The Dad of The Dad is a retired professor of Atmospheric Science, and he says there is ample evidence that we've already passed any tipping points a few years back.

So drink up, save your pennies, and move to higher ground.

Hey Kevin, do you think if you didn't drive a giant SUV around that would help with greenhouse emissions?

Step 0: Stop appointment of Alito to the Supreme Court: call a Senator and tell them to filibuster.

By the way, The Dad rides his bicycle everywhere, the Wife of The Dad commutes to work on a bus, the car of the Family of Dad gets great mileage with low emissions, the Thermostat of Dad is always set low requiring sweaters and lots of hugs, the House of Dad is very energy-efficient, and The Dad hisself is a green architect with his own anonymous blog at http://rktect.blogspot.com

Just so you get a bit of background...

Again, sell that beachfront property and move inland.

Mr. Drum misrepresentates my point of view.

I do believe in global warming, and I believe it will be a postive phenomena for all of mankind, and womankind, and childkind.

It will you understand leave no one behind.

People will not have to wear winter jackets in winter. They will be able to go to the beach all year round, and play golf. No one will die of hypothermia, and polar bears will no longer need all that fur. These are all positive phenomena, or as my friend Alberto would say (for all you Latinos in the audience) positivo phenomeno.

Perhaps, then, the question is the extent to which we can minimize the damage and/or turn the process around.

(Of course, the latter would be a tremendously difficult job, and I imagine many would dispair of ever getting it done. It's not impossible, however.)

Kevin, are you stupid, a liar or both?

The USG's position on climate change is that the climate is warming, that this has anthropomorphic causes and that reduction of GHG is needed to combat it.

Sheesh. Just lying about something doesn't make it true, you know.

Sheesh.

About 800 C.E. temperatures in Europe(and it is becoming apparent in most of the Northern hemisphere)rose considerably. No human-produced greenhouses gases were to blame. About 1150 they dropped back below the temperatures of 800 C.E. This is called the Little Ice Age and it continued for some 400 years. Again no human-produced greenhouses gas(or cutback in) to blame.

Do you think if you didn't drive a giant SUV around that would help with greenhouse emissions?

I thought he had some sort of overpowered sports car.

I'm a closet environmental fatalist. Our ability to stop anthropogenic climate change is about as great as the that of a few aspergillus cells to stop their companions from using all the agar as they rapidly approach the glass wall of the petri dish. Any government that tries to slow things down gets cut down by its own people or left behind in the global industrial rat race. Maybe we could stop global warming with cheap, safe, and efficient fusion reactors. Anything less, I don't think so. At some point in the future we'll come back into the balance, so I figure there is a good reason to protect what's left of the preindustrial world.

Exciting time to be alive though.

Yeah, if you keep Alioto out of there, suddenly all the CO2 will go away.

You want some ideas?

--Get back to work on nuclear power plants in the U.S.

Europe (except France), which has been getting all squeamish about the ones they already have, need to get over it and keep them in operation.

You can piss and moan all you like, but for a planet with rapidly increasing energy needs, unless somebody invents cold fusion in the next ten years, the solution is going to have to include some forms of nuclear energy.

--Continue research on fusion and other long-range alternatives. Also the shorter-range ones, like thin-film solar cells. Try to avoid the "Manhattan Project" syndrome where one Big Solution is preferred over all others. Even nuclear power isn't a cure-all. Many small solutions are going to get the job done.

For the same amount of government money, a hundred small research grants to universities and small companies will probably do more good than one big government project. I still remember the Space Shuttle almost killing off the rest of the launch industry.

--Let gas and fuel prices stay high. Don't subsidize, except maybe for those poor who are in emergency situations.

--Keep the regulatory environment friendly to existing alternative energy sources. Encourage zoning that allows solar and wind generators. Regulations that permit integration of home power systems with the main power grids. Continue tax breaks for alternative installations, and companies that use alternative energy.

--Create more incentives to drive high-mileage vehicles. Maybe some tax breaks. The high fuel prices are doing most of the work. Companies are selling every hybrid they can build.

Try not to jump in with both feet in this, like demanding all cars that get less than 40 mpg be outlawed, or something. An economic depression isn't going to be any more popular than global warming. Believe me, the car companies would love to sell an SUV that gets 50 mpg as much as you would like to buy one.

--Keep some perspective. The U.S. isn't the only problem.

--Try not to let the politics completely overwhelm the issue.

--When setting up plans and new ideas, for God's sake, try to have some people who know something about technology and industry in on it. The last thing we need is policies set by legislators who think that the only thing you need to do to get 100 mpg cars is pass a law demanding it.

--Tell Al Gore, who's antagonizing Canada, one of the few friendly oil sources we still have left, to sit down and shut up.

And let's get something clear:

Even if it turned out that climate change had nothing whatsoever to do with your SUV, we are still running our society on a non-renewable resource.

That resource is the key to plastics, fertilizers, medicines, and hundreds of other things. We're burning it up.

A lot of that resource comes from countries that hate our guts. Some of them hate everybody's guts. This is not smart. Even if we open up our own supplies--a good idea--that isn't going to end oil imports by itself.

Finding alternatives to burning hydrocarbons is going to be an issue at some point, CO2 or no CO2.

Tell Al Gore, who's antagonizing Canada, one of the few friendly oil sources we still have left, to sit down and shut up.

Why isn't this at the top of the list? If he's really pissing off the kanook mullahs than we need to get on this immediately.

Tbrosz -- your solutions are for keeping the economy going as we run out of oil. They will do nothing to stop or slow down global warming. The free market dictates that most of the oil in the world will get burned up unless a cheap (under $15 / barrel equivalent ) is found.

Compliments to Dad and family for walking the walk. They've earned the right to preach.

Wish I could say the same for politicians and movie stars who bitch about global warming while owning a dozen cars, five houses, and private jets.

B:

Where did you get $15 a barrel for the level at which people would go to some trouble to switch sources? I understand there's a point where capital investment in an alternative balances higher operating costs of an existing (this becomes less important as operation time increases), but oil is over $60 a barrel now.

Maybe that wasn't clear. I assume you meant that an energy alternative would have to be the price equivalent of $15 a barrel oil before someone would switch from $60 a barrel oil. I think that the alternative would not have to be that much cheaper, and the level would vary depending on many circumstances. For an industry that relied heavily on energy, it wouldn't take much to convince them. The Northwest aluminum industry was once driven by hydroelectric power.

tbrosz,

The point I was making is that much of the remaining reserves can be produced for under $15 per barrel. For instance, Saudi production costs are probably still under $3.

The current $65 dollar price is demand driven. A lot of that money goes to Saudi harems and Chevron stock buy backs. If demand dried up the price would bottom out a reasonable distance above production and transport costs. The majority of the oil is going to come out of the ground under any free market scenario I can imagine. Exploration in difficult terrane / deep water and high density drilling would stop but existing fields will keep draining.

The convenience of oil (ease of transport, ease of conversion to gasoline) and its utility in the chemical industry are other reasons it will keep being used even if you saturate the market with nuclear plants and solar cells.

Although Bush might say he believes that anthropogenic global warming is real, no shortage of right-wing hit men (and women) attack that position every day with stupid lines about the little Ice Age, etc.

As someone who worked with Oppenheimer at Princeton a while back, one potential solution we explored was some kind of large-scale carbon sequestration program combined with a shift to a hydrogen economy.

As for the renewable v. fossil fuel problem, I think the consensus is that solar is the renewable of choice. I guess nuclear is a possibility, but it's such a money pit!!

You're right. Alternatives become economical at prices slightly below the multiyear mean price of petroleum. What I was saying is that petroleum stays economical as long as the proceeds feed the Saudi camel going in circles at the wellhead.

The convenience of oil (ease of transport, ease of conversion to gasoline) and its utility in the chemical industry are other reasons it will keep being used even if you saturate the market with nuclear plants and solar cells.

Good point. Note that alternative methods of generating electricity don't do that much for transportation unless we move to electric or hydrogen vehicles. The key is to start moving at least some of the eggs into other baskets. If we're not burning natural gas in power plants, maybe we could be burning it in trucks.

Most ideas I've seen for artifically "storing" CO2 are a bit silly, but I haven't looked at the technologies recently.

Ethanol has a lot more potential if ways can be found to utilize the cellulose plant materials and wastes, or low-maintenance plants, instead of things like corn that take a lot of energy-using upkeep.

The CO2 generated by burning plant material is part of the short-term carbon cycle, and does not have the kind of potential negative effect that burning fossil fuels has.

I'd like to see as many ideas as possible pursued. The danger of many large government programs in this kind of thing is that they tend to select one Big Answer, and run it into the ground.

Oh, and don't let the environmentalists knock down useful power-creating dams.

Off to bed. Sorry if I kind of chewed up the thread...this is one of my favorite tech topics. It's too important to be used as a political weapon by either side.

This might belong in the category of "use'm or lose'm", but we've got lots of methane hydrates just offshore:

The newly discovered deposit, believed to be substantial in size, was found about 15 miles off the coast at a depth of about 2,600 feet, at the summit of an undersea mud volcano. Scientists were conducting an unrelated study when they came across the volcano, which sits on top of an active fault zone in the Santa Monica Basin.

Lots of newly discovered natural gas. Good news if you're worried about running out of fuel, bad to terrible news if you're worried about climate change. Methane is a worse contributor to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide, so we may be worse off letting this stuff evaporate than burning it.

This is also one of my favorite topics - I can't believe you mentioned ethanol, though! What a waste of land and effort for such an inefficient source of energy (if you are even on the side of the debate that believes it is a net energy source) ...

As for carbon sequestration, I assume you are referring to forest replantation and iron filings in the ocean. I was referring to CO2 capture and storage (which can be done for about $50-$100 per ton). The cost needs to come down, obviously, but economies of scale may help. One big concern is ensuring that it stays in the ground.

>"Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their "ultra-conservative leader" to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.

Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.

"The election in Canada was partly about the tar sands projects in Alberta," Gore said Wednesday while attending the Sundance Film Festival in Utah."

Gore is absolutely right. Canadian federal politics can be 90% explained by the oil sands and quebec. Yet even with every possible factor in his favour - weak opposition leaders, two elections in a row, better funding, a huge government corruption scandal - his Conservative party was still able to muster only 124 seats out of 308, a lame duck minority government right from the start.

And precisely due to the suspicions Gore has raised. To such an extent that Harper's campaign team send out broadcast emails to US conservatives to "shut the f$ck up please, don't support us" during his campaign.

Canada will not be able to meet its Kyoto commitments, due to the tar sands. And its money completely drives Alberta politics, and Alberta's oil-driven agenda distorts our economy (every other province competes in a bidding war for doctors, nurses, etc leading to oil in Alberta impoverishing other provinces). Without the tar sands, btw, Canada is past its production peak!

Oops. "Yet even with every possible factor in his favour.." his = harper's

At a 50 dollars a ton it would actually only cost half a trillion dollars to reduce global emissions to zero. On the same order of magnitude as the US military budget. Maybe if we elected a president whose father was once threatened by triatomic atmospheric gases lacking molecular dipole moments . . .

I suspect this cost was calculated for large point source in the vicinity of an optimal geologic reservoir. Putting CO2 traps on small and mobile emission sources would be pretty much impossible.

Crap that's a close tennis match.

I have to ask... where would you PUT fifty billion tons of CO2 a year? Sheesh, people worry about nuclear waste, but that's not just orders of magnitude, but tens of orders of magnitude less material, and it's solid at standard temperature and pressure!

Seriously, nuclear power is going to be the best option. Yes, you gotta deal with the waste, but it's better than burning coal (which releases radioactive particles into the atmosphere) or oil (which makes guys with funny views on religion want to throw radioactives together to cause an explosion). Every watt of power you generate with nuclear fission is a watt of power you don't have to generate by setting fire to something.

Sure, the oil will still be extracted, and plenty of it burned too. But oil is also lubricants, and plastics, so just because it's pumped doesn't mean it's going to end up in the atmosphere.

If you want to lower greenhouse emissions then the only sure way to accomplish it is to cull the herd. Kill off say 50% of the Earths population with something like a birdflu pandemic, or global famine, or a catastrophic natural disaster like colliding with an enormous asteroid. People are far too ignorant and greedy to do what needs to be done to repair the environment, we would rather live it up today and let future generations pay the tab. More drinks barkeep, and put them on my children's tab!

Pray for a plague and hope it's a big one.

After we win back a Congressional majority, the notes from Cheney's energy meetings will be subpoenaed. It's only a matter of them trying to delay the inevitable exposure of their corrupt scheme as long as possible.

Eric Paulsen:
You first, dude.

where would you PUT fifty billion tons of CO2 a year?

It's more like 10 billion tons. People have discussed pumping it down into the deep ocean (imagine a brew of acidic champagne circulating at 1 to 2 km depth), deep petroleum reservoirs (pure unadulterated supercritical CO2), or special cold pressurized reservoirs where it might form solid CO2 clathrates. We actually do a little bit of option number 2 to increase production efficiency in older oil fields. No matter which way you choose, it's a metastable collection of CO2 until it eventually gets converted to carbonate minerals through the weathering of silicates.

HOW ABOUT YOU 45 MILLION LIBERALS STOP DRIVING CARS??

IF YOU BELIEVE IN SOMETHING THIS STRONGLY, SHOULDN'T YOU TAKE ACTION REGARDLESS OF WHO IS IN THE WHITEHOUSE??

ITS JUST LIKE HEALTHCARE, IF IT IS SOOOO BAD, WHY HASN'T THE DEMOCRAT PARTY CREATED A PRIVATE, NOT FOR PROFIT, CHARITABLE HEALH CARE SYSTEM??

I AM SURE KENNEDY, KERRY, KOHL, ROCKEFELLER ALONE COULD DONATE A BILLION DOLLARS TO THE CAUSE. YOU COULD GIVE DONATIONS AT DAILY KOS AND DU, AND TWM. Why are you sitting around for 30 years waiting for the government to do soemthing?????

I just love the limosine liberals in their 8,000 square foot homes, with their private jets and heated pools and fleet of SUVs telling me how I need to conserve.

Rather then take away the Middle Class families SUV who use it for their family, I would propose elimating the following:

Hollywood movies would not be allowed to use fossil fuels. Only solar power.

Matt Lauer would not be allowed to Jet half way round the world in the stupid 'wherein the world is matt lauer'. He just burned 80,000 gallons of fuel and then they cut to a story about conservation.

Arianna would have to give up her limo and her 8,000 Square foot mansion and her private jet rides.

John Kerry would have to sell his SUVs and his mansions err her mansions.

The Kennedys would give up every mansion, limo, private jet, etc. if they want to still rant about global warming.

Kevin, are you so warped by your hatred of George W. Bush that you cannot even read a simple magazine piece (passing as a news story) for detail?

What exactly did this "article" say? (a short exercise in "Fisking")

Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.

-- So when was this "poll" of "scientists" taken, and where are the results? And when did science start to advance by consensus?

The "central debate"? "shifted"? Does this mean there's still a "debate" about whether the earth is ACTUALLY warming and, if it is, is its cause is anthropomorphic or solar?

This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.

This ... scenario ... could ... uncertain .. when .. may ... cut ... half ... 50 years ... risk ... triggering ... irreversible.

What a hoot! Another scare piece by a rag trying to boost it's circulation (and failing).

But, of course, you fell for it, Kevin.

Tell us HOW, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, your choice of chief executive of this nation is going to achieve a 50% REDUCTION IN THE WORLD'S CO2 EMISSIONS! None of the Kyoto signators have met even these limited goals (indeed, almost all have continued to increase emissions -- not decrease).

And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Pray to whom? I thought you said that nobody's listening.

First - we somehow have to neutralize all the "conservative" fuckers with their policies of incredularity and obduratism in the face of blindingly obvious proof that man is wreaking carbon-based havoc on this planet.

Next, if we want to combat global warming (and energy dependance on the unstable Muslim world) we need to get the incentives right. And what should be an easy sell to conservatives is setting up markets in carbon-emissions allowances. We already have these for SOx and NOx emissions and its worked rather well.

But we have to somehow drown out conservative cries that doing anything to combat GW will take us back to the stone age. If conservatives really have faith in the capitalist, free-market system, and believe it to be the most robust and flexible in the world (and I agree) then establishment of an emissions allowances market will harness capitalism to do good. Not only will it spur efficient reductions in CO2 emissions, but more research into alternate energy resources as well.

It's not the whole answer, but an important piece, and I don't understand why conservatives would fight it (unless maybe they're maybe in the pocket of Exxon or something.)

Kevin, nice step 1, 2, and 3, but a little unrealistic. Here's what will happen in no small part because people like you want to treat the cult of republicanism as rational human beings:

steps 1: continue to elect anti-science republicans because in the US money walks, shit talks, the corporate media has renounced its loyality to truth and equality, and the sheople go baaaaa. The cult of republicanism continues to consolate omnipotent unitary control over the government and propagandize corporate media. The Constitution is relegated to museums.
step 2: replace the current nitwit in the white house with someone equally easy to manipulate. The republican president declares marshall law with the supreme court's blessing.
step 3: prey (as in the US preys on by invading any country with oil it damn well feels like; that we feel isn't "cooperating" appropriately with American interests.)

"nitwit in the White House who's convinced global warming can't exist because that would be inconvenient for the Republican Party's funding base"

Bingo.

What's really frustrating about this issue is that it seems to generate relatively little public dialogue, whereas frivolous issues like abortion and gay marriage dominate.

In three Presidential debates in '04, I think maybe it was mentioned once. Absolutely shameful. And the limp dick Democrats should be more to blame for that, but I guess they've just become an extension of the Republican Party.

One more thing - The Dad is my hero.

I can't tell if this is parody Norman or echt Norman, although the sloppy grammar is some indication of the latter.

So when was this "poll" of "scientists" taken, and where are the results? And when did science start to advance by consensus?

As you may know, there is no single poll of scientists, just as there is no specific poll of wingnuts such as yourself, yet we still have a good idea of the dimwitted opinions you hold. There is, however, the accumulated opinion of:
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the American Meteorological Society, the National Research Council, the national science academies of most of the civilized world including our own National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a host of surveys of climatologists, geophysicists, and other scientists in this country and the rest of the world, etc., etc., etc., all available with the simple click of a mouse.

Tell us HOW, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, your choice of chief executive of this nation is going to achieve a 50% REDUCTION IN THE WORLD'S CO2 EMISSIONS!

When faced with a problem, the intelligent response is to acknowledge the problem and at least begin to take some action to ameliorate it. It is guaranteed that the present administration will continue to deny the problem and hinder any proper response to it. No president is going to achieve 50% reduction in the CO2 emissions, but then that is, of course, neither the objective nor the argument here.

As you can see, it's no wonder at all why one might think you're a moron.

IF YOU BELIEVE IN SOMETHING THIS STRONGLY, SHOULDN'T YOU TAKE ACTION REGARDLESS OF WHO IS IN THE WHITEHOUSE??

Whew! I'm so glad you subscribe to this idea, Patton. Your troll comments are such simple-minded Hannity-like dreck that I feel tainted even making this response. But now that you are going to sign up for Iraq, seeing how you hold that when one believes in something so strongly one must take action, it will be much saner here. What a relief!

Back in 1992, when I was in graduate school studying Systems Ecology (modelling) we pretty much came to the conclusion at that point that we had passed the tipping point a few years prior. The best we can hope for is amelioration. Right now we are in the initial chaos phase of unbalanced systems seeking a new level of sustainability (which does not mean no change, it means slow change that species can gracefully adapt to).

Step 3: Pray

Found religion, have you?

"(which does not mean no change, it means slow change that species can gracefully adapt to)."

Sorry, but that's garbage. How can polar bears adapt to the complete summer melting of arctic ice, predicted sometime this century? This change will happen in decades, not millenia.

Additionally, species today face the added handicap of mass human settlements that impede migration.

I think we're looking at something slightly more cataclysmic than your "graceful adaptation" scenario.

tbrosz,

I agree with many of your ideas, although you should have followed your own prescription and left the subjective notions about what your political opponents believe out of it.

I agree that some form of nuclear energy must be part of any solution, but I also think we will need some strong government oversight to ensure that it isn't the economic boondoggle and managerial disaster that it was here back in the 70s. Unfortunately, this is where politics enters into it, and I'm afraid that the present bunch would not abet a more honest and responsible nuclear industry, but see it as one more taxpayer cash cow for their constituents to milk.

I also agree that it's probably a good idea to avoid the "Manhattan Project" syndrome, however I wonder where we would be in solar production now if the government had taken some of the advice of scientists decades ago (mostly liberal environmentalists, thus ignored) and infused real money into photovoltaic research and production.

Sure, let's continue or create tax breaks for high-mileage vehicles, but here again, politics rears its head. The politicos in power are more inclined to reduce or eliminate these breaks while enhancing full-cost tax deductions for small-business Hummers. If conservation is only a "personal virtue" you can't expect much help from that quarter.

Hey, Bruce, Canada pledged in Kyoto to get CO2 levels down by 6% from 1990 levels, but is up (!) 24% and climbing, according to what I read (Green Party material). Classic Liberal hosing, don't you think?

Britain, according to the Washington Post, is down 14% already and aiming at 50% by 2050. Interesting to see who is serious and who is not.

Didn't Krakatoa cause global cooling? Don't trees produce O2? Sounds like to me, if there really is a serious problem, the solution doesn't seem all that hard.

Bruce the Canuck,

Just how important an issue is Kyoto to the average Canadian? By that do they feel they need to stay a part of it even knowing it could cost them a great deal of money and are they even aware most of this money would go to places like Russia? Places doing absolutely nothing to curb pollution.

Are they even aware of the Asian-Pacific partnership?

Austin Bay wrote an interesting essay last week detailing his experience in NATO excercises in the late 70's specifically the high respect Americans and others had for the Canadian forces. Bay called them the finest in NATO and thus by definition, the world. He also remined us of the significant role Canada played in WWII punching well above their weight. At the end of WWII Canada had the worlds 3rd largest navy.

Canadians have to be frustrated at what remains. That Navy has been replaced by a small coast guard. Canada has little global influence. Much smaller Australia has far more influence. They have been highly visible in Tsumami relief and in Pakistan where Canada has been invisible. Australia is a founding member of the Asian-pacific partnership and has under Howards leadership moved from the low teens in per-capita income to the top 10 and is poised to pass Canada in a few years.

How do Canadians accept this slide?

It's funny, the main reason Kevin is bring up Global Warming is a segue for Bush impeachment, but on one is really talking about Bush. So what's the use in talking about Global Warming if you can't use it to your political advantage? Might as well talk about K-street.

Is it any wonder readers (and probably Kevin himself) have difficulty figuring out exactly what Kevin Drum stands for? He states we need to get rid of our president, but offers no sage advice as to how it can be done. As a matter of fact, Kevin in the past has belittled any discussion of impeachment, because the Dems have no power, or because there is no concrete grounds on which to impeach him. So when Kevin isn't full of shit, he's full of shit...

Perhaps #1 should be for each of us who believes in global warming to make the necessary and appropriate adjustments in our INDIVIDUAL lives (much as THE DAD mentioned upthread) ...member that old "when you point a finger" thingy? And, then, MY GOD YES, get rid of the idiot in the WH and all the rest of them as well. And to the fool who wonders if YOU stop driving your SUV will it make a difference...well, DUH, if everyone did (or better yet if the available technology was used to make SUVs more fuel efficient - and GM/FORD wonder why they are becoming obsolete) of course it would make a difference!!! Just because you are ignorant don't assume EVERYONE else is...

FF,

I don't think Kevin is doing much more than blowing off steam. This is nothing more than a hissy fit.

He is as well aware as anyone this just is not a top 10 issue among voters in the USA and obviously not even in Canada. Harper made it clear he's no fan of Kyoto and Martin made it seem Harper will pull out tomorrowand triple pollution. Harper won't but the point is this was highly visible campaign issue and Martin lost.

Kevin is also aware only a minority share his religion. GW simply has not been proven and because so many frauds have grabbed this as an issue the junk science has received more publicity at the expense of what may or may not be good science. Who can tell? A vast majority of the even credible scientists are making claims they cannot possibly prove. The subject is simply too complicated and their depth of knowledge too shallow.

The result of this is the scientific frauds have become ever more hysterical and the true believers take the que. Kevin thinks by becoming more strident he'll be viewed as more serious. The opposite is true. The Canadian election hasn't helped Kevins disposiiton. Kyoto is a disaster in slo-mo. It's going to get worse.

Don't get me wrong, for a whole host of reasons I believe we should get control of greenhouse emissions and globial warming is happening, but did you know that there is evidence that the atmosphere of Mars is heating up. I guess the rovers are emitting too many pollutants.

It could be that other factors beyond greenhouse emissions are also in play. Not that it makes much difference. If the earth gets hot enough there will be a mini ice age in Europe.

Kyoto was never meant to be the only solution to global warming, but it was supposed to start us in the general direction.

Dancer,

What do you think of people like John Kerry and Bill Clinton criss-crossing the globe in their private jets and then lecturing the great unwashed on conservation?

I can't imagine you think this helps the cause. ABC will never report these facts but they're not controlling the flow anymore. The image of John Kerry calling for a filibuster from the slopes of Davos where he was rubbing elbows with the other true believers, all of whom travel by private jet, is priceless.

Paul,

Kyoto has made the problem dramatically worse. This will go down as the dumbest treaty in the history of civilization. It was egregiously poorly designend largely because so many people wanted to punish the USA. These people will never again have a leading roll in managing global pollution.

These people = French, Germans, Canadians, etc.

Actually, for Norman's and Porrofatto's benefit, there WAS a poll of 400 meteorologists and climate scientists conducted by Gallup back in Nov. 1991, and it already showed a landslide margin believing that anthropogenic global warming was likely to be a serious problem. (I'm looking at my copy of it right now, accompanied by an indignant cover letter from the Gallup people on how George Will and Ronald Bailey glaringly distorted its results to make their readers believe that the climatologists did NOT think it was a serious problem.)

Since then, judging by all the articles I've seen in the science journals (I don't read environmentalist magazines), the consensus on the subject has only become stedily stronger.

It's nice that Tbrosz is not among those rightists sticking his head in the sand on this issue, and that he actually has some concrete suggestions on the subject, but I still suspect he underemphasizes the importance of government in sounding a general trumpet call to the public on the subject, and in itself funding research on ameliorative technology. The market does many wonderful things, but it's an utter failure in dealing with pollution problems because of the free-rider effect. (One additional item: there is some interest in the possible development of cheap but non-biological technologies for pulling CO2 back out of the air and turning it permanently into carbonate minerals. This might be the best solution of all, since one of the major aspects of the problem is that all the excess CO2 that we do produce will then hang around for as much as a century continuing to do its dirty work and pumping more heat energy into the oceans to act as a very long-lived "heat battery".)

No, rdw, it is the corporate interests, the two-bit think tanks paid off by Exxon, and other conservative groups that are spewing disinformation, junk science, etc, in attempt to muddy the waters so that they can keep right on letting their emissions rip and reap their record profits. The public is confused on this issue, but it's because the corporate interests want it that way, and they've got the funds to do it.

Tell me what would be wrong with establishing a market in carbon-emissions allowances to combat the problem? If carbon emissions are an externality, what's wrong with creating a new market to internalize those costs? Why can't conservatives grab this concept and capitalize off it? Why do they have to pose as scientific illiterates clinging to their corporate benefactors?

Here is the simple chart that, well, someone can't read; but that someone would not appear to be George Bush.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update20_data.

If emissions are the cause of the rise in temperatures and if emissions have been on the rise since the onset of the Industrial Revolution (circa 1850), why then did temperatures go down from 1850-1920 and remain constant from 1940-1980? It's called science; you need to prove a theory with data, not a one-off correlation 1980-2005. If emissions were the cause of the temperature increases over the last 25 years, there should have indeed been the highest increase from 1940-1980 when the world, the U.S.A. inparticular, boomed industrially, i.e., accelearted in terms of fossil fuel consumption and industrial production.

Well?

The Objective Historian

The political arena neatly ducks the REAL problem.

Most of the life forms on this planet are doomed unless humans learn to control their run-away population.

Even if magically the per-person CO2 production was decreased by 20% or 30% overnight, human population growth will erase all the gains in just a few years.

This is the most critical issue facing the planet and there's nary a whisper in the US political sphere... save Bushco quietly scuttling any UN attempts to promote birth control.

The answer is SO simple and painless... having two kids per couple will stabilize the population.

Promotion of this concept should be our number one priority... over all others.

Saving whales, polar bears, (insert favorite species), is all simply 'pissing in the wind' unless the underlying problem is solved.

When will somebody step up to the plate and speak the truth... or given the dominance of the religous nut cases, I wonder... would it matter?

I'm not holding my breath. (I guess, this line might be a joke given the context of this thread.)

Britain, according to the Washington Post, is down 14% already and aiming at 50% by 2050. Interesting to see who is serious and who is not.

One of the jokes of Kyoto was in setting the base period. Germany benefits by the collapse of East German manufacturing and 15 years of slow growth. If Germany tried they could not reach their limits. The same holds true for all former iron curtain nations none more than Russia. England has benefitted from the collapse of their coal industry and the transition from coal to oil and gas. England did NOT a thing to reach ther limits. They were guarranteed all along.

The other aspect helping the 1st world is the massive transfer of production to the 3rd world. This is a disaster for global pollution. England is producing less and China far, far more. China has no pollution controls. Thus goods which were produced in the 1st world with pollution controls are now produced with NONE. This treaty has CREATED MORE pollution.

Most ideas I've seen for artifically "storing" CO2 are a bit silly, but I haven't looked at the technologies recently.

Actually they are reasonable, and reforestation is recognized in the Kyoto treaty. references were provided by some commenters last summer some time.

As for the nitwit in the White House, the Administration has joined with Japan, China, Australia and some others on a program that's considerably more practical than the Kyoto treaty. And the Administration energy plan is a start -- continued over 20 years it should have a considerable good effect. A little porky for some, but then so was WWII with all those weapons programs that never produced a working prototype.

Warming will probably recede as the two solar cycles recede from their coincident peaks. One has a period of 11 years, the other a period of about 100 years, and both have peaked together. This has been estimated to be responsible for about 30% of recent warming.

Don't panic. Keep up the pressure for new fuel technologies.

"Canada has little global influence."

I don't hear them crying very loud--the ones who do, like David Frum or Conrad Black, end up leaving the country and screwing up some other place.

as Kevin wrote when commenting on Kuwait: Buy a hybrid now and be prepared.

CTM,

Why would we even think about taking on significant costs to please the moonbats who believe in this junk science?

I've been watching the flakes associated with Kyoto and they are an absolute disaster. They're wrong on the science and tragically inept on their solutions. It can be summed up in one sentence, "Screw Americans".

Ain't gonna happen. This is being removed from UN AND EU hands. "IF" we are going to reduce greenhouse emissions and we need to be serious about it then we must put adults in charge.

The Asian-pacific partnership will do this. All of the ecological disasters are in the 3rd world. We need to get together and share technology and sytems to put within the reach of everyone.

As soon as you exempted China, India and Brazil you had to know manufacting was going to set up shop in China, india and Brazil. It's hard to know which aspect of Kyoto was dumbest this has to receive consideration.

What GWB is doing is getting the biggest, worst, wealthiest together in a small group to sketch out a practical plan for the future that can do as it is designed to do.

Never in a million years will Americans allow some EU or pencil-necks fine America.

The initial working group of the USA, China, India, Japan, Korea and Australia is large and powerful enough to design and implement this plan to share technology and work together to reduce global pollution, not transfer it around and make it so much worse. Once they have a path set they'll expand the group. Kyoto is dead.

More blogging on this subject at Ezra Klein.

previously Kevin Drum wrote this: So while Democrats might very well need a Newt Gingrich of their own, what they really need if they want to win back control of Congress is a tectonic shift they can take advantage of — and so far I just haven't seen any big, pent-up frustration on the part of center-right voters that might turn large numbers of them into center-left voters instead. It'll be healthcare eventually, but in the meantime I'm stumped.

Let me repeat my recommendation that the Democrats push Kerry's energy proposals with great enthusiasm.

Quit the Quixotic attempts to block all Bush's court nominees and emphasize solving technological problems with new technology. Whether it's kept or overturned, Roe v. Wade is dead: many counties have no abortion clinics and over half of all voters live in states that have repealed their own abortion restrictions legislatively. The filibuster threat is useless: do something useful, or at least propose a good useful alternative.

#1 security -- say you can run the war on terror better than the Republican

#2 energy security AND greenhouse gas reduction

#3 healthcare improvements

#4 repeal a few of the Bush tax reductions and eliminate loopholes where they are blatantly counterproductive to the public good.

Only a few days have passed since the quoted passage was posted, and Kevin seems to have forgotten it already. "Replace the nitwit ... " isn't a strategy, it's another in a long line of whines.

Steve Paradis,

Well that's why I am asking. There's a good case of isolationism. We hear so little about Canada aside from the headline grabbing anti-American stuff.

But it doesn't strike me Canadians are isolationists. They remain part of the G-8 and NATO and seem to have very strong opinions on Iraq and Kyoto. The extreme anti-americanism doesn't seem to be the result of trade disputes but of our international policies. That's hardly islationists.

The reason I cited Austin Bay's article is I was impressed with his real and powerful admiration for Canadian forces. This is a retired American soldier participating in NATO exercises saying the Canadians were the better soldiers. That can't be easy to admit. This is 20 years ago. Would anyone say that today?

I have no problem with the Canadians refusing to participate in Iraq. Reasonable people can have disagreements. You must do what you see as best for Canada. But how do you feel that no one really cares? The fact is most Americans think Canada has only a very small and inexperienced military n capable of doing any hevy lifting or of providing much help. A not insignificant minority feel the US is better off without Canada because they'd just slow us down. It's no secret Canada has been degrading it's military.

That's a huge change in two decades.

Look at the Tsumami relief. Where was Canada? USA and Australian ships were there in two days providing critically needed water, medicine, doctors, food, rescue copters, etc. They were there for a month. Where was Canada?

Mark Steyn lives part-time in Canada and will always be a citizen. He wrote of that, "Canada is not only unable to deliver aid to distant places on the planet but unable to deliver aid to distance places in Canada.

Everytime there is a major disaster anywhere in the world such as in Pakistan and Indonesia the USA Military is there quickly and in a big way and usually has Australia with them. Where is Canada?

I agree with NealB and disagree with contentious. The Bush administration controls the advice of its "scientific advisers", the FDA and the Supreme Court -to-be. Standing up for what you believe to be true gets you off the payroll. Other Presidents have done this. Those other Presidents didn't spy on Americans without authorization and their cronies (Diebold) didn't introduce corruptible voting machines (see
/www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/hacking/story/0,10801,107881,00.html for a report about how easily these machines can be manipulated without leaving a trail). These steps (wholesale spying, control of elections) can change the American political system in an irreversible manner.

If our elections are controlled, then questions of global warming will depend on who controls the White House. If Americans have been programmed to put controlling terrorists, communists, homosexuals, ____ (you fill in the blank) above all else, we are doomed whether or not Alito gets onto the court, whether or not voting machines are made honest.

RDW:

The problem is that you are incorrect when you imply that the science behind global warming is wrong. Even a lot of the skeptics are now admitting that global warming is taking place but now contend that it will be good for us.

Kyoto, while not perfect, was an international treaty. As China and India ramp up their economies they will face the same restrictions as the rest of the world - China is about 10 years away from this right now. (Of course if we were serious about Kyoto then we would have the necessary technology ready to sell to them.) This was done in recognition that the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere was due to developed countries.

Kyoto also contains clauses that allow a country to back out if they found that it was causing undue hardship to their economy.

However I remain unconvinced about the actual cost of Kyoto. I liken this to the same predictions over the banning of CFC. There were some who said that it was going to cost the economy 100 billion and cause a massive slowdown in the economy. We seem to have survived that one fairly well.

The reintroduction of CO2 is a problem that has gone on too long. If we face it now we will have time to reduce and then adjust to the consequences. If we put it off with some voluntary scheme then we will be leaving our grandchildren with a world where reductions will be large, adjustment a matter of necessity and economies really will be severely hurt.

I agree with NealB and disagree with contentious.

I wrote that this was a black eye for the administration and an embarrassment to me. You disagree with that?

malvolvo is a cute pun on "Malvolio". Are you implying a decline in the auto company since its purchase by Ford?

oops, confusion of threads. perhaps you disagree with my recommendation that Democrats rally behind Kerry's energy policy and make a big deal out of it.

better news organizations, please:

but, according to cnn's ace weatherman, chad myers, you should calm down. the thermostats placed years ago in rural places have been overtaken with development. it's all that concrete, sillies, throwing off the temperature readings. things aren't nearly so dire, just ask chad:

M. O'BRIEN: Well it's January, late January actually, and nary a flake of snow on the ground here in New York City. And it makes us wonder is the world getting a little warmer or what?

A new British study says it's definitely a trend. In fact, scientists say 2005 was the warmest ever on record in the Northern Hemisphere. We jumped by more than a third of a degree overall. The study says greenhouse gases trapped in the atmosphere are part of this problem. As for the trend, 8 of the 10 hottest years ever on record have come in the past decade.

Let's check the forecast now.

Chad Myers, you're a little bit of a skeptic on global warming, I know.

CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: No, I absolutely believe that CO2 is heating the atmosphere, but also some of these thermometers that we have had out in the Plains for years or in the cities for years are getting surrounded by more buildings. So you get more buildings, you get more asphalt, you get more heat so the thermometers are different. The whole metro areas are getting warmer.

Where in fact maybe you just see if you put that same thermometer out in the middle of a corn field in Nebraska, maybe it wouldn't be too much different. We'll have to see. You know I know that this is happening, it's just a matter of how much it is. That's all.

Objective Historian --

The link you provided didn't work, but your argument - that since temps have gone down, there can't be global warming - makes the same ridiculous assuption anti-GW people always make: "scientists are stupid". You really think scientists would promote a theory that doesn't match the evidence?

There is an explanation, and it's been known for decades; actually, it's quite telling that anti-GW people keep clinging to it. The cooling's believed to be from anthropogenic sulfate aerosols, the emissions of which have dramatically decreased recently. Which explains why it was more pronounced in the NH than the SH.

Sorry, try again.

Most of the people who tout Kyoto and who oppose Kyoto have never read the damn treaty. It was hopelessly flawed. While the goal of Kyoto was right on it was a non-starter because it gave large and growing centers of polution a free pass.

Everybody has a different view on global warming. The Europeans are scared shitless because they are going to take the early brunt of global warming. The Chinese Communists are trying desparately to stay in power by giving their citizens the physical trappings of western civilization. The Africans are just trying to stay alive from day to day. The South Americans don't have the political skills to get their act together. The Americans don't want to take responsiblity for their own actions and their leadership is doing everything it can to consolidate its personal power and wealth convinced that peak oil is going to solve the problem anyway through a sudden and permanent economic depression.

Ever wonder why the administration doesn't give a shit about the middle class. They plan on riding out the end of oil in well guarded gated communities as the rest of us suffer through a prolonged dark age. For them the future looks a lot more like some Central American banana republic than Ronald Regan's city on a hill. Not surprising actually since Bush and Cheney and the guys they run with are upper class oil men who lack the vision to imagine the world without light crude.

God, I am depressing myself this morning. The truth is I am not so pessamistic. The world will survive. Humans will probably survive too. The ride to the future will be bumpy, but so was the past. Somebody up thread was "praying" for a pandemic as being our only hope for the future. Thinning the herd he called it. Pathetic. Maximizing personal wealth, health and freedom has always lowered reproduction. People secure in their own future just don't have many children. Look to Japan as an example. Its population is declining. It would be the same in Western Europe. It would be the same here in the US if we didn't have so much immigration from uncertain and poverty ridden Mexico and Central America. Times of uncertainty and poverty always result in high reproductive rates. Modern medicine has just allowed more folks to survive. There is no reason to believe that a pandemic would be more than a temporary respite.

"Get rid of the nitwit in the White House who doesn't think ...."

Excuse me? We had a national election 17 months ago. President Bush won. The Constitution says he serves a four-year term.

Kevin Drum is talking like a crazy person.

WARNING: odd tangent Notion.

I just finished reading Peter Heather's "Fall of Rome", which challenges the idea that Rome fell because Romans became lazy and rich and Christian, losing their patriotic pagan ferocity. The conventional interpretation is that the Goths and Vandals and Huns were somehow more vital than the Romans, who had lost something, somehow.

Heather shows that what actually happened was the Huns pushed the Goths inside Rome's borders at a time when (like most times) the Romans were struggling amongst themselves over who would be the guy controlling the revenue stream. So without anybody thinking about long term consequences, they let the Goths stay as an unassimilated people inside the empire. So they lost taxes and recruits from Goth land, then the Vandals and Goths and Alans, et al, took Gaul and Spain, losing more taxes, and finally the Vandals took North Africa -- and that was that: without all that revenue, Rome couldn't pay their armies, and pretty much evaporated.

But it wasn't that Rome collapsed from within, exactly. The Goths, etc., all wanted at first not to knock Rome over but to get in on all that wealth -- grazing on Rome's rich estates beat hell out of grazing on Eurasia's steppes. EVERYBODY took for granted, for several generations, that the engine and structure of all that wealth could stand what Alaric and Attila were doing to it.

I think global warming (and the distinct prospect of the Return of the Ice, as Harm de Bly has been arguing for decades: warmer oceans will kill the conveyor belt that keeps the polar ice on the poles) is like that, a kind of case study for how a republic is simply not equipped to handle a Really Big Problem Coming Very Slowly.

Until it actually costs somebody a LOT of money, I dunno where the political will is gonna come from to do much.

For all the scientific talk about 'consensus', etc., this is purely a political problem. I like the observation somebody made, that we know climate is an angry beast that has killed civilizations and species by the thousands -- and we're poking it with sharp sticks.

.

Wow. What an unpleasant group of commenters. Outa here.

If you're waiting for the Rapture, global warming doesn't matter.

Hybrids are swell. But instead of buying a $25,000 car, try slowing down to 60 or 65, inflating your tires to 38 lbs, and getting all of that crap out of the trunk. Should be good for 5 mpg. And all the money you save stays in the U.S.

Did tbroz actually say that this was a subject too important to politicize after trashing Gore and Hollywood liberals?

tbrosz,

Yep, that Alaskan oil might be worth a hell of a lot more in the future. So, let's burn it now to get to the mall.

Everytime there is a major disaster anywhere in the world such as in Pakistan and Indonesia the USA Military is there quickly and in a big way and usually has Australia with them. Where is Canada?

Posted by: rdw on January 29, 2006 at 12:03 PM

As I recall Canada was in the Gulf Coast states PDQ after Katrina - in some places quicker than US agencies. Where was Australia then? Maybe the geographic distance had something to do with it? Um, so does that mean that Canada's geographic distance to the Indian Ocean have something to do with Australia being more visible there?

For the record, Canada contributed significant financial resources to tsunami relief, and the Canadian Forces DART (Disaster Assistance Relief Team) was stationed in Sri Lanka for several months.

The invisibility of Canada in the USA has more to do with the American MSM's insularity that with Canada's lack of action.

In a world of chaos, I find it strangely comforting to see the trolls roll out on this thread to shout their same-old, miss-the-point arguments! *sigh* If it were a 5K race, the scientists would have lapped the conservatives, and the conservatives, thinking the conservatives were winning, would be snottily pointing out that the scientists were not dribbling the ball.

Two interconnected global crises are converging--global warming and peak oil. The consequences for humankind are grave. And, at least in the US, conservative political dogma is incapable of dealing with either. This is not a threat to humankind that will be solved by voluntary individual choice, a cynical attitude that government IS the problem, Christian dogma, military might and profit-based free markets.

Matthew Simmons--the conservative energy consultant who has been warning of peak oil for some time-- takes heart from history, from WW2. He observes that the allies were able to go from doormat to victors between 1939 and 1945 by extraordinary national efforts. He believes we could wean ourselves off oil (which would reduce carbon emissions) by a comparable effort.

Such an effort would involve, among other things...
1) respecting scientific thinking and not suppressing findings for political reasons
2) a four-year Manhattan project to develop sustainable, non-carbon-based energy sources;
3) a brazillion-dollar retrofitting of homes, businesses and factories to use sustainable energy
4) investment in transportation such as solar-run vehicles and incentives for bicyling and walking
5) a national values-based conversation about how to adapt our society to this radically altered environment. We need to agree on how to preserve what is most deeply satisfying to every one of us--our families, communities, our peaceful neighborhoods, our health, our liberties.

The US could lead the way for the rest of the world, if we chose. But the first problem is accepting that we are facing a threat. It took 9/11 to wake Americans up to the threat of fundamentalist extremism. What event that will make Americans "see" the environmental catastophe?

Imagine that you rewired the thermostat of your house so that the hotter it got, the more heat your furnace pumped out. This would be a positive feedback loop, where X increases Y increases X, etc, etc.

Measurements from Mauna Loa of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere have been steadily increasing for the past 50 years. But measurments over the last four years show that the increase is no longer steady; it is accelerating. A graph of the last four years would not show the straight line increase seen since the 50s, but a curve sloping upward.

In other words, since the 50s, CO2 has been driving global warming; now, global warming is driving CO2. The loop has been closed, positively.

The struggle for the future is behind us: we are PAST the tipping point. The upward slope of the CO2 curve is the first hill of the global thermal rollercoaster, and we're all gonna take the ride.

"This is not a threat to humankind that will be solved by voluntary individual choice, a cynical attitude that government IS the problem, Christian dogma, military might and profit-based free markets."

there isn't a single problem able to be solved with conservative/republican/fundamentalist dogma. Their dogma is exactly a result of their inability to comprehend and find solutions for modern problems that they hide in their fantasy reality of a mythical, nirvanaesk past. They are frightened people hunkering down in an imaginery world. Its why they are so violent to alternative ideas - such ideas expose and blow their house of cards to smitherines.

One thing to worry about it whether the neocons, in their extreme, no second thoughts manner, have a Plan to control global warming with -- you guessed it -- Nuclear Winter.

What a superb juxtaposition of posts - global warming and running out of oil.

Earth will heal herself with or - most probably - without us.

More power to her.

Has anyone here mentioned biodiesel as one alternative? I don't know much about it, but what I have read certainly sounded like it was at least worth taking a much more serious look.

contentious: "Quit the Quixotic attempts to block all Bush's court nominees ...."

It isn't the loss of abortion rights that has me worried about Alito-it is his support for the imperial presidency (rather than a strong federal government with checks & balances), support for states rights over national interests and for corporate interests over individual ones.

For example, Alito comes from a line of legal reasoning that says, eg, that the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to protect workers in unsafe workplaces or provide a social safety net. Unfortunately, global warming does not constrain itself to local jurisdictions. Environmental issues require a national and international response, not piecemeal local ones. For example, recent SCOTUS rulings on wetland preservation gave greater control to local developers. In the absence of the birds-eye view of the environment, eg, if my town decides to develop the banks of the Mississippi in certain ways, the towns downstream get more flooding every spring. If my state decides not to invest in sustainable energy, your state's efforts to reduce carbon emissions will be less effective.

I hate to think that the SCOTUS would start interpreting the Constitution so ideologically, ruling in ways that would shackle our ability to respond to environmental threats.

I don't know about nuclear winter, but the PNAC document does have a line about supporting research for biological weapons that target race specific genes.

Any human being who is not inherently evil will decide not to support the neocons just on the basis of their desire for developing weapons for genocide of a specific race. It follows, therefore, that the people who support these guys are either ignorant or indeed inherently evil.

Oh, and congrats to the geniuses who bitch and moan about blaming Bush for anything(because we all know that he's not responsible for anything bad ever), then turn around and blame it on Al Gore and some comments he made about Canada.

And you wingnuts wonder why we think you're all morons.

We haven't reached the tipping point; we've gone past it.

The issue isn't preventing widescale deforestation in the northern temperate zones, extinction of cold-water fish species, and the disappearance of the Gulf Stream causing severe weather changes among countries in and on the Atlantic in the next 20-40 years.

Those are going to happen. It's a done deal.

The only issue remaining is how bad it gets after that.

My prognosis? There will be a dramatic decrease in the human population starting in 30 years, due to extreme weather, loss of growing lands and season, and the inevitable socio-economic-political reactions thereto. I have no idea what effect any of the current geopolitical upheavals will have on that - but I suspect it'll be along the lines of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic; i.e., trivial in the greater scheme of things.

From 2050-2100 things will be very bad. A lot of coastlines, with their huge metropoli, will have been lost. People will frantically relocate inland, the need for cities conflicting with the need to preserve arable land for agricultural purposes. New diseases, caused by the release of microbes previously frozen or inert or isolated, will appear in multiple waves as the released microbes mutate. Oil-based products (plastics, food, medical equipment) will vanish or become hugely expensive, leading to further dislocations in food production, storage, and distribution. And so on.

After 2100, things will settle down because there just won't be all that many humans, and human cities, left. I'm not sure which countries will emerge the least unscathed; hell, by 2100 I'm not sure which countries will still be around. (I wouldn't be surprised, for example, if the US sundered into three or four superstates, fighting over still-viable agricultural terrority.)

I'm so glad I don't have kids. And I'm kind of glad my health isn't so great; I'm not likely to be around when the serious shit hits the fan.

Something else to consider is, while not cutting out driving cars altogether, move closer to the urban areas where many people work, so you're cutting way back on commuting time each day and maybe using more public transportation.

Martin Richard
The struggle for the future is behind us: we are PAST the tipping point. The upward slope of the CO2 curve is the first hill of the global thermal rollercoaster, and we're all gonna take the ride.

I agree, and now I'm just trying to figure out how to make money off of it. I'm thinking coastal property in mid-Florida.

We all believe in evolution here, right? Let's just hope the ensuing natural catastrophes will kill off the stupid people so we can do some eugenics on a global scale. I'm building an underground shelter, and women will be invited to stay based on their "br-r-r-eeeeding p-r-r-r-oclivity."

Personally, I am also thinking of starting a religious cult where God has ordered us to build a spaceship and establish a colony on Mars. think about it. The Mormons could easily afford to go to Mars, and it's not that much different from Utah.

The invisibility of Canada in the USA has more to do with the American MSM's insularity that with Canada's lack of action.

No doubt the MSM did not focus on Canada in Indonesia but there were summaries of the ships in the region and Canada was not represented. The Canadian people are as generous an