW: Head Of IPCC Warns Of Adverse National Security Impact From Climate Change
INTERVIEW: Head Of IPCC Warns Of Adverse National Security Impact From Climate Change
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri is the Chairman of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Last week, the IPCC released the third part of its assessment on climate change, reporting that successful action against global warming can be undertaken at a modest cost.
ThinkProgress interviewed Dr. Pachauri this morning, and sought his views on a variety of climate change issues, including what global warming’s impact is on national security, what advice he would give to a presidential candidate, and what immediate changes the U.S. needs to make.
CLICK HERE TO LISTENRecently, the Washington Times reported, “Senior House Republicans are complaining about Democrats’ plans to divert ’scarce’ intelligence funds to study global warming.” In our interview with Dr. Pachauri, he underscored the fact that climate change can pose a serious threat to our global security:
If the impact of climate change is going to make regions of violence poorer, then they really provide a level of fertility for inciting disaffection, resentment against the prosperous world. That’s an indirect effect that can create the conditions for terrorism. There is also domestic reasons. If higher-intensity hurricanes create a lot of damage, that does in some sense have security-implications as well. There is a whole range of factors. Water scarcity is another one. I’m not saying all this translates into direct threats to the U.S., but conflict anywhere has some implication for security in the U.S. As the most powerful and most prosperous nation on Earth, it is for the U.S. to take a global view of what strategically might minimize the possibility of threats to national security.
Other summarized highlights from the interview below:
On the advice he would give a presidential candidate:
Climate change is not something in the future. It’s already here. And every part of the globe is going to be affected. We will have an increase in extreme events. We’re likely to have problems with respect to water supplies in the U.S. We have to tell the people of the U.S. that this is something intimately connected with their present and their future. The cost of inaction is going to be far higher than action. And the cost of action is really not all that high. The U.S. has made all kinds of sacrifices in the past and has always come out on top.
On advancements the U.S. needs to make:
The U.S. is really going to lose its place in the world of automobile production and sales if they don’t wake up and start producing more efficient vehicles. GM and Ford Motor Company are already in pretty poor shape. We also need much better investment in public transport. I find it unthinkable that Ireland and France are testing high-speed trains which run at 574 km/hour. It takes three hours to go from New York to Washington DC. It really should not take more than 1 hour and 15 minutes. On public transportation, I think the U.S. is several years behind Europe. I think you could make these changes without any loss of jobs, comfort, or convenience.
On what comes next:
I’m engaged in a synthesis report which we’ll bring out in November. It’s 30 page document that provides a policy framework and sythesizes the IPCC findings thus far. After that, I intend to go out and speak to groups to spread the message. We’ll get into the outreach mode at that time. I believe there’s a need to bring about a unification of groups concerned about climate change and mobilize them to take coordinated action.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
201 Responses to “INTERVIEW: Head Of IPCC Warns Of Adverse National Security Impact From Climate Change”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
we, we didn't listen
May 7th, 2007 at 8:31 pmWe Didn't Listen!!
Somehow I don't believe US officials are taking climate change too seriously.
Wait and see, in the next 10 years it will get worse.
US still might have a chance, but I really don't see China ever to take the matter really serious. They have only "economic growth" in thei heads now.
May 7th, 2007 at 8:33 pmExcellent interview.
Did Dr. Pachauri get Glen Beck's opinion on this?
May 7th, 2007 at 8:33 pmWe won't need terrorists attacking us in the future, killer tornadoes, hurricanes, heat waves, drought, food shortages, water shortages, hail, blizzards.
Feel sorry for the kids of the world, I have a feeling it's will make the devastation of the worst wars look like a wet cleanup in aisle 4.
May 7th, 2007 at 8:39 pmHere's the Summary for Policymakers on the latest IPCC report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf
It has some great charts showing what might happen if we start cleaning up our act now; if we do nothing; and if we keep escalating the way we are.
May 7th, 2007 at 8:39 pmthat settles it, I'm only wiping my ass once a week, and I'm only going to use half a square. hmmp.
We Didn't Listen
May 7th, 2007 at 8:42 pm#5 -- Oops, I'm thinking of a different report with the charts. Will try to find it.
May 7th, 2007 at 8:42 pmWhen you don't let developing countries develop, then yes, poverty will continue. If they can't build power plants that run on fossil fuels then they won't build power plants. When the rich countries get their act together themselves, maybe then they can tell poor developing countries what they can and can't burn.
May 7th, 2007 at 8:51 pmOkay, folks. The term to learn here is sustainable retreat. We don't need to shop until we drop. Indeed, we can't. We don't need homes with tropical temperatures in the winter and arctic chills in the summer. And we certainly don't need to be eating apples flown in from South America and salad greens from Chile.
The reason why Glenn Beck and his masters freak at the talk of Global Warming is because the conclusion is inescapable: We have to have a planned economy. It's the very thing neo-cons who favour neo-liberal economics consider heresy. But what we are facing is the Tragedy of the Commons. That used to be a lesson on the immportance of private property, but it was really a lesson on greed and the need for regulated use of finite resources. (After all, it was the guys with the swords who divied up the commons among themselves.)
And immigration is the latest distraction to this debate. "Oh, picture the evil Hispanic taking away American jobs." Well, the reason we're going to see so many refugees and immigrants, legal and illegal. Is that we've made half the world uninhabitable. Read what Rev. Desmond Tutu had to say: This Fatal Complacency.
But there is hope. Read about Barbara Kingsolver's latest book here.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:15 pm"Did Dr. Pachauri get Glen Beck’s opinion on this?"
He was undoubtedly too cowed by Beck's exalted "thinker" status.
I'm just waiting to hear how science has a liberal bias.
Or how any science that doesn't toe the conservative line is, by definition, "junk" science.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:17 pmWhy would we have to divert funds to study "global warming" if the debate is over? If the debate is over, then shouldn't that money be used to build nuclear reactors, wind turbines, and solar energy cells to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?
May 7th, 2007 at 9:21 pm"Last week, the IPCC released the third part of its assessment on climate change, reporting that successful action against global warming can be undertaken at a modest cost"
Good! Let them use monies out of their budget? The U.S. should not spend one additional penny on this farce!
May 7th, 2007 at 9:26 pm"The U.S. should not spend one additional penny on this farce!"
But you aren't setting a good example, Michael, are you? I mean, /you/ are spending lots of energy and time, pounding away at your keyboard with your little monkey paws, proving with every passing minute that you are an idiot.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:32 pmIt'll be interesting to see how the anti-science-fear-and-smear party will spin how they are not weak on something that will impact national security that they don't even believe.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:50 pmI’m just waiting to hear how science has a liberal bias.
Or how any science that doesn’t toe the conservative line is, by definition, “junk†science.
Comment by Bernard Quatermass — May 7, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
More than that - apparently scientists who don't toe the global warming consensus line are worse than Hitler.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:00 pmMore than that - apparently scientists who don’t toe the global warming consensus line are worse than Hitler.
Comment by toasterhead — May 7, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
They aren't worse than Hitler. They just aren't scientists.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:34 pmglobal warming denialism is utterly ridiculous at this point, simply absurd
May 7th, 2007 at 10:44 pm“Overshoot happens when a species encounters a rich and previously unexplored stock of resources that promote reproduction.†We are in overshoot because we found a rich store of detritus, or fossil fuel. This enabled us to produce massive amounts of food which enabled our population to explode.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:52 pmDid someone spray insecticide under the trollie bridge -- again? :D
May 7th, 2007 at 11:01 pmProfessor Bernard Quatermass: The will to survive is an odd phenomenon. Roney, if we found out our own world was doomed, say by climatic changes, what would we do about it?
Dr. Mathew Roney: Nothing, just go on squabbling like usual.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:05 pmDid someone spray insecticide under the trollie bridge — again? :D
Comment by Zooey — May 7, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
Did they get scared off? Maybe they're at a "briefing".
May 7th, 2007 at 11:05 pmDid they get scared off? Maybe they’re at a “briefingâ€.
Comment by Shane
People really give trolls too much credit... :)
May 7th, 2007 at 11:08 pm“Overshoot happens when a species encounters a rich and previously unexplored stock of resources that promote reproduction.†We are in overshoot because we found a rich store of detritus, or fossil fuel. This enabled us to produce massive amounts of food which enabled our population to explode.
Humans entered Population Overshoot in the late 80ies.
Soon population levels will revert to pre industrial levels and then possibly extinction.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:09 pmPeople really give trolls too much credit… :)
Comment by Zooey — May 7, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
Still I hate to even mention this, but look, no Jake today.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:10 pmStill I hate to even mention this, but look, no Jake today.
Comment by Shane
He had an appointment with his proctologist/urologist/psychiatrist/podiatrist/neurologist/dermatologist today.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:14 pmSoon population levels will revert to pre industrial levels and then possibly extinction.
Comment by Saywho
Do you actually think we're that fragile? We may wait too long to do anything about GW, but it will get done. It will be painful, but we will survive. Unless we nuke ourselves, of course.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:16 pmSoon population levels will revert to pre industrial levels and then possibly extinction.
Comment by Saywho
Do you actually think we’re that fragile? We may wait too long to do anything about GW, but it will get done. It will be painful, but we will survive. Unless we nuke ourselves, of course.
Comment by Zooey — May 7, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
Well on the plus side, maybe, Mt. Aetna in Italy has been acting up quite a bit. A large volcanic eruption would help cool the planet, slightly.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:31 pmDo you actually think we’re that fragile? We may wait too long to do anything about GW, but it will get done. It will be painful, but we will survive. Unless we nuke ourselves, of course.
The existing population was created as a result of abundant resources like water, air, oil, land, food.
We have depleted more than 50% of the world’s oil. We are now on the downside of the energy supply chain and falling at approximately 8% per year. There is nothing we can do about it. Without 85,000,000 barrels of oil per day we will starve.
All living things face extinction at some point and if not that then a mass die off. It is not that we are fragile it is that we have exceeded the carrying capacity of this planet. We will make war and then we will starve.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:36 pmWell on the plus side, maybe, Mt. Aetna in Italy has been acting up quite a bit. A large volcanic eruption would help cool the planet, slightly.
Comment by Shane
Better than nuclear (noo-yoo-ler) winter.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:36 pmAll living things face extinction at some point and if not that then a mass die off. It is not that we are fragile it is that we have exceeded the carrying capacity of this planet. We will make war and then we will starve.
Comment by Saywho
I understand that, Saywho. I just don't think we're there yet. We are a very resourceful species, and I'm pretty sure we won't just lay down and die.
Well, maybe you will, but I won't.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:38 pmBetter than nuclear (noo-yoo-ler) winter.
Comment by Zooey — May 7, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
Same benefit without the nuclear fallout. As of now the lava is flowing away from towns.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:41 pmSoon population levels will revert to pre industrial levels and then possibly extinction.
Comment by Saywho
Fiction.
Germany = 90 million people in 357,000 km²
Uruguay = 3 million people in 175,000 km²
Which one has the bigger living standards? I dont see overpopulation a problem for Germans.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:42 pmThere is nothing we can do about it. Without 85,000,000 barrels of oil per day we will starve.
Comment by Saywho
So you eat oil? mmm...
May 7th, 2007 at 11:43 pmSo you eat oil? mmm…
Comment by Juan C
I don't think Saywho realizes just how motivated humans will get when our belly buttons are clanging on our spinal cords. :D
May 7th, 2007 at 11:45 pmSo you eat oil? mmm…
Comment by Juan C — May 7, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
YES we all EAT OIL and so do you Mr Communist
May 7th, 2007 at 11:47 pmIf the debate is over, then shouldn’t that money be used to build nuclear reactors, wind turbines, and solar energy cells to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?
Comment by muckdog
This has to be the more progressive comment so far in TP, muckdog. From a shorsighted POV, yes, you are right. From a wider POV, no. PV cells are still more expensive than fossil fuels per KW produced. Wave energy has not been explored sufficiently, tidal energy has not been explored sufficiently, huge solar panels outside the atmosphere transporting energy via microwaves are still being studied theoretically, hydrogen production to feed fuel cells should be done from the sea by electrolysis and not by breaking hydrocarbon molecules that release CO2, eolic energy is still in diapers except in Denmark and Netherlands...there is still a lot to do...
May 7th, 2007 at 11:49 pmso do you Mr Communist
Comment by Saywho
How is that supposed to offend me? ;)
May 7th, 2007 at 11:49 pmI don’t think Saywho realizes just how motivated humans will get when our belly buttons are clanging on our spinal cords. :D
Comment by Zooey — May 7, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
You think Im joking do you. Oh well. We would have starved ages ago without oil.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:50 pmYou think Im joking do you. Oh well. We would have starved ages ago without oil.
Comment by Saywho
Provide proof.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:51 pmYou think Im joking do you. Oh well. We would have starved ages ago without oil.
Comment by Saywho
Oh my, how did we survive before the Industrial Age?
No, I don't think you're joking, Saywho, I think you're deadly serious. You are simply engaging in catastrophic thinking.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:53 pmHow is that supposed to offend me? ;)
Comment by Juan C — May 7, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
May 7th, 2007 at 11:57 pmIt isn't. As it happens I find you offensive and mainly wrong about most things you say here. You also seem to tell some tall tales. You said you were a Marxist today and oh well that makes you a communist.
You said you were a Marxist today and oh well that makes you a communist.
Comment by Saywho
Oh lordy, please crack a book.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:58 pm"But you aren’t setting a good example, Michael, are you? I mean, /you/ are spending lots of energy and time, pounding away at your keyboard with your little monkey paws, proving with every passing minute that you are an idiot.
Comment by Bernard Quatermass — May 7, 2007"
Wow! Your debating skills are quite impressive! Would you like a second chance on responding with an answer that MIGHT impress people like me who don't believe in global warming?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:04 amOh my, how did we survive before the Industrial Age?
No, I don’t think you’re joking, Saywho, I think you’re deadly serious. You are simply engaging in catastrophic thinking.
Comment by Zooey — May 7, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
We depend on oil to grow, transport, package, store and prepare food. So simply put we EAT oil. In order to grow massive amounts of food we developed nitrogen based fertilizers. The process to make it requires natural gas and oil. That fertilizer needs to be transported all around the globe....
So, we wound up at 6.7 Billion people due to abundant energy. Now we have an abundance of people and a depleting supply of EVERYTHING.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:05 am"Did Dr. Pachauri get Glen Beck’s opinion on this?
Comment by Zooey — May 7, 2007"
Is there something about Glenn Beck's piece on global warming that you disagree with and you can share with us an intelligent reason why you disagree?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:06 amThere is nothing we can do about it. Without 85,000,000 barrels of oil per day we will starve.
Comment by Saywho
This country's strength was built on the fact that the soil and climate made us able to feed ourselves, completely. The United States has much to lose by not ensuring the climate of the planet remains as stable as possible.
Where deforestation, and destroying the rain forests has expanded the deserts, like in the Sudan, they need oil to get food. Currently Australia is suffering from the worst drought ever which is threatening their crops.
At the beginning of deforestation and global warming there is increased rain fall due to increased evaporation. But then rainfall decreases and deserts start to spread.
Pandemics like bird flue will eventually decrease population. But throwing hand up in the air and saying it's all over accomplishes nothing.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:07 am#38 "You think Im joking do you. Oh well. We would have starved ages ago without oil."
Why? Humans were just fine for hundreds of thousands of years without oil.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:07 am"Feel sorry for the kids of the world, I have a feeling it’s will make the devastation of the worst wars look like a wet cleanup in aisle 4.
Comment by Can-O-Whoop-Ass — May 7, 2007"
Wow! And you can back up this scenario with scientific proof?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:07 amSo, we wound up at 6.7 Billion people due to abundant energy. Now we have an abundance of people and a depleting supply of EVERYTHING.
Comment by Saywho
Ok. But none of what you say means that every single human on this planet will die. It means a lot of us will die, unfortunately, but we will not go extinct.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:08 am#43 Why would he want to impress losers that don't believe in global warming? I might be wrong but most people here are not out to impress those with an 80 or less IQ rating.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:09 am#48 Moron, he said he "has a feeling". Pick your battles, Mikey. Find some Down's Syndrome kid to pick on. You MIGHT be able to win a battle of wits.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:10 am"It has some great charts showing what might happen if we start cleaning up our act now; if we do nothing; and if we keep escalating the way we are.
Comment by Zooey — May 7, 2007"
And in your words, without referring to a chart or website, what will happen if we ignore idiot liberals warnings on global warming? Your words? I want you to demonstrate for all of us what our investment in a public school education has bought us!
May 8th, 2007 at 12:11 amMikey, Glen Beck is a loser hack. Why would anybody try to disprove someone with no background in science and has an obvious axe to grind. I think we will use our time for other things. Thanks, though.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:12 amAs it happens I find you offensive and mainly wrong about most things you say here.
Comment by Saywho
Well, thats your opinion. I dont care about that when it comes from a fatalist, ignorant, gun-loving poster like you.
You said you were a Marxist today and oh well that makes you a communist.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:13 amThat was a erudite deduction there, huh? You couldnt see how left I am cuz you could break your neck. I have never said Im a Marxist or a communist, though I agree with the idea of everything for everybody.
We depend on oil to grow, transport, package, store and prepare food. So simply put we EAT oil. In order to grow massive amounts of food we developed nitrogen based fertilizers. The process to make it requires natural gas and oil. That fertilizer needs to be transported all around the globe…Comment by Saywho — May 8, 2007 @ 12:05 am.
In the old days they would just shovel cow and horse and chicken manure into a compost pile and fertilize crops with that. And the amount of crops lost to pests with chemical pesticides is exactly the same as crops lost when no pesticides are used and bugs eat each other.
If we were hungry enough, in this country, we would grow crops locally with these old fashioned techniques and live on what is nearby to eat and store.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:15 amSo, we wound up at 6.7 Billion people due to abundant energy. Now we have an abundance of people and a depleting supply of EVERYTHING.
Comment by Saywho — May 8, 2007 @ 12:05 am
We wound up with 6.7 billion people due to vaccination and antibiotics and advances in women's health that prevent large percentages of women dying during childbirth.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:18 amSo, we wound up at 6.7 Billion people due to abundant energy. Now we have an abundance of people and a depleting supply of EVERYTHING.
Comment by Saywho
As a matter of fact it is fossil fuels AND oxygen that make possible COMBUSTION. COMBUSTION provides heat. Now, HEAT is the commodity you are looking for, Saywho. So far, the cheapest, easiest way to provide heat is by BURNING oil or carbon or biomass or anyother hydrocarbon. Fissile material provides heat due to the partition of a heavy atom in two lighter ones, being the difference in energy the heat provided to the water which turns to steam and the enthalpy/exergy of that steam provides work = electricity. So, the commodity we want is both heat and work. How can we get them without burning OIL or other Hydrocarbon? There already available countless of technologies to transport, pack and deliver all goods you need. Problem solved.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:18 am"#
#43 Why would he want to impress losers that don’t believe in global warming? I might be wrong but most people here are not out to impress those with an 80 or less IQ rating.
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007"
Ah! Nice shot at my IQ! Do you really think you impressed people? Am I a loser because I don't believe in something that many scientists don't support? I'd love to see one of you dopes explain to us why we are in danger from global warming without referring us to a website! You can't! You're too stupid! You don't have a clue! But I'll give you a second chance. EXPLAIN?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:19 amOk. But none of what you say means that every single human on this planet will die. It means a lot of us will die, unfortunately, but we will not go extinct.
Comment by Zooey — May 8, 2007 @ 12:08 am
I said that we will revert to the population levels that existed before the industrial revolution and possibly go extinct. Odds are that things will go quite bad. Keep in mind that 6.7 BILLION humans and a die-off leaves lots of bodies to compost. I don't like it however it is what happens to all living creatures.
Tell me this, do you realize that our petrochemical GM foods appear to be killing off the honey bees. 70% are dead in many areas. This year there will be poor returns from crops. Do you know that that means there will be less food at harvest and what is available will be of poorer quality? Do you realize that this is happening right now, today and we can't stop it?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:19 am"women’s health that prevent large percentages of women dying during childbirth.
Comment by Shane — May 8, 2007"
And just how many is that?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:20 amSaywho is wrong about most things. He's a member of the tinfoil hat of the month club.
Fossil fuels were not the cause of humanities sudden population explosion. No. It was simple sanitation.
Even today doctors and nurses will tell you the best way to ward off the flu and all other invectious diseases is to wash one's hands as several times a day.
Sanitation coupled with a stable agriculture meant we could increase our numbers exponentially. But a funny thing happened. If we have our health and can live in comfort, we don't want to have big families. The pressure of the survival instinct is released. And so the Developed World has a very low birthrate.
Now, the real cause of Global Warming is consumerism. The name itself means a form of wasting disease. We don't need cars or miles and miles between work and home. We don't each need a bedroom with bath. Or a controlled environment of 68F for the whole year round. We don't need meat at every meal and we don't need a shower and shampoo every day. (From a health point of view this is excessive sanitation and depletes good oils from the skin.)
Anyway, this is a roundabout way of saying Saywho is an ignorant fool. He takes a disliking to everyone who disagrees with him and is very abusive. It shocked me the first time, but now I know he wears his tinfoil hat one size too small and it makes him cranky. (I'm sure he'll say I've been taken in by the Illuminati or something equally outlandish.)
But I was serious a few posts up. The answer to Global Warming will require a planned economy. Throw out your Milton Friedman and your Laffer curves and dust off your Keynes and Galbraith. Bush's War on Terror may have been a fiasco with no belt-tightening at home, but the next President's War on Warming will require sacrifice, rationing, and cooperation. New technology will not be enough. We simply have to do with less. We need to save and not spend. And that will require rethinking the entire economy.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:21 am"#
Mikey, Glen Beck is a loser hack. Why would anybody try to disprove someone with no background in science and has an obvious axe to grind. I think we will use our time for other things. Thanks, though.
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007"
YOU CAN PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:22 am#43 Why would he want to impress losers that don’t believe in global warming? I might be wrong but most people here are not out to impress those with an 80 or less IQ rating.
Comment by JPark
I'm impressed.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:23 am#62 Mikey, are you kidding? You just made a ludicrous assertion and you want me to prove the opposite? PROVE GLENN BECK IS AN EXPERT ON GLOBAL WARMING, TOOL.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:25 am"I’m impressed.
Comment by Zooey — May 8, 2007"
But zooey we know most 6th graders are not only easily impressed but also very stupid!
May 8th, 2007 at 12:26 amBush’s War on Terror may have been a fiasco with no belt-tightening at home, but the next President’s War on Warming will require sacrifice, rationing, and cooperation. New technology will not be enough. We simply have to do with less. We need to save and not spend. And that will require rethinking the entire economy.
Comment by david
Well said, david. I agree 100%.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:26 amAnd just how many is that?
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:20 am
You haven't learned to count that high *junior*.
Tell me in your own words michael, why you and Beck disagree with the entire world's scientific community's conclusions on global warming. I'd be interested in what peer reviewed scientific research you have to back up your st*pid conservative claims?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:26 amAnd just how many is that?
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Up until about 75 years ago women frequently predeceased their husbands due to female health issues. Look it up yourself. Start with consecutive monogomy.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:27 amYOU CAN PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE?
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:22 am
YOU CAN PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE WHERE YOU AREN'T AN IDIOT?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:28 am#58 "Ah! Nice shot at my IQ! Do you really think you impressed people? Am I a loser because I don’t believe in something that many scientists don’t support? I’d love to see one of you dopes explain to us why we are in danger from global warming without referring us to a website! You can’t! You’re too stupid! You don’t have a clue! But I’ll give you a second chance. EXPLAIN?"
Oh, Christ, where do I start. You don't believe what MOST scientists support. It kinda speaks for itself. So, you would like me to explain to you why we are in danger from global warming without referring to a website where actual scientists will tell you HOW we are in danger from global warming. You, Mikey, are an idiot.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:29 amBut zooey we know most 6th graders are not only easily impressed but also very stupid! Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:26 am
But michael we know most 3rd graders are not only easily impressed but also very stupid! Explains your fascination with Beck!
May 8th, 2007 at 12:29 am#65 Good one Mikey!!! Why don't you pull her hair??? That will prove you are the man!!!
May 8th, 2007 at 12:29 am"#
#62 Mikey, are you kidding? You just made a ludicrous assertion and you want me to prove the opposite? PROVE GLENN BECK IS AN EXPERT ON GLOBAL WARMING, TOOL.
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007"
He's not! And neither am I or you! But Beck and I are thinkers, unlike you, we don't dive into this algore nonsense without scientific proof and there is none unless your brilliant liberal mind can educate us, (without sending us to some liberal website). I doubt it because you aren't smart enough!
May 8th, 2007 at 12:31 amAnd just how many is that?
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:20 am
You just showed you are not married and not a father, stupid.
It is well known that advances in medical science have helped in bringing down women's mortality rate during childbirth.
Start reading here, stupid.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:33 am"Oh, Christ, where do I start. You don’t believe what MOST scientists support. It kinda speaks for itself. So, you would like me to explain to you why we are in danger from global warming without referring to a website where actual scientists will tell you HOW we are in danger from global warming. You, Mikey, are an idiot.
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007"
Without even knowing it, you just made my case! You are too stupid to elaborate on your beliefs because you are a lemming that believes anything you are told. EXPLAIN TO ALL OF US THE DANGERS OF GLOBAL WARMING AND WHY?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:35 amIs VVGFU banned? He was here for a minute, and now he's gone.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:35 amComment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:31 am He’s not! And neither am I or you! But Beck and I are thinkers, unlike you,
You are a *thinker*? BAHAHAHAA, now that's really funny! Do you have proof you can post?
we don’t dive into this algore nonsense without scientific proof Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:31 am
Al Gore's book and movie are both based on, and refer to a vast body of scientific proof - I think you meant Beck and YOUR CLAIMS when you said "without scientific proof".
and there is none unless your brilliant liberal mind can educate us, Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:31 am
Global warming is real, and proven, and the most recent warming is caused by man. The scientific evidence is detailed and overwhelming and included in the IPCC report. What, do you also need *proof* the earth is round, child?
(without sending us to some liberal website). I doubt it because you aren’t smart enough! Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:31 am
So the IPCC (the world's scientists) is a *liberal* site? BAHAHA, you're a st*pid child michael!!!
May 8th, 2007 at 12:36 amI'm with Michael on this one. We need emperrcal evidence
May 8th, 2007 at 12:37 amWe wound up with 6.7 billion people due to vaccination and antibiotics and advances in women’s health that prevent large percentages of women dying during childbirth.
Comment by Shane — May 8, 2007 @ 12:18 am
Wrong! Do you bother to think before you type? I don't have the time for point by point... The law of diminishing returns prevents our survival when we exceed our resources. We (humans) are the reindeer of St. Matthew Island (read from a Google search) at best or like the dinosaurs and doomed to extinction.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:38 amWe need food and 6.7 Billion of us are hitting the cliff now. Over time our population appears as a bell curve when you look at statistics. Regardless, you go on thinking antibiotics did it or health care did it and in reality it was abundant cheap energy and abundant food that did it. By the way you don’t even understand soil depletion.
"You just showed you are not married and not a father, stupid.
It is well known that advances in medical science have helped in bringing down women’s mortality rate during childbirth.
Start reading here, stupid.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — May 8, 2007 "
I am married and have 2 children. Now what stupid comments do you have?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:38 amI’m with Michael on this one. We need emperrcal evidence
Comment by Mr. President — May 8, 2007 @ 12:37 am
By *we*, you're referring to all of the wingnuts that avoid the volume of evidence included in the IPCC? Why do you think Beck and the other *wignuts* complain so much? There's already empirical evidence - it's a *fact* at this point - child.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:39 ammichael, name one of these doubting Thomas scientists and the peer reviewed journal they published their dissenting theory in. It ain't possible. These are junk scientists, tobacco scientists, paid hacks.
Glenn Beck offered nothing new. And he didn't even try to debunk the debunking of his guests. He just trotted out their stale ExxonMobil talking points and pretended that there was no response from the scientific community as yet. Well, every stupid theory pushed by little noddy Beck has been debunked. And he was far from fair & balanced for pretending otherwise.
I'm sorry. I know you're going to miss Milton Friedman and your midnight madness sales at WalMart, but the party's over. It's time to start acting like the conservatives of the 18th Century. We need to conserve land, air and water. We need to pay as we go. We need take a little from old Karl Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Actually, Marx borrowed the phrase and it can be traced back to early Christian monks.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:39 amMr. President,
See my link in #5.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:40 am"#
I’m with Michael on this one. We need emperrcal evidence
Comment by Mr. President — May 8, 2007"
Thank you! These idiots will believe anything algore tells them!
May 8th, 2007 at 12:40 am"Comment by david — May 8, 2007"
Did you watch the Glenn Beck special last week? If not, why not?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:41 am#70 I tend to believe scientists. You don't. Pretty simple.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:43 amWithout even knowing it, you just made my case! Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:35 am
The case for having you *committed*? Sorry child, but every time you post that - you make your own case.
You are too stupid to elaborate on your beliefs because you are a lemming that believes anything you are told. Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:35 am
Says the st*pid lemming that ignores the vast body of scientific work, done on a global scale, and believes anything fox tells him! Project much little child?
EXPLAIN TO ALL OF US THE DANGERS OF GLOBAL WARMING AND WHY? Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:35 am
Drought, flood, mass extinction, spread of diseases, more storms, more and larger tornadoes (like Kansas?), more hurricanes, more crop failures, etc., etc.
This is all covered by *science* in the IPCC. You know the report this tread is about - but that you're too young, st*pid and ignorant to understand?
Tell me michael, are you ready to walk to the end of the earth and fall off of it as well? Dum bass.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:43 am"Regardless, you go on thinking antibiotics did it or health care did it and in reality it was abundant cheap energy and abundant food that did it. By the way you don’t even understand soil depletion.
Comment by Saywho — May 8, 2007"
What are you trying to say?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:43 amBut Beck and I are thinkers,
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:31 am
Your posts throughout ThinkProgress prove otherwise, stupid.
we don’t dive into this algore nonsense without scientific proof and there is none unless your brilliant liberal mind can educate us, (without sending us to some liberal website).
This is probably the most stupid post you have made so far. And you've had a few.
The scientific evidence is solid. You can follow the links to the IPCC by yourself.
It is incredibly stupid of you to divide science into "liberal" and "conservative" science. But what else can I really expect from such a room temperature IQ cyber-stalker such as yourself?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:43 amDid you watch the Glenn Beck special last week? If not, why not?
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:41 am
Did you read, and accept the global findings of the IPCC last week? If not, why not?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:44 am#72 No, Mikey. You prove that there is no global warming. It is well-known among scientists (you know, the ones that actually study that kind of thing) that global warming is a fact.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:45 amThank you! These idiots will believe anything algore tells them!
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:40 am
You're welcome! Idiots like you believe anything Glenn Beck tells you! I guess you believe others behave like hitler, while you project the very *pseudo-science* totalitarianism of Hitler? Project, Project, poor little mentally deranged wingnut...
May 8th, 2007 at 12:45 amOf course you are with Mikey, Mr. President. You are retarded.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:46 amNow what stupid comments do you have?
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:38 am
If you were, you'd know childbirth is a very dangerous process for a woman, stupid.
With that knowledge, asking for figures to prove childbirth is a cause for mortality among women is stupid, stupid.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:46 amBy the way you don’t even understand soil depletion.
Comment by Saywho — May 8, 2007 @ 12:38 am
Do you? My guess is you've never spent a day on a farm. Have you ever herd of crop rotation? How many hundreds of years did that little system work?
The fact is poor societies have more children because high rates of infant mortality so the elders can be sure there will somebody to help their survival.
Wealthy societies have less children because adults feel their few offspring will survive and that as they age they will be able to survive on their own.
You have grossly oversimplified the entire issue and there are no cut and dry answers to any of it.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:46 amWhat are you trying to say?
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:43 am
What you are you trying to say? A wingnut wanna-be commentator and *you* know more than the world's climate experts? BAHAHA, the arrogance of ignorant 3rd graders is funny! Cartmann, you're a real st*Pid *ssh*le!
May 8th, 2007 at 12:47 am"#
#72 No, Mikey. You prove that there is no global warming. It is well-known among scientists (you know, the ones that actually study that kind of thing) that global warming is a fact.
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007"
Thanks for making my point! Liberals, make note? Can any of you step up to the plate and explain why we should be concerned?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:48 ammichael stayed at a holiday inn express - so now he's a global warming expert :) St*pid Jake*ss!
May 8th, 2007 at 12:50 amYou have grossly oversimplified the entire issue and there are no cut and dry answers to any of it.
Comment by Shane
Catastrophic thinking. All or nothing.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:50 amComment by Saywho — May 8, 2007 @ 12:38 am
By the way, your the first person I've heard suggest that dinosaurs became extinct due to overpopulation.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:50 am"With that knowledge, asking for figures to prove childbirth is a cause for mortality among women is stupid, stupid.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — May 8, 2007"
No it's not! Your reaction proves you don't have those figures. Now, who's stupid?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:50 amNo, Mikey, prove yourself. Give us a peer reviewed study.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:50 amBy the way Mikey. Check your punctuation. Your question marks are not right.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:51 amComment by david — May 8, 2007 @ 12:21 am
I wish you were right but you are in error. We don't need to worry about GW since we are running out of oil and that isn't going to stop the solar system from warming. Regardless, go on David and feed all 6.7 BILLION many are hungry now so show us how it’s done. My bet is that you can't.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:51 am"Of course you are with Mikey, Mr. President. You are retarded.
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007"
jpark, your debating skills are quite impressive! Did you attend the same public school that zooey is now attending?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:52 amCan any of you step up to the plate and explain why we should be concerned?
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:48 am
Can you step up t the plate and refute the findings of the IPCC, stupid?
And before you give me the "I made no assertion, so I don't have to prove anything" rubbish, you are the one saying there is no scientific evidence behind global warming. There is. It's documented in the IPCC's assessment.
Now post something to refute the IPCC's report of shut up, stupid.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:52 amThanks for making my point! Liberals, make note? Can any of you step up to the plate and explain why we should be concerned? Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:48 am
Thanks for making my point! Conservatives, make note? Can any of you step up to the plate and explain why we shouldn't be concerned with something that's already affecting the global health and economy?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:52 amand explain why we should be concerned?
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:48 am
Explain to you? Let me go for some apples and oranges.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:52 amYour reaction proves you don’t have those figures. Now, who’s stupid?
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:50 am
I already provided those figures to you, stupid.
Re-read my post and note there is a link.
Who is stupid now?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:53 amYup, we shur need sum "emperrcal" eveedence. Don't we, Mr. President.
BTW, I don't take kindly to michael insulting six year old children. Clearly he is not a teacher or a father --or is unsuited to be one.
Mr. President, michael, you want empirical evidence. Where have you been living the past 25 years? Each year breaks new records for the most storms, the hottest heat waves, melting ice caps, droughts, floods, hurricanes and tornados. Good Gawd! If you can't believe your own senses, you are thick.
Even the Global Warming denier John Howard the Down Under Lame Duck prime minister of Australia admits it's real. Why? Because his will be the first developed economy to be destroyed by it. Australia is in the grips of the worst drought in a 1000 years.
Check it out: Australia's Climate Change.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:53 amSaywho, do you REALLY think we can't live without oil? If pressed do you think scientists couldn't find another source or combination of sources that could power the US?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:54 amThanks for making my point! Liberals, make note? Can any of you step up to the plate and explain why we should be concerned?
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:48 am
Go look at Sub Saharan Africa and you will see that through deforestation practices initiated by Christian Missionaries the desert and then famine spread exponentially.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:54 am"By the way Mikey. Check your punctuation. Your question marks are not right.
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007"
Thanks for the tip! So here is mine to you. Check your common sense because at a glance, it seems you are lacking!
May 8th, 2007 at 12:54 amI can't stop laughing here. You guys think we need Al Gore to tell us about Global Warming. What is grinding you so bad. You act like a cowboy at a white tie dinner, stupid.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:55 am#95 Mikey, do you have anything to say? Or are you just going to float there like a turd? A sub-80 IQ turd.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:56 amRegardless, go on David and feed all 6.7 BILLION many are hungry now so show us how it’s done. My bet is that you can’t.
Comment by Saywho — May 8, 2007 @ 12:51 am
I will try to say this nicely: Hunger is not solved by food production. It is solved by food DISTRIBUTION.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:57 am#102 Good one Mikey!!! Now, where is that peer reviewed study?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:58 am"Go look at Sub Saharan Africa and you will see that through deforestation practices initiated by Christian Missionaries the desert and then famine spread exponentially.
Comment by Shane — May 8, 2007"
And so you just admitted that deforestation was initiated by Christian Missionaries, what does that have to do with CO2 emissions?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:58 amCome on Mikey, back your sh!t up.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:58 amMikey, do you have anything to say? Or are you just going to float there like a turd? A sub-80 IQ turd.
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007 @ 12:56 am
You know what they say, if it walks like a turd and acts like a turd ...
May 8th, 2007 at 12:59 am"#95 Mikey, do you have anything to say? Or are you just going to float there like a turd? A sub-80 IQ turd.
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007"
What do you want me to say? Ask me a question?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:59 am#107 Hehe, Mikey. Latch onto that. Peer review, buddy. Where is it?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:59 amShane I must respond to a question you asked of me earlier today. No, I was not bowled over by that $600 tax rebate I got a few years back. I believe it was supposed to jumpstart the economy, I think we know how well that worked.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:01 amProve me wrong, Mikey. Come through with something.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:01 amComment by Shane — May 8, 2007 @ 12:46 am
Yes, I do Shane otherwise I would not have brought it up. I mentioned the sad truth and you shoot the messenger. Good for you and I admire your optimism. I'm a realist though and in case I'm right you will need to survive in an increasingly volatile world.
Good luck,
May 8th, 2007 at 1:01 amPAX
what does that have to do with CO2 emissions?
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:58 am
One more time, stupid.
Post something that refutes the IPCC's report on climate change or shut up.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:01 amOh lordy, this has been fun. Goodnight all, and enjoy!
May 8th, 2007 at 1:01 am#110 Where is your peer reviewed study, Mikey?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:02 amMikey, my question is...why are you so stupid? Provide cites.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:03 amWhat kind of nut does not believe in global warming, they will never admit to this in a few years.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:04 amBy the way, your the first person I’ve heard suggest that dinosaurs became extinct due to overpopulation.
Comment by Shane — May 8, 2007 @ 12:50 am
No I didn't! I compared our potential future of extinction to their (dinosaurs) actual extinction you idiot.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:04 amNight Zoo.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:04 amAnd so you just admitted that deforestation was initiated by Christian Missionaries, what does that have to do with CO2 emissions?
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 12:58 am
This post was above if you ever read anything instead of just flapping your jaw you might have seen this.
46. At the beginning of deforestation and global warming there is increased rain fall due to increased evaporation. But then rainfall decreases and deserts start to spread
The same thing happens at the beginning from destruction of rain forests and global warming as it relates to the food supply. Deforestation doesn't cause the ice caps to melt though.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:05 amSaywho, we already produce enough food to feed all 6.7 billion. Unfortunately, we feed most of it to cattle to produced Big Macs, but there you go. And now we intend to waste more food making ethanol. Sheesh!
So, Saywho, send me a postcard the next time you visit the Lost Continent of Mu.
Michael and Mr. President, you remind me of those skeptical guys in the Middle Ages who said, "Hahaha, the Earth is round and goes round the sun? Hahaha. Pull the other one why don't you? Where your proof? I'll believe my own eyes, thank you. Some very important people say otherwise."
May 8th, 2007 at 1:05 am"BTW, I don’t take kindly to michael insulting six year old children. Clearly he is not a teacher or a father –or is unsuited to be one.
Mr. President, michael, you want empirical evidence. Where have you been living the past 25 years? Each year breaks new records for the most storms, the hottest heat waves, melting ice caps, droughts, floods, hurricanes and tornados. Good Gawd! If you can’t believe your own senses, you are thick.
Comment by david — May 8, 2007
Oh please? We have experienced weather changes over thousands of years. You want us to waste our monies on what has happened over the last 25 years? What an idiot! 30 years ago you dopes told us an ice age was coming. The best thing for America is for you kooks to move to France! Wait! They just elected someone who is friendly to th U.S. Maybe you should consider Somalia?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:06 amSaywho, again, do you think oil is necessary? Do you not think we could find other forms of energy in a short time? We could have done it years ago were it not for the industry's hold on the government.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:07 am"Mikey, my question is…why are you so stupid? Provide cites.
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007"
Maybe you should provide examples of my stupidity? I won't hold my breath!
May 8th, 2007 at 1:07 am"#
Oh lordy, this has been fun. Goodnight all, and enjoy!
Comment by Zooey — May 8, 2007"
As usual, you've contributed NOTHING!
May 8th, 2007 at 1:09 amMikey, peer reviewed study!!! Show me!!
May 8th, 2007 at 1:09 amCome on Mikey. Where is your cite? Or don't you have one? Yeah, that is what I figured. Rush didn't give you one.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:11 am"Saywho, again, do you think oil is necessary? Do you not think we could find other forms of energy in a short time? We could have done it years ago were it not for the industry’s hold on the government.
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007"
We could have done it years ago if you leftist idiot liberals didn't prevent us from constructing nuclear plants! What about refineries blocked by you environmental freaks? We will see $5 a gallon this summer thanks to you jerks!
May 8th, 2007 at 1:13 am#126 Are you joking Mikey? You are saying Zooey has contributed nothing while you just sit there mentally masterbating?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:13 amMaybe you should provide examples of my stupidity?
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 1:07 am
Re-read any of your posts. That's enough evidence for anyone with an ounce of gray matter -that would not be you, stupid.
I won’t hold my breath!
Please, by all means. Do hold it. Try holding for about 5 minutes. You'd be doing the world a favor.
Now, post something that refutes the IPCC's report or shut up. Stupid.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:13 amJPark I'm not sure of the URL but I think you can find his site by googling Pat Robertson.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:14 amThe pdf was, as it is named, primarily an economic and policy oriented document. While we are shown the results of hypothetical models, we are not told of the method used to obtain the data.
Does anyone know where that is on the IPCC site?
I do appreciate the link though. What needs to be done is a thorough examination of the methodology used to obtain the information. Then a look at the hypothetical models will be more informative.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:14 am#129 No Mikey, we could have done it if you morons weren't so bought. And you are blaming liberals for high gas prices? You really are stupid. By the way, where is your peer reviewed article on global warming, Corky?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:15 am"Come on Mikey. Where is your cite?
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007"
cite? We have such great government (public) schools, don't we?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:15 amSaywho, do you REALLY think we can’t live without oil? If pressed do you think scientists couldn’t find another source or combination of sources that could power the US?
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007 @ 12:54 am
Unless space people come and give us "free energy" we are sunk. All the alternatives link back to oil of all things in one way or another. Some of the posters here don't want to hear this and that I understand completely. Consider the fate of Hanford, Washington, which is home to the most contaminated area in the world outside of Russia. 1,000,000 gallons of high level nuclear waste hit the drinking water there and the Columbia River. I'm sure David and Shawn will clean it up! We are so screwed!
May 8th, 2007 at 1:15 amWow Michael does big oil at least give you a mint for the after taste, you're sucking bigtime.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:15 amNo, Saywho, not all alternatives link back to oil. That is silly. Hydro, wind...even coal has nothing to do with oil. You are being silly.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:17 amBlaming liberals for high gas prices? Now I've heard everything.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:18 am#135 So, are you refusing to cite a peer reviewed article, Mikey?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:18 amWe could have done it years ago if you leftist idiot liberals didn’t prevent us from constructing nuclear plants! What about refineries blocked by you environmental freaks? We will see $5 a gallon this summer thanks to you jerks!
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 1:13 am
Uranium is on the same bell curve as oil. Uranium mining depends on oil, coal and natural gas. Waste still has no permanent solution.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:20 amYou guys are right we're sunk, Exon doesn't own the wind or the sun.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:21 amSaywho, why do you think oil is everything. Alternative energy has never truly been tried. It has never been researched because the government doesn't want it researched. I hear people ripping ethanol because it takes more energy to create but do you honestly think it would after a few years of intense scrutiny by scientists?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:21 amShane I must respond to a question you asked of me earlier today. No, I was not bowled over by that $600 tax rebate I got a few years back. I believe it was supposed to jumpstart the economy, I think we know how well that worked.
Comment by the Lone Voice of Reason — May 8, 2007 @ 1:01 am
Oh sorry Lone Voice of Reason, I didn't mean "you" you. I was referring to the trolls who support the administration while struggling financially.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:24 amSaywho, why do you think oil is everything. Alternative energy has never truly been tried. It has never been researched because the government doesn’t want it researched. I hear people ripping ethanol because it takes more energy to create but do you honestly think it would after a few years of intense scrutiny by scientists?
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007 @ 1:21 am
May 8th, 2007 at 1:24 amScientist? What are those?
No I didn’t! I compared our potential future of extinction to their (dinosaurs) actual extinction you idiot.
Comment by Saywho — May 8, 2007 @ 1:04 am
Well if a massive meteor or comet hits the earth then we are up shit's creek.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:25 am"Uranium is on the same bell curve as oil. Uranium mining depends on oil, coal and natural gas. Waste still has no permanent solution.
Comment by Saywho — May 8, 2007"
So what? How is that going to prevent $5/gallon this summer? It won't!
May 8th, 2007 at 1:26 amHehe, a republican, it is something the right doesn't believe in. Oil is a gift from god and it is something we have to kill brown people for!!
May 8th, 2007 at 1:26 amOh sorry Lone Voice of Reason, I didn’t mean “you†you. I was referring to the trolls who support the administration while struggling financially.
Comment by Shane — May 8, 2007 @ 1:24 am
No probs you're one of the good guys.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:27 amMikey, I think Saywho agrees with you. By the way, where is that peer reviewed study?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:28 amWell said Jpark wink wink
May 8th, 2007 at 1:30 am"Hehe, a republican, it is something the right doesn’t believe in. Oil is a gift from god and it is something we have to kill brown people for!!
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007"
Thanks to the spineless idiots on the left who refuse to allow us to drill off our coasts (not in my back yard) and who are against nuclear energy.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:30 am"Oh sorry Lone Voice of Reason, I didn’t mean “you†you. I was referring to the trolls who support the administration while struggling financially.
Comment by Shane — May 8, 2007 @ 1:24 am
No probs you’re one of the good guys.
Comment by the Lone Voice of Reason — May 8, 2007"
Good guys? Ha, ha, ha! Want to explain that?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:32 amNo, Saywho, not all alternatives link back to oil. That is silly. Hydro, wind…even coal has nothing to do with oil. You are being silly.
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007 @ 1:17 am
All alternatives link back to fossil fuel in one way or another. Oil, coal and NG all have the same problem (finite supply).
If you think I'm silly here is the short list:
Solar power uses copper (shortages), gallium (shortages) and silver (shortages) plus a great deal of production energy (mining, transport, factories). The process requires more energy (raw materials) than it yields so it is a net energy looser.
Ethanol (gas and alcohol mix) must be grown and thusly needs fertilizer (made of oil) and prevents an equivalent # of calories to be grown for food. The process requires more energy than it yields so it is a net energy looser.
Coal to oil is a conversion at a loss of calories. This process is a polluter too. The process requires more energy than it yields so it is a net energy looser.
Hydro electric (dams) are finite and depend on the flow of water from mountains. GW is melting the caps and soon the power will diminish.
My last post talked about nuclear but oh well you can guess what I’m going to say can’t you?
Want more??
May 8th, 2007 at 1:34 amMichael wasn't it the Governator Arnold that didn't want drilling off his coast, c'mon do your homework. By the way I know why you won't give up that link, there isn't one. Absolutly no data supports your and your idiotic kind theory, so quit acting like you know you look foolish.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:37 amWe could have done it years ago if you leftist idiot liberals didn’t prevent us from constructing nuclear plants! What about refineries blocked by you environmental freaks? We will see $5 a gallon this summer thanks to you jerks!
Comment by michael
As I recall thats supply and demand.
Anyway michael you forget what it costs to make a uranium rod, to machine it, and the amount of energy to produce not to mention such sites as in washington, with some 10 million barrels of radiocative waste that is leaking and that was the leftovers from uranium enrichment.
Today howeever we can use natural uranium or pebble type reactors instead of such high grade reactors. The Tokamak type reactor may become possible. Candu reactors are worth a look. Draft and wind turbines with may be plausible for windless conditions. This has nothing to do with liberals michael.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:37 amNow speaking of drilling, my lady awaits hehe, Michael, don't fall asleep on your keyboard.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:41 amThanks to the spineless idiots on the left who refuse to allow us to drill off our coasts [...]
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 1:30 am
Here is a little gift for you, stupid:
As I said in my November 3, 2005, letter to you, I respectfully request that Congress respect California’s desire to continue the current federal moratorium off our coastline. I continue to urge Congress to aggressively support policies that increase the efficiency of our energy use. Because of our efforts, California’s per capita electricity use has remained nearly flat, while nationwide demand has increased by 50 percent. If California’s approach to energy conservation and efficiency standards were adopted nationwide, we might not be having this debate over the exploitation of the oil and gas resources off our coast.
Letter by Gov. Schwarzenegger to Chairman Richard Pombo Reiterating Opposition to Offshore Oil Drilling
You probably don't know this, stupid, but Gov. Schwarzenegger is a Republican.
....ssheesshh....
May 8th, 2007 at 1:45 amSo Saywho, what do you propose??? More oil?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:46 amSaywho, why do you think oil is everything. Alternative energy has never truly been tried. It has never been researched because the government doesn’t want it researched. I hear people ripping ethanol because it takes more energy to create but do you honestly think it would after a few years of intense scrutiny by scientists?
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007 @ 1:21 am
It is all about EROEI or energy returned on energy invested. For the moment oil still has a positive EROEI of 5:1. For every barrel invested you get 5. This is down from the 110:1 when Texas was oil king. When it gets to 1:1 the well is done.
Unless space people give us a way to make free energy (magic voodoo) we are sunk. In reality we don't have a supply issue but more of a too big of a demand issue. Food=OIL Clothing = OIL Transport = OIL Heat = OIL AC = OIL Light = OIL Medicine = OIL Mining = LOTS OF OIL...
May 8th, 2007 at 1:46 am#152 Well, it isn't my backyard but what the hell is one more oil well going to do for us. Most oil is from the ME and we are always going to be importing it as long as we are using it. Your pathetic attempt to say that we can somehow produce all the oil we need is just a right wing loser fraud and you know it. By the way, where is your peer reviewed study on global warming, Mikey?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:48 amSaywho, you are talking about NOW. Do you think it likely we would not have breakthroughs in energy creation if scientists were not on the case?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:49 am#154 Most fertilizer is NOT made from petroleum products.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:50 amSo Saywho, what do you propose??? More oil?
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007 @ 1:46 am
Extreme conservation will happen after we burn up what is left of the oil. After that it will be real bad. If this was about some animal like the polar bears it would be sad but in the end they will go. It sucks that it may just be our turn to go.
The best bet is to learn survival skills and enjoy each day like it is the last.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:59 am#164 How about funding research on alternative fuel sources?
May 8th, 2007 at 2:01 amI agree, it wouldn't be big loss for humans to be wiped off the face of the earth...except I have a son so I guess I am not a big fan. I would love to see what they can do about the situation. I am guessing, a lot.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:02 am#154 Most fertilizer is NOT made from petroleum products.
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007 @ 1:50 am
In the mid-1980s, the annual production rate for ammonia was about 16 million tons. About 25% of this went directly for fertiliser, and the rest was used to make nitric acid (and from there into explosives), dyes, pharmaceuticals and cleaning agents. It has a relatively high heat of vaporisation, and so some ammonia is used as the heat-exchanger gas in large refrigeration units (rather than the ozone-destroying CFCs). With all of these important applications, it is no surprise that more molecules of ammonia are produced each year than any other industrial chemical.
Electricity is the KEY to making fertalizer and that is made from oil, coal, NG
May 8th, 2007 at 2:04 am#167 I am all for organic fertilizer. You certainly don't need electricity for cow sh!t. Maybe we will get smart and use it exclusively. I really don't get your pessimism. We cannot live on oil from here on out. We are going to have to go in other directions.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:11 amHow about funding research on alternative fuel sources?
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007 @ 2:01 am
We arrived at the Stone Age
We went to the Moon
We went back to the Stone Age, or never made it back and went extinct.
Sorry folks, there is only so much we can do and my feeling is that the long term devastation humans will face will come from the millions of tons of nigh level nuclear waste scattered about the globe. There is nothing GREEN about any of our industrial systems.
Draw your own conclusions but keep in mind that we are running out of time to do what exactly?
May 8th, 2007 at 2:15 amI am all for organic fertilizer. You certainly don’t need electricity for cow sh!t. Maybe we will get smart and use it exclusively. I really don’t get your pessimism. We cannot live on oil from here on out. We are going to have to go in other directions.
Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007 @ 2:11 am
Cows compete for resources and each day one cow holds 800 gallons of potable water out of the system. Cows eat crops, drink water, and take space...
They already have plans to move the globe to vegetarianism...
It is a resource SQUEEZE
May 8th, 2007 at 2:20 amThe Haber-Bosch Process - which takes place at 400-500°C and about 200 atm pressure, in the presence of an iron catalyst.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:23 amhttp://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad8.html
May 8th, 2007 at 2:35 amIn January 1943 the Hanford Site was established as the nation's first full time plutonium production facility. As part of the Manhattan project, plutonium production reactors were built along the Columbia River (100 Area); processing plants and associated facilities were constructed on a plateau in the center of the site (200 Areas); and fuel fabrication facilities were constructed in the southern component of the reservation (300 Area). The total size of the Hanford site is 560 sq. miles; the site is located in the southeastern part of the state of Washington in an isolated and desiccated area; the Columbia River forms the sites eastern boundary. An excellent site map is contained in the BEMR on page Washington 5; this report includes a summary of the stages of plutonium production at Hanford, including the fabrication of plutonium from uranium, fuel irradiation which converted small amounts of uranium to plutonium, and chemical processing in which the irradiated fuel elements were chemically processed to extract the plutonium. In the early days of operation of the Hanford facility, large amounts of uncontained radioactive wastes of every description were disposed of in the natural environment. Some effluents went directly into the Columbia River; other effluents went into burial trenches, partially lined underground vaults and other surface locations. Extensive use of deep well and shallow well injection technologies resulted in the disposal of unknown quantities of radioactive wastes in subsurface geological formations. By 1972 eight of nine production reactors had been shut down and most fuel separation facilities had also ceased operations. A fast flux test facility at the Hanford Reservation continues to be on hot standby (the facility is cooled by liquid sodium); the Clinton administration is considering restarting this facility to produce tritium for use in future nuclear weapons production. Radioactive wastes in contaminated material and liquid by-products are stored in 1,391 locations on this Reservation; "environmental contamination is found in surface and subsurface soils ... liquids (principally liquid low-level waste effluents) have been discharged into the soils and has contaminated 520 sq. km. of ground water ... the chemical processing of irradiated fuels generated the largest volume of Hanford's wastes" (BEMR, pg. Washington 6-7). Total life cycle remediation costs are estimated at $50,208,297,000. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory Integrated Data Base reports the Hanford Reservation inventory of high-level waste as of Jan. 1, 1996 at 347,900,000 Ci.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:41 amTotal life cycle remediation costs are estimated at $50,208,297,000.00 so that is pretty good................
May 8th, 2007 at 2:43 amIf the Republicans regain power in the U.S., we can go back to pretending the problem doesn't exist.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:37 amPachauri is on solid ground when he links water scarcity to violence (a rarely mentioned undercurrent of Israel's ready embrace of violence north of its borders was south Lebanon's water, until Israel discovered the price wasn't worth it), but not quite on solid ground when he makes that stretch between global warming as a fertilizer of terrorism. That's just sensationalism.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:07 amWe will see $5 a gallon this summer thanks to you jerks!
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 1:13 am
May 8th, 2007 at 8:25 amReally? How So?
Thanks to the spineless idiots on the left who refuse to allow us to drill off our coasts (not in my back yard) and who are against nuclear energy.
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 1:30 am
Really? When? Why?
May 8th, 2007 at 8:26 amGood guys? Ha, ha, ha!
Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 1:32 am
Whu? Please explain?
michael, dearest michael, please come back to bed, and leave that poor Zooey alone (I'll do that thing with a falafel that you so crave)
May 8th, 2007 at 8:28 amOVEREMOTIONALIZING CLIMATE CHANGE? Der Spiegel looks at the IPCC:
There is hardly a newspaper article and hardly a TV or radio program that doesn't conjure up images of "climate catastrophe," prophesy floods of gigantic proportions, droughts and hunger. Indeed, the media have developed something akin to a complete apocalyptic program.
It's the fault of the media, of course, but not exclusively. It's also the fault of a new hero, an environmental activist who likes to introduce himself by saying: "Hello, I was once the next President of the United States of America." . . .
This doesn't mean that Gore should necessarily be taken to task for his statements. He is a politician. But it is odd to hear IPCC Chairman Pachauri, when asked what he thinks about Gore's film, responding: "I liked it. It does emotionalize the debate, but it seems that it has to do that." And when Pachauri comments on the publication of the first SPM by saying, "I hope that this will shock the governments so much that they take action," this doesn't exactly allay doubts as to his objectivity. When Renate Christ, the secretary of the IPCC, is asked about her opinion of reporting on climate change, she refers to articles that mention "climate catastrophe" and calls them "rather refreshing." . . .
The problem is that the IPCC is not a political group whose goal is to exert pressure, but a scientific institution and panel of experts. Its members ought to present their results and analyses dispassionately, the way pathologists or psychiatrists do when serving as expert witnesses in court, no matter how horrible the victim's injuries and how deviant the perpetrator's psyche are.
Peter Weingart, a sociologist of science from Bielefeld, a city in northwest Germany, believes that the climate experts' lack of distance has something to do with their training. Scientists usually learn only to reflect on the results of their work, not on their role within the social decision-making process. As a result, they join forces with politicians who share their views. And in this way they do harm to science.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:51 amBoy, that Saywho is one wigged out individual. I think he must have eaten some bad granola.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:31 amBoy, that Saywho is one wigged out individual. I think he must have eaten some bad granola.
Comment by david — May 8, 2007 @ 10:31 am
What is your point David? Do you believe that you are better than me or smarter than me? Do you believe that your sarcastic posts can change the facts? What is your lasting solution to the actual true issue at the center of all of the others? You believe that humans are the cause of global warming so then you must believe that humans are the cause of war and you believe that humans are starting to fall short on available energy... So it is possible that HUMANS are the central issue here.
The question is will nature end our dominant rein or will we destroy ourselves? Realistic views are needed here since we must first realize what is at stake if we want to accomplish anything at all. Eternal optimism does not put the 1,000,000 gallons of high level nuclear waste back in the tank. The desire to create even more nuclear waste in the face of the disaster that is nuclear power proves that your optimism is now source of propaganda.
The truth is that we are in a bad way regarding resources and pollution. The wars developing now over race, religion, revenge and social class are nothing more than masks to conceal the truth of resource depletion. The law of diminishing returns applies to economics, energy and crops. There is a limit that humans have exceeded that like it or not has consequences for crossing! Our crossing it was inevitable however cheap energy allowed our numbers and time to be extended.
One of the most notable depletion stories was from England. As there population grew so did the demand for firewood. In order to survive winters and cook food wood was burned. There forests were nearly gone and then in the 1700’s came COAL. I mentioned this since if they did not find coal a die-off was probable for them. They also incorporated wale oil for lamps. Eventually they moved to oil and then added nuclear. Many of their nuclear plants are past due for decommissioning.
So, David what is your point? Do you believe that solar and wind will help? I happen to realize that devices like windmills require oil and mining to produce. This is the point of all points regarding resources. At the moment the world consumes 85 million barrels of oil per day. Short that amount and see what happens. Solar and wind can help but we will not be able to replace even a fraction of the 85 million barrels needed per day.
Think of things like making steel or plastic or machines or roads or desalinization or clothing. Consider that it is fossil fuel that allows you to build a home today and warm it. How would Dow Corning make fiberglass for insulation without relics from prehistoric times? How does all of that stuff work David since you’re the man with the plan? Tell us the mathematical voodoo that you do to prove that we are not limited by the available resources! How many calories of energy does it take before you realize that we are using resources as fast as we can get them and if necessary we will kill for them?
PAX
May 8th, 2007 at 12:50 pmThank you, sincerely, Saywho, for your efforts, knowledge and the broader worldview you share here.
" In the days of the Kaliyuga (sp?)
May 8th, 2007 at 8:12 pmthe truth will be heard from children, and 'madmen'."
Again, science is speaking. Will politics listen, or do nothing?
May 8th, 2007 at 11:02 pmSoon population levels will revert to pre industrial levels and then possibly extinction.
Comment by Saywho — May 7, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
Populations of what ? Panda bears ?
May 9th, 2007 at 7:14 amI don't know whether you get out much but humans are somewhat more comfortable terms of fking and eating.
Was there a 2nd "saywho" or are you referring to the broarder worldview of the guy talking pointing to overpopulation as an indication of extinction ?
Easily impressed.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:17 amNo, the UN and the IPCC have spoken and fitted the facts around the policy.
Here the competent scientists (not the mechanistic-statistical computer modellers and data fakers) speak:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/freestuff/cd_info.html#getcopies
http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/04/28/vatican_conference.shtml
http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/youth_movement_files/articles_lym/2007/04/25_akasofu.shtml
http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/0412_aussie.shtml
http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/0410_ipcc.shtml
May 9th, 2007 at 9:07 amSaywho
You are living inside the closed mental space of a person who does not understand economic and scientific history.
Every known case of economic transformation from successive states of energy flux density has involved a revolution in technology and the family of resources required to generate power.
i.e. Wood->Coal->Oil->Nuclear Fission->Nuclear Fusion
The act of moving forward to higher states of power production in energy flux density terms creates new resources that were not previously considered to be useful, i.e. Thorium. In an isotope driven economy, in Fusion power, there is the potential for mankind to wilfully synthesize entirely new categories of resources, if the political will can be marshalled to adopt the miraculous new forms of technology that are already available to mankind in theory.
In general terms, Mankind is capable of solving limitations in the current political-economy by means of revolutions in scientific and the related technological modes of production.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:23 amComment by RAL — May 9, 2007 @ 9:23 am
I wish you were correct. Now how long were they able to sustain that fusion reaction in the lab for? What was the EROEI of that reaction? How long until the ITER demo reactor in France is complete? How will this prevent the US economy from collapsing? How do we make fertilizer now? What happened to the bees? How do we get the 1 million gallons of high level nuclear waste back out of the drinking water?
How is it that reactors are constructed and where do the materials come from? The energy needed to obtain 1 TON of any material from the Earth increases as the depth of mining increases. Again we are cresting into the EROIE that anything has. If you didn't realize it we at present we are in a global COPPER SHORTAGE.
The result is that construction moves to PVC and that requires plenty of fossil fuel to make. Windings found in generators are made of copper and so are the power lines all around the world. Copper by weight is costly and it is now one of the most stolen metals. Now this is only one in many raw materials needed to construct power generation.
So you want to move to a HYDROGEN based industrial world? How shall we do that Mr. Solve The Energy Crisis Man? Let us start with a FUEL CELL. These are not ENERGY SOURCES but are merely batteries. If you bothered to investigate how they are made you would find that some of the materials are RARE and EXPENSIVE and must be MINED (deep mined).
There is HYDROGEN all around us and even in us but the issue is that it is found bound to OXYGEN in the form of WATER. There are a few ways to break that bond but the sad truth is that doing so requires more energy than you get. This is called a NEGATIVE EROIE.
So you care to expand our FISSION reactors and switch to an ELETCRIC world. Here again the EROEI applies. Uranium is problematic on many levels. First it must be mined and this is costly in terms of resources, life and time. Uranium is mined and not concentrated so literal mountains must be moved to fetch a few kilos of ore. The mining process alone requires the magic ingredient of
OIL to power the equipment in the mine and above. Processing also requires large amounts of energy and when transportation, operation and waste storage are factored in the EROIE becomes a NEGATIVE that means we would have been better off burning the oil to make the electricity to begin with.
Power from FUSION has been a scientific plaything since the end of WW2. If you want to see fusion in action just look at any star including the SUN. At the moment everything on Earth depends on FUSION. Ultimately the SUN has driven the processes that creates OIL. The oil we use is a liquid battery, nothing more or less.
Fusion by man has mammoth issues that must be overcome to be possible. ITER is the only true fusion reactor being built and is some 15 to 20 years off. This is a joint effort that includes the USA. The main problem is that the reaction cannot touch any of the materials of the reactor since it would be almost as hot as the SUN. The plasma must be confined to a magnetic field. The power of a FISSION reactor is needed to jump-start the FUSION reaction.
I will agree that we have moved in magnitudes of EROEI during our history. The issue is not about our abilities to adapt but instead that alternatives are all at LOW or of a NEGATIVE EROEI. It is that higher EROEI that has allowed our populations to boom. To step down any amount of EROEI will be a disaster since 6.5 BILLION HUMANS rose to being from the higher EROEI found in fossil fuels.
Money at one time allowed goods and services to be exchanged and that money was backed up by GOLD. Since the first US GAS CRUNCH the GOLD STANDARD has been dropped. The US has been exchanging our topsoil for OPEC OIL in the form of food since then. We then apply a portion of the imported OIL to make fertilizer…
My position here is that of diametrical opposition to any position that would contend that our chances of a MASS SURVIVAL given the current conditions is remotely possible. Folks the USA invaded IRAQ and intends to invade IRAN in order to plunder resources and to prevent the OPEC nations from switching to the EURO DOLLAR. Attempt to grasp the economic truth that should OPEC move to the EURO (3:1 in value) the 64% imports from OPEC nations will triple in cost. $62 oil will soar over $100 per barrel.
Here I’m suggesting that your plan (you don’t have one by the way) lacks any solution that grows the economy and at the same time eliminates the oil imports. The Bush solution is to take and hold resources by force and target a group (Muslims) in order to CULL the global population. I love it when people like you post about how WE (who have messed things up so much) are going to FIX EVERYTHING.
Grow up!
May 9th, 2007 at 12:00 pm