You animal lovers, care more for polar bears than human beings!

Carbon dioxide is LIFE! And Al and I are Pro-Life!

My friend Ryan's dad is a famous polar zoologist. Several years ago, I asked Ryan what his dad thought about "the whole global warming thing."

"Well, my dad's an optimist about global warming," Ryan said.

I breathed an inward sigh of relief.

"He's not nearly as dark as a lot of his colleagues."

First: Can anybody name a polar zoologist who, by any objective measure, is 'famous'?

Secondly: How exactly is a polar zoologist, regardless of his fame, qualified to comment on climate science? After all, I wouldn't turn to a climate scientist to held me understand a polar bear. The REAL climate scientists are deeply uncertain, which is why the blogger has to go outside the field of real climate science to find a scare quote.

Kevin D., come clean now. You obviously recruit ringers to make inane comments and generate traffic here. How much do you pay them? I'd like to know so I can underbid them... :-)

shorter American Hawk:

ee-ee-ee oo-oo-oo

So suppose global warming sunk your island.

Could that make you mad enough to become a terrorist?

If so... what country would you blame?

Global warming relative to what?

New Orleans is doomed anyway for other reasons. Tens of millions die of AIDs, another million or so each year to genocide, 10% of Mexico's population has moved up here because of disfunional goverment policies, 100,000 from a tsunami, Los Angeles is becoming unlivable, and China still as 25% of its population doing substinance farming.

Global warming, peak oil, resource constraints, mass migration, mass starvation are all happening at the same time for a reason.

Anyone notice this "deeply uncertain" phrase coming up alot from the "it ain't happening/no big deal" crowd? Me thinks it should more accurate be called "shallowly uncertain".

Thanks for the link, Kevin!

AH, Ryan's dad is Dr. James McCarthy of Harvard University. Dr. M. is the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography, the Director of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, and the Head Tutor for undergraduate students studying Environmental Science and Public Policy at Harvard University. He also co-chaired Working Group II (WG II) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for several years. He has testified before the U.S. Senate on climate change issues.

He's also the guy sounding the alarm about all those drowning polar bears.

He's a real expert.

koreyel,
That's easy - China & India. The countries rapidly developing with limited/no controls on pollution. Just like what was agreed to in Kyoto by all the evil polluters...

American Hawk wrote: The REAL climate scientists are deeply uncertain

You are a liar.

Matt,

Curious, what is the Democratic solution to these problema? I only see 'head-in-the-sand from the right.

buffpilot: That's easy - China & India. The countries rapidly developing with limited/no controls on pollution.

The USA with 5% of the Earth's human population produces 25% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, is still the leading producer of GHG emissions, and our emissions are still increasing every year. China, with far more people, will not equal the USA's annual GHG emissions for another 15 years. And historically, the USA is by far the largest cumulative emitter of GHG pollution, no other country comes anywhere close.

You are just another ignorant right-wing idiot regurgitating the scripted, programmed drivel that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News spoon-feed you.

No, Lindsay Beyerstein is the liar. All the real climate scientists work for reputable institutions like AEI and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, not some liberal moonbat breeding ground like Harvard.

The REAL climate scientists are deeply uncertain, which is why the blogger has to go outside the field of real climate science to find a scare quote.

I'm not sure how AH is defining "deeply uncertain," but it appears that no climatologists are disputing global warming and its link to greenhouse gases, at least not in the 928 peer reviewed papers published on the subject between 1993 and 2003:

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

You liberal conspiracy theory moonbat tinfoil hat smelly hippy tree huggers are always complaining about how the billions of dollars of profit for oil companies dominate our political agenda.

Yet you neglect these scientific "organizations" of climatologists, who are only interested in pursuing their academic tenure and perks and public funding for their "research" - who fearmonger about this "global warming" so they can continue to live off of the taxpayer, and moralize about how driving SUV's is evil.

Americans don't like being told they're bad. In fact, they're good. So good that 10 million Mexicans broke the law and risk their lives to BECOME Americans. Show me any other country in the world that people everywhere else are willing to break the law and risk their lives to get into. If they only knew about the infiltration of our higher education by these "scientists" and academics, I'm sure they'd change their minds. In fact, that's probably the reason why France and Germany's population growth is so slow, because of their well-known infiltration by the special interest whack-job enviro nazis.

Global warming, peak oil, resource constraints, mass migration, mass starvation are all happening at the same time for a reason.

No more Seinfeld?

SA,
Haven't watched FOX (or any of the other MSM news sources in years). Rush is just another name - my commute is under 15 minutes so listen to NPR in he morning and music in the evening. Very long time lurker (rarely post) on Kevin's board and like the reasonable discussions (for the most part-BDS gets old at times).

I disliked the Kyoto treaty for the obvious reason that is was designed to hamper/cripple the US with little reasonable expectation of a payoff by reducing Global Warming. I know of no large country which did sign the treaty to meet its obligations - but I would appreciate an update if you know of any.

But even conceding that Global Warming is occurring what do you seriously plan to do that would, and have the Democratic nomination run on, fix the problem? I only see three possible energy sources out there to meet the growing demand of the modern and modernizing world - coal, oil, and nuclear. Solar/Wind/biomass won't make up the difference, and I've had enough of the current group in government not to want to vote for someone who wants to tell me what to do because they 'know better.'

Famous scientists are considered famous or well known when other scientists in other fields know who they are...not if some person walking down the street knows who they are. How many people would know who Dawkins, Diamond and so forth were if these folks hadn't published in popular rags? And how many would recongize them in the street?

And what is there about a zoologist that disqualifies him/her from knowing anything about climate? Climate impacts their work every day. Many ecologists start out as zoologists. Climate science is studied from many angles, not just from the angle of atmospheric science.

A few years ago my sister made me a T-shirt. On the front was a map of the US, with water covering California, Florida and the coastal US. Minnesota was marked by a palm tree.

On the back it read, "Global Warming--bad for the earth, great for Minnesota."

Black humor, it was.

It is terribly frustrating, for those of us who are convinced that global warming is real,that as individuals we are powerless to change anything. Global warming is a problem that demands collective action and leadership, and our late-stage democracy doesn't seem to be able to muster the will.

So I'm thinking the Democrats should reframe the problem: we need to convince the Christian right that global warming causes abortions, homosexuality and teen promiscuity.

I disliked the Kyoto treaty for the obvious reason that is was designed to hamper/cripple the US with little reasonable expectation of a payoff by reducing Global Warming.

The Kyoto Protocols were supposed to be the first, baby steps, of global cooperation on GW. Not the end-all and be-all of what we needed to do. If we couldn't do even that little bit, well, maybe civilization isn't supposed to last. Maybe, in the great scheme of things life for humans is supposed to be solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.

Well, my father is a famous Atmospheric Scientist (he really is), and he thinks we passed the tipping point in 2000. November of 2000 to be precise.

He met Al Gore at a national conference on weather modification in the mid-80's, and says he's never been so impressed with a man in all his life. He also came away from that meeting temporarily encouraged about the quality of America's politicians. A feeling since faded, of course.
--
HRlaughed

In the middle of this food fight I need to ask a simple question.

So what?

Hear me out for a minute. I live in MN and care about the environment so I don't want to be skeptical but how will global warming affect me and mine?

I won't get flooded. Hurricanes can't reach me. What specifically will be worse for me when global warming occurs?

Show me any other country in the world that people everywhere else are willing to break the law and risk their lives to get into.

That'll be kind of hard because you won't find any other countries in the world that share as long a border as the U.S. and Mexico and have as dramatic a disparity in economic quality of life. But good job using the "Repug's 101 Posting Guide for Jr. Trolls:" you combined a red herring bait and switch with what can only be generously termed a straw man fallacy.

But how about debating the issue on its merits? Just this once?

My dad just thinks that global warming is going to kill off all the indigenous peoples and most of the wildlife in the arctic.

If so, why all the fuss about drilling in Alaska?

Carbon dioxide is pro-plant.

Tripp, if the climate in MN becomes more like that of Kansas, you can expect some fairly significant ecological impacts to occur. Whether or not you can insulate yourself from that or if you care one way or the other is another question. Given how the world is so interconnected and that the current U.S. way of life draws on resources from all over the globe, changes elsewhere will have an effect on you.

AH,

If you want to know how climate change will affect polar life, you should talk to experienced polar zoologists and botanists that are respected by their peers.

Climate scientists have models that predict sea ice, snow cover, seasonal temperatures, etc. but they have no clue how adaptable different organisms are in the face of those changes.

What specifically will be worse for me when global warming occurs?

all those people who now live in NYC, LA, south FL, etc. are going to move to MN. oh, and MN's climate will be a lot warmer. and the great lakes will be a little bigger.

Show me any other country in the world that people everywhere else are willing to break the law and risk their lives to get into.

just about any country in Europe.

David W,

I appreciate the answer. I can understand ecological changes that, in general, have the weather shifting north, affecting plants and animals.

I don't like that but it is also not armageddon.

What specifically will be worse for me when global warming occurs?

The thought of Minnesota becoming like Alabama doesn't bother you?

(premptive note: previous post was sarcasm)

Maybe, in the great scheme of things life for humans is supposed to be solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.

This is has long been a core conservative belief.

Somehow American consevatives have translated this from a description to a prescription and are doing everything that they can to make it so.

That sentence describes the majority of Conservative American politians, as well.

"... and the great lakes will be a little bigger."

I'm not sure where you got that, but this is what I've generally understood to be the effect of global warming on the water levels of the Great Lakes:

Given the heavy pressure from development on the hundreds of miles of delicate lakeshore and ecosystems, the Great Lakes region is particularly susceptible to the effects of rapid global warming. According to the scenarios used in the National Assessment, scientists expect average temperatures in the Upper Great Lakes region to warm by 2 to 4°C, while precipitation could increase by 25 % by the end of the 21st century. Despite this significant increase in precipitation, lake water levels are expected to fall by 1.5 to 8 feet by 2100 because of the higher temperatures, with serious implications for ecosystems and the economy. ...

More at:

http://www.climatehotmap.org/impacts/greatlakes.html

buffpilot: "But even conceding that Global Warming is occurring what do you seriously plan to do that would, and have the Democratic nomination run on, fix the problem? I only see three possible energy sources out there to meet the growing demand of the modern and modernizing world - coal, oil, and nuclear.

Peak oil guarantees that we need to find substitutes for oil. Nuclear is part of the solution, but remains a long term problem. Would we really want every country in the world to have nuclear power as their primary energy source? Coal, aka carbon, isn't a solution at all.

The thing that opponents of Kyoto and those who deny global warming fail to comprehend is that one way or another, the structure of our current economy is doomed. It isn't just a matter of substituting non-carbon fuel B for carbon-based A. We cannot sustain what we have been doing. Some things that can't be sustained are long transportation lines for food from vast corporate farms, long commutes to work, weekly business trips by airplane & suburban developments of macmansions that are miles from shopping centers.

Any solution involves 1) finding alternate sustainable energy sources; 2) reducing the size of the human population; 3) replacing forests; 4) restructuring how we do business; 5) rebuilding the human environment to reduce energy consumption.

Competent national leadership could provide incentives to develop alternate fuels, plant forests, rebuild cities with high density housing & walkable cities. We could cap the size of the US population and encourage other nations to substitute birth control for the more dreadful forms of population control: genocide, war, famine, disease and drought.

What specifically will be worse for me when global warming occurs?

A lot of U.S. farmland could be adversely affected; whether that's just a question of food prices doing what gas prices are currently doing, or something more severe is hard to gauge.

Just "kill off all the indigenous peoples?"

Kinda like Katrina took care of the indigenous peoples of the 9th Ward? How convenient!

I can understand ecological changes that, in general, have the weather shifting north, affecting plants and animals. I don't like that but it is also not armageddon.

Actually, depending on the rate of change, for a large percentage of life on Earth it may well be. Too many plants and animals will not be able to shift to new habitat with climate change because they are trapped in what are essentially biological islands.

No doubt life in some shape will survive. How much this shape suits us is another question.

Tripp, I can't help but feel you're moving the goalposts a bit here. Global warming may not be Armegeddon, but it will affect everyone and to think that those of us at the top of the global economic food chain won't have our way of life affected in very significant ways is to miss the obvious.

snicker-snack,

The thought of Minnesota becoming like Alabama doesn't bother you?

Weeeellll, they have some pretty good bass fishing but I'd hate to give up the walleyes. On the other hand it would be a good excuse for a road trip to Canada!

Tripp. "What specifically will be worse for me when global warming occurs?"

No more hockey?

10 million Mexicans broke the law and risk their lives to BECOME Americans. Show me any other country in the world that people everywhere else are willing to break the law and risk their lives to get into.

Canada.

What do I win? Will you explain why this has anything to do with the topic at hand?

koreyel
If so... what country would you blame?

You would blame god, and then sacrifice all of your virgins.

What specifically will be worse for me when global warming occurs?

A backup of Conservative Politicians here on Earth, due to hell freezing over, and no other place to put them.

Or maybe that's already started happening. . .

I don't think I'm moving goal posts, but maybe I am.

I'm seriously trying to understand how global warming will affect me. My understanding is that the actual warming may be fairly mild (5 degrees Farenheit or so) but that is enough to have global implications.

I'm seriously trying to understand how global warming will affect me. My understanding is that the actual warming may be fairly mild (5 degrees Farenheit or so) but that is enough to have global implications.

In many areas of the globe the haves and the have-nots would trade places. If your previously climatologically blessed region is now a desert or flooded, you're going to come up with whatever rationale you need (religion, past slight in previous century, etc.) to go invade and take what you need from whoever is now sitting pretty. In short, lots more human conflict.

Look everyone...

The denial trolls who appear on this thread are dinosaurs. Soon enough they will evolve.
Why? Because the republican party (and its trolls) simply has to evolve.
Else it will lose every election from now until 2200.

Global warming is here.
Global warming is real.
And Global warming is going to have to be attended to.

So what am I getting at?
Just this:

What will the republicans evolve into next?

Here is my answer:

The republicans will lose the presidency in 2008.
This will be in large part because of their reluctance to admit to Global warming.

After 2008 they will evolve their stance and admit to the truth of Global warming.
BUT... as usual, they will do everything possible to stall solutions.

Just like they did on Civil Rights issues.
Just like they did on the Smoking and Lung Cancer issue.
Just like they did on the Ozone Hole issue.
Just like they've done on Consumer Protection issues.

That's where the next fight is at.
That's the high ground the trolls are heading to next. Trust me. Even as we debate today the republicans are morphing into new warty troll bodies. They are entering their "accept" but "obfuscate" stage.

Soon enough American Hawk, et al. will be admitting to Global warming as if they always believed it was so.

Soon enough American Hawk, et. al. will be working hard to undermine Global warmings solutions with as much fervor as they deny today's Global warming reality.

That's the future of the republican party.
It is also the past of the republican party.

Republicans are humanity's weak leg... and like it or not, you (liberals and democrats)are going to have drag that gangerous leg into a better future.

We've seen it so many times before.

So here is my question:

Will you be ready for these cripplers on the next go around?

Off the top of my head Tripp, if it helps think of that five degrees not as a weather sort of phenomenon, but as something permanent. Then consider how that would affect things like monsoon cycles in India, or here in the U.S. how it would impact summer precipitation. In Minnesota, global warming will likely lower overall agricultural productivity, requiring a change from a corn-soybean rotation to wheat and sorghum. River level would fall, pretty much making the Mississippi useless for barge traffic for much of the year, and overall water supplies would be impacted in a place where it's been just taken for granted that the water will always be there.

All the real climate scientists work for reputable institutions like AEI and the Competitive Enterprise Institute

Is this guy for real? I thought someone was parodying American Hawk when I read this.

Dude, what is the money spent on at the Competitive Enterprise Institute? What do they do all day? Look at those commercials they did recently. Is that money spent on research? No. That is money spent on propaganda. The truth is that what people do all day at these places is mostly figuring out how to play the public.

What do people do all day with money at Harvard? They do peer reviewed research. There might be one person on staff to write press releases.

I mean come on. Check out this recent WaPo article dealing with these CEI guys. Do they sound like serious scientists to you?:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

Whoops, just saw this: Posted by: American Hawk's stand-in on May 31, 2006

(Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.)

PT in MN,

Thanks for the reply. I see us already doing (1) - but probably not enough in that direction. (2-5) could only be done at the point of a gun. Specifically - how do you reduce the human pop without either killing people (traditional method) or doing the 1 baby-China route? Reforestation could occur, maybe with just incentives to buy peoples land. But how do you rebuild the human environment and restructure how we do business without coercive force?

My biggest fear for the future is for the US to drift to a government for and by the "elite" who have inherited wealth, go to the 'right' colleges, and 'know what's good for us'. A lot of old Europe looks like this, very little social mobility. I do not see any political system that creates wealth and freedom for everyone better than ours (American). So my bet is we will muddle through and adept faster than the rest of the world (if you think global warming will be bad here, imagine a world without the support of US economic and farming power).

Worrying about global warming is so 20th Century. What we all need to focus on is stopping global tectonic plate movement.

Don't you realize that if left unchecked, 100,000 years from now San Francisco will be where Seattle is today. And unlike global warming, which may or may not be happened and may or may not be effected by human activity, global tectonic plate movement is a proven scientific fact.

Why worry about climate, which we humans can adapt to when the very ground beneath our feet is moving?

Seriously, as a Minnesotan, I also think about this. We start with a bitter climate and plenty of water. What will change?

--I already miss blizzards and snow days. I don't miss the -25F days.

--They predict that our forests will migrate north. The pines won't be here, the maples will be gone as well. Wildlife will be affected.

--We'll have more pollens in Spring, and mosquito season will be longer.

--I worry that the water levels will fall. Fish populations may be decimated.

--We'll be hotter and more humid in summer.

--I'm disturbed by the possibility of more bugs, snakes viruses and other ickies that have been kept out by our frosty weather. We haven't had rattlers or black widow spiders. Are you old enough to remember when the conventional wisdom believed that Dutch Elm disease wouldn't hit Minnesota because of the cold?

--I don't want any more people with their weird conservative notions moving here from Texas. Population growth might be good for my housing values but is devastating the landscape. You've seen those pictures of the McMansions in our northern pine forests?

I agree with you that much of what is predicted for Minnesota is benign, compared to the rest of the earth--those densely populated low-lying areas and areas that are water dependent--but we'll be subject to secondary effects that will affect our quality of life. Plus--I have assumed that we continue to have enough water (thank you, Lake Superior). But the western part of the state could become a desert.

My understanding is that the actual warming may be fairly mild (5 degrees Farenheit or so) but that is enough to have global implications.
Posted by: Tripp on May 31, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Picture 6 billion people trying to survive with enough farmland to feed only 1 billion. Picture those hungry 5 billion, armed with assault rifles and nuclear/chemical/biological weapons.

Wonder what the implications are for you?

I agree with you that much of what is predicted for Minnesota is benign, compared to the rest of the earth--

So then... how high do you think the wall should be to keep out the "rest of the earth"?

What specifically will be worse for me when global warming occurs?

Maybe not so much for you, if you don't live along the coast or own a ski resort -- and have some valuable skills. But, the full impact won't be known for a few thousand years when a new "equilibrium" will be reached.

The worst case scenario is probably some sort of runaway greenhouse. Rapid climate variations during transition period - affecting agriculture, fisheries, etc. Eventual extreme summer continental temperatures in NAM and Eurasia (130-140 F average), Eventual disappearance of all permanent ice, end of current thermohaline circulation, broad oceanic annoxia, highly energetic storms (until polar ice disappears), 98% extinction rate. The best placed to be would probably a subtropical volcanic island strongly moderated by ocean temperatures. Islands were probably refugia for most of the species that survived previous runaway greenhouses (most notably the P/T boundary event). People would survive across broad areas, but life will be very tough in some regions (short growing seasons, unpredictable water supplies).

Why worry about climate, which we humans can adapt to when the very ground beneath our feet is moving?

Because the climate is changing at a rate that is a few orders of magnitude faster than the rate of geologic change. Considering how the Earth's climate has changed in the past over as little as 1000 years, the prospect of global warming is something to take seriously.

What specifically will be worse for me when global warming occurs?

The IPCC's current consensus on Global Warming is for an increase between 1.3-4.5C over the coming century. (Recent studies on feedback mechanisms suggest that the higher end -- and higher still -- of forecasts are more likely true. James Hansen -- the NASA scientist in the news -- has noted that the last time that global temps were 3C warmer that seas were 25m (~100 ft.) higher.

So, long story short, the displacement of around 60 million people in this country alone. That won't be good.

Global warming will lead to worse droughts -- warmer air holds more moisture before the sky lets go. So, more days when it doesn't rain. More days, ironically, when it rains a lot. Agriculture will be disrupted.

Long story short: less food. That won't be good.

Global warming has displaced the northern ajet stream, pushing it further north. The land south of the jet stream usually turns arid, and often becomes desert. That won't be good.

Tropical diseases will move in to temperate zones. That won't be good.

Insect pests from the tropics will move in. That won't be good.

So, less land, less food. More desert and disease.

Of course, that's just if warming stays in the 3C-4.5C range. If the new studies about feedbacks turn out to be substantive and warming goes north of the current models, into the 6C-8C range, things will just go berserkers.

BTW, statistical confidence on the 1.5C-4.5C range is 95%. That puts 3C and higher in the neighborhood of 50% confidence.

Flip a coin.

Heads, in Minnesota, you're merely disrupted with onerous shortages. Along low lying areas near the sea, human habitation disappears as the sea moves in. In the tropics and subtropics, the general breakdown of society is pretty much assured.

Tails, civilization world wide is set back hundreds of years with a mass die off of humans. And deserts make temperate zones uninhabitable. Etc Etc.

North Atlantic current shuts down = Europe in ice age.

Much of U.S. flooded = collapse of markets and economy = Greater Depression.

We're all fucked.

Clearly the planet's population needs to be brought down to about 1 billion and with the largest percentage reductions to be performed in the United States since it produces the most CO2. I propose that it be illegal to have a child in the United States until the population in the US falls to about 25 million, then institute population controls that allow a stable US population. This policy conducted world-wide should solve all of our problems.

Admit it -- Gore is like the smarty-pants in class that always threw off the curve. Fuck him!

Tripp>I'm seriously trying to understand how global warming will affect me. My understanding is that the actual warming may be fairly mild (5 degrees Farenheit or so) but that is enough to have global implications.

The current range of probable temperature shift by 2100 I think is 1.5 to 6 degrees celcius. An average global temperature shift has a completely different meaning than a local change of that much. It's uneven, for one thing (poles and continent interiors see more change), ocean currents change, and ecosystems such as forests and fisheries do not have time to shift north, even if they have a path to do so.

An example: I live in BC, Canada. The place is larger than any two US states. A large chunk of our forest base is dying from pine beetle infestation, climate related, and nobody even knows yet whether another kind of forest will grow back (at all) in its place given the shift. You might check what your house is made of. Our fisheries are in a similar state, largely because a 1 or 2c shift in water temperature is enough to kill a salmon run.

But that's just now. The top range projection is a 6c shift, and there is a small chance (several percent to my memory) of an even larger shift. To get a good idea of how the planet "adjusts" - or rather fails to - to a system shock of that magnitude in only a few thousand years, never mind 100, read about the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

Rarely, climate models have projected 11c spikes due to feedback effects being released (permafrost/bog melting, or deep see methane hydrates, etc). That would cause something like the Permian-Triassic extinction event, otherwise known as "the great dying", the largest extinction event in the planet's history.

I'm not saying that one is at all likely. I'm just trying to put into perspective what a 6c to 11c means globally. You just can't model it in your head as simply warmer temperatures.

A change of 6 degrees or more in global average, the top of of what is possible, we would not be likely to survive as a society. It would be armageddon, as you said.

Ooh a new slogan for the pugs-

Vote Republican. In a million years no one will know the difference.

buffpilot: I disliked the Kyoto treaty for the obvious reason that is was designed to hamper/cripple the US ...

Once again you are regurgitating right-wing crap.

buffpilot: My biggest fear for the future is for the US to drift to a government for and by the "elite" who have inherited wealth, go to the 'right' colleges, and 'know what's good for us'.

In other words your biggest fear is the Bush administration.

Instead climate skeptics are forced to make arguments like this one by Holman W. Jenkins Jr., that appeared in today’s Wall Street Journal:

In a million years, the time it takes the earth to sneeze, the planet will likely be shorn of any conspicuous sign we were ever here, let alone careless with our CO2, dioxins, etc. Talk about an inconvenient truth.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/31/gore-on-climate-skeptics/

Jeffrey Davis:

The Kyoto Protocols were supposed to be the first, baby steps, of global cooperation on GW. Not the end-all and be-all of what we needed to do. If we couldn't do even that little bit, well, maybe civilization isn't supposed to last.

If the Kyoto Protocol would have only a modest impact on global warming (and I agree with you that it would), then failing to ratify and follow it isn't a big deal.

In 5 billion years after the sun explodes in a supernova no one will ever be able to tell that earth existed, let alone had variable atmospheric CO2.

If the Kyoto Protocol would have only a modest impact on global warming (and I agree with you that it would), then failing to ratify and follow it isn't a big deal.

Apparently you think that when large scale steps are needed that it's going to be easier to reach a consensus.

Worst case scenario?

Libs and green commies and hippies will be forced to walk, I'll run over more of them in my H2, and my saturdays will be spent hosing them off my front bumper.

buffpilot: But even conceding that Global Warming is occurring what do you seriously plan to do that would, and have the Democratic nomination run on, fix the problem?

Start with this:

Winning the Oil Endgame offers a coherent strategy for ending oil dependence, starting with the United States but applicable worldwide. There are many analyses of the oil problem. This synthesis is the first roadmap of the oil solution—one led by business for profit, not dictated by government for reasons of ideology. This roadmap is independent, peer-reviewed, written for business and military leaders, and co-funded by the Pentagon. It combines innovative technologies and new business models with uncommon public policies: market-oriented without taxes, innovation-driven without mandates, not dependent on major (if any) national legislation, and designed to support, not distort, business logic.

Two centuries ago, the first industrial revolution made people a hundred times more productive, harnessed fossil energy for transport and production, and nurtured the young U.S. economy. Then, over the past 145 years, the Age of Oil brought unprecedented mobility, globe-spanning military power, and amazing synthetic products.

But at what cost? Oil, which created the sinews of our strength, is now becoming an even greater source of weakness: its volatile price erodes prosperity; its vulnerabilities undermine security; its emissions destabilize climate. Moreover the quest to attain oil creates dangerous new rivalries and tarnishes America's moral standing. All these costs are rising. And their root causes—most of all, inefficient light trucks and cars—also threaten the competitiveness of U.S. automaking and other key industrial sectors.

The cornerstone of the next industrial revolution is therefore winning the Oil Endgame. And surprisingly, it will cost less to displace all of the oil that the United States now uses than it will cost to buy that oil. Oil's current market price leaves out its true costs to the economy, national security, and the environment. But even without including these now "externalized" costs, it would still be profitable to displace oil completely over the next few decades. In fact, by 2025, the annual economic benefit of that displacement would be $130 billion gross (or $70 billion net of the displacement's costs). To achieve this does not require a revolution, but merely consolidating and accelerating trends already in place: the amount of oil the economy uses for each dollar of GDP produced, and the fuel efficiency of light vehicles, would need only to improve about three-fifths as quickly as they did in response to previous oil shocks.

Saving half the oil America uses, and substituting cheaper alternatives for the other half, requires four integrated steps:

* Double the efficiency of using oil. The U.S. today wrings twice as much work from each barrel of oil as it did in 1975; with the latest proven efficiency technologies, it can double oil efficiency all over again. The investments needed to save each barrel of oil will cost only $12 (in 2000 $), less than half the officially forecast $26 price of that barrel in the world oil market. The most important enabling technology is ultralight vehicle design. Advanced composite or lightweight-steel materials can nearly double the efficiency of today's popular hybrid-electric cars and light trucks while improving safety and performance. The vehicle's total extra cost is repaid from fuel savings in about three years; the ultralighting is approximately free. Through emerging manufacturing techniques, such vehicles are becoming practical and profitable; the factories to produce them will also be cheaper and smaller.

* Apply creative business models and public policies to speed the profitable adoption of superefficient light vehicles, heavy trucks, and airplanes. Combined with more efficient buildings and factories, these efficient vehicles can cut the official forecast of oil use by 29% in 2025 and another 23% soon thereafter—52% in all. Enabled by a new industrial cluster focusing on lightweight materials, such as carbon-fiber composites, such advanced-technology vehicles can revitalize these three strategic sectors and create important new industries.

* Provide another one-fourth of U.S. oil needs by a major domestic biofuels industry. Recent advances in biotechnology and cellulose-to-ethanol conversion can double previous techniques' yield, yet cost less in both capital and energy. Replacing fossil-fuel hydrocarbons with plant-derived carbohydrates will strengthen rural America, boost net farm income by tens of billions of dollars a year, and create more than 750,000 new jobs. Convergence between the energy, chemical, and agricultural value chains will also let versatile new classes of biomaterials replace petrochemicals.

* Use well established, highly profitable efficiency techniques to save half the projected 2025 use of natural gas, making it again abundant and affordable, then substitute part of the saved gas for oil. If desired, the leftover saved natural gas could be used even more profitably and effectively by converting it to hydrogen, displacing most of the remaining oil use—and all of the oil use if modestly augmented by competitive renewable energy.

A change of 6 degrees or more in global average, the top of of what is possible, we would not be likely to survive as a society. It would be armageddon, as you said.

There are numerous kinds of natural or man-made disasters that could eliminate our ability to "survive as a society," from extreme warming to a massive meteor impact to the appearance of a virulent and deadly new infectious disease.

Responsible environmentalism involves making informed and rational evaluations of the risk of various different kinds of scenario, and cost-benefit analyses of different kinds of policy responses to those scenarios.

Bruce and others,

Thanks for the input.

Near as I can tell we are probably better off than most regarding global warming, and we are doing something about it, or at least trying to.

What I don't get is why the people most affected are doing less than we are. Is it a lack of organization?

Take, for example, New York city. Why aren't those people out in front on this?

A chart I saw last week showed Atlanta (Hotlanta) was the most affected by rising fuel costs. Why aren't those people squawking?

GOP: If the Kyoto Protocol would have only a modest impact on global warming (and I agree with you that it would), then failing to ratify and follow it isn't a big deal.

Rejecting the principle of internationally binding commitments to reduce CO2 emissions is a big deal.

Not that you care, since you a fake, phony, thoroughly dishonest, and willfully ignorant regurgitator of scripted, programmed Republican propaganda whose only real purpose in posting here is to impress yourself with your ability to waste people's time with bullshit.

Clearly the planet's population needs to be brought down to about 1 billion and with the largest percentage reductions to be performed in the United States since it produces the most CO2. I propose that it be illegal to have a child in the United States until the population in the US falls to about 25 million, then institute population controls that allow a stable US population. This policy conducted world-wide should solve all of our problems.

Posted by: Scientific Realist on May 31, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

So Mr. Realist when are you going to take one for the team and Mother Earth by killing yourself and your loved ones? Or as i suspect, you plan on being the one who gets to make this choice for others.

Jeffrey Davis,

Apparently you think that when large scale steps are needed that it's going to be easier to reach a consensus.

Easier than what? And when do you claim "large scale steps" will be needed, if they're not needed now?

Realist Scientist
Clearly the planet's population needs to be brought down to about 1 billion and with the largest percentage reductions to be performed in the United States...

OK, you first.

Rejecting the principle of internationally binding commitments to reduce CO2 emissions is a big deal.

It may or may not be, but rejecting Kyoto is not "rejecting the principle of internationally binding commitments to reduce CO2 emissions." It's rejecting a particular (and largely useless) international treaty.

Not that you care, since you a fake, phony,...

Here we go again. It only took you a single post to get to your trademark ad hominems this time. You are a moron, an idiot, a cretin, a fool, a liar, a scumbag, etc., etc.

So global warming is 95% assured. What the solution?

A breakdown in the global order, as mentioned, would require some quick actions by the US. Luckily we are insulated from the bulk of the worlds population. The answer would be to absorb Canada into the US (provinces become states) and seal off the southern border. Then to wait out the chaos.

The second solution, if we have time, according to PT in MN, would be to enforce mandatory world-wide 1-child-China solution to drop the population. (US pop is a drop in the bucket so the rest of the world is whom must be stopped). Stop industrialization in most of the world, going back to subsistence economies until the population drops enough. Force countries to reforest (Brazil comes to mind). In the US expect a level of government direction into our lives unprecedented in the history of the republic.

Ok, I’m being insane here. What do you expect to do that will stop global warming? It must be a global, not local-US only, (we are a drop in the bucket in the bigger picture over the timeframes involved), that everyone will sign up to. And maintain our freedoms and increase freedom globally. What’s the Democratic plan?

SA - that's a nice idea but will it stop global warming? China and India are industrializing at a rapid pace and they have 2+Billion people. What will get them onboard?

buffpilot ,

The Democratic solution, according to Gore, is a carbon tax.

Myself? I would like to see a wildlife federation take control of the arctic wild life and then sue the CO2 polluters. A suit based on the effects near the poles is much easier to prove.

Once the environmentalists get a couple of lawsuits under their belt then private interests will take a much more active interest in reducing co2 emissions.

Oddly, we could also see lawsuits from coastal developers along the Gulf. They could attach foreign earnings and sue local car companies.

This really has been the approach in the past to river pollution and air pollutions. The eastern states threatened o sue the midwestern states over acid rain, the Siera club has filed a number of suits as had the Wildlife federation, I believe.

Liability is a costly thing and the globe is increasingly instrumented so we know who the net polluters are.

What a lawsuit does is establish legal damages, and this helps set a base price in the carbon offset markets.

A carbon tax is OK, but as you know, my teory is that flat taxes lead to more crony capitalism, not less. You end up with large pivate interests shifting expenses to government to offset the tax, resulting in less eficiency, not more.

A base price in the carbon offset markets leads to rational planning for biofuels, and supplies financial incentive for its development.

Another examle of possible law suit would be the gulf fisheries, in part becase of global warming, but mostly due to nutrient pollution. Finding damages for Mississippi runoff leads to effots along the gulf to scrub the nutrients, and that is, essentially what biofuels are all about. So, a lawsit by gulf fisherman helps fuel a biofuels industry around New orleans.

Lawsuits assign damages and liabilities more accurately, and that one on one relationship yeilds the highest payoff for correction.

So much for tort reform!!

Stop industrialization in most of the world, going back to subsistence economies until the population drops enough. Force countries to reforest

Exactly how in the hell do you expect to do that without a Military/Industrial Complex to manufacture the weapons that would give an entity the power to enforce such a thing?

Tripp: Take, for example, New York city. Why aren't those people out in front on this?

You mean something like this?

"New York is the first state to propose a regulation that would adopt California's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulations."

But whether New York is or isn't "out in front," can you explain why that should affect the validity of the argument to take action about greenhouse gases?

GOP wrote: It only took you a single post to get to your trademark ad hominems this time.

It only took a single post for you to make it obvious that you are the same old coward Don P, now posting under a variety of pseudonyms and fake email addresses to try to hide your identity since everyone who has engaged in "discussion" with you in the past knows you to be a thoroughly ignorant and dishonest deliberate time-waster and slavish regurgitator of right-wing Republican propaganda and will have nothing to do with you any more.

You know nothing about global warming, nothing about climate science, and nothing about the Kyoto Protocol. You are deliberately and willfully ignorant. You are by far the most deeply corrupt and deeply dishonest person ever to post a comment on this site. All you are able to do is waste people's time with your ignorance and dishonesty and regurgitated, scripted, programmed right-wing talking points.

buffpilot: "Specifically - how do you reduce the human pop without either killing people (traditional method) or doing the 1 baby-China route?"

Actually, it is extremely easy to reduce the human population humanely--it just takes a couple of generations. If every couple restricted the number of their children to 2 (a few could have 3 or 4, a few might stop at one) population would be below replacement. Some people choose not to have children, some people can't have children.

But I think you are getting at the problem of providing incentives for people to limit the size of their populations, and that's a whole different can of worms. Within a given country it's easy. Governments can do a couple of things to reduce the economic incentives for having many children--encourage education and opportunities for women, provide health care to ensure that your precious children will survive, provide technology to do the hard work and old age insurance.

But the challenge is across borders. How can one nation encourage population restriction in another nation? Though it is painful to stand by and watch as humans kill one another, starve or die of disease, we haven't been moved to intervene in Darfur. We aren't doing too much to stop AIDS in Africa. But cruel indifference is only so-so productive. We talk about building walls to keep out people desperate to access our resources--a last gasp strategy! Meanwhile, in Brazil, people keep cutting down the rainforests to try to get a bit of land on which to grow food for their growing family. The rest of the world needs those rainforests. I don't have good proposals to deal with that. A strong military? One world government? A gigantic ad campaign?

Limiting the size of the human population is what must be done, and humans can do it humanely or global warming/disease/war will do it cruelly. If the nations of the world don't figure it out on their own, it will get very, very ugly.

OBF - my point. Its not really doable.

Matt sueing everyone in the US will not stop the problem. You will make a lot of lawyers rich, but do you think the Chinese or Indians will care?(Or anyone else for that matter?)

All the solutions seem to be focused on the US. Sorry, that won't solve the problem. We have only 300M of 6+Billion people on the planet. Even if we cut our oil dependancy in half today, it won't stop the rest of the world.

Easier than what?

The last time.

And when do you claim "large scale steps" will be needed, if they're not needed now?

Around 1850.

Jeffrey Davis,

The IPCC's current consensus on Global Warming is for an increase between 1.3-4.5C over the coming century. (Recent studies on feedback mechanisms suggest that the higher end -- and higher still -- of forecasts are more likely true. James Hansen -- the NASA scientist in the news -- has noted that the last time that global temps were 3C warmer that seas were 25m (~100 ft.) higher.

Er, the predicted global average sea level rise in the IPCC TAR is 110 to 770mm (IS92a prediction) and 90 to 880mm (SRES prediction). Thus, the worst-case end of the IPCC prediction is only about 3% of your "25m" nonsense above.

Jeffrey Davis,

The last time.

What last time? There was no "last time."

Around 1850.

Really? Did you just pull this date out of your ass, or do you have some serious scientific basis for it?

PT in MN,

"Limiting the size of the human population is what must be done, and humans can do it humanely or global warming/disease/war will do it cruelly. If the nations of the world don't figure it out on their own, it will get very, very ugly."

And I expect it to get very ugly since I see no country "going first". I'm glad we have the Pacific and Atlantic, and a robust military. We may need it...

Something to think about,As the polar cap melts somthing happens that nobody talks about Glaciers.Glaciers start forming as the earths temp rises.What does that mean .The worlds largest bulldozer crawling across the land.

buffpilot wrote: China and India are industrializing at a rapid pace and they have 2+Billion people. What will get them onboard?

There are options for those countries, which would not only reduce their present and future GHG emissions but benefit their economies and the well-being of their people:

Energy-Hungry Nations Also Most Wasteful
by Stephen Leahy
May 30, 2006
Inter Press Service

Excerpt:

China, India and Brazil could cut their rapidly rising energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by more than 25 percent using existing energy efficient technologies [...]

With a combined population of 2.6 billion people, economic growth rates nearing 10 percent per year and soaring energy use, China, India and Brazil are on track to become the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases.

China will overtake the United States as the leading source of climate-altering gases before 2020, said the three-nation report led by the World Bank and the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), and funded by the U.N. Foundation.

"Cutting energy waste is the cheapest, easiest, fastest way to solve many energy problems, improve the environment and enhance both energy security and economic development," said Robert Taylor, an energy specialist at the World Bank who led the study.

Without significant gains from energy efficiency efforts, these countries will more than double their energy use and greenhouse gas emissions within a single generation (by 2030) with major impacts on global energy markets and climate, Taylor said.

Experts estimate that cost-effective retrofits could reduce energy use today by at least 25 percent and advanced technologies could reduce their energy use growth projected through 2030 by at least 10 percent (and reduce projected carbon dioxide emissions growth by 16 percent), the report noted.

The last time.

What last time? There was no "last time."

The Kyoto Protocols fell apart.

Around 1850.

Really? Did you just pull this date out of your ass, or do you have some serious scientific basis for it?

The Industrial Revolution met the large scale burning of coal around then.

It only took a single post for you to make it obvious that [blah, blah, blah]

SecularAnimist, you are a moron, an idiot, a cretin, a fool, a liar, a scumbag, etc., etc.

buffpilot: And I expect it to get very ugly since I see no country "going first".

Europe and Japan.

Jeffrey Davis, be advised that Don P (posting today as "GOP") is only interested in wasting your time.

The Kyoto Protocols fell apart.

No they didn't.

The Industrial Revolution met the large scale burning of coal around then.

So what? How have you determined that this is the date that "large scale steps" were needed? And you're obviously lying about what you meant, anyway, because the statement of yours I questioned referred to "large scale steps" at some unspecified future date, not in the past.

SA,

Excellent info. Cutting China, Brazil, and India's carbon emmision to 50% of current (the article is cutting growth of the emmissions not reducing them) projected growth would help, but not stop Global Warming. (BTW what would be the increase from now?)

Why are these technologies not being indroduced when Oil is at $70+/barrel?

As for Europe and Japan going first, you may be right, but what are the total pops. of this group? And will Europe get overrun from the south? Japan seems to be pretty safe as an island.

Bottom line - I see no way to stop global warming if it happens, without force on a global scale.

"..do you think the Chinese or Indians will care?"

Property seizure. This applies to the USA, we have a trade imbalance which offers opportunity for seizure by fines.

"Specifically - how do you reduce the human pop without either killing people (traditional method) or doing the 1 baby-China route?"

Cram them into polluted cities. The mental health effects are such that this species is unable to have normal families. Zoos have noticed this kind of effect when they cram other species into crowded spaces.

The other thing that works, and is related, is to charge young people an enormous flat tax for mandated health insurance. Do this and young people are unable to afford children and they have a false sense of immortality.

The Kyoto Protocols fell apart.

You bet your bippie they didn't. They passed. Even though to enter into force, Kyoto needed the backing of nations responsible for at least 55% of 1990 emissions--and guess who was responsible for 25%? Us.

So despite the fact that we were throwing every block in the book and holding 25% of the world's emissions, Kyoto went into effect. That's not falling apart. That's just the opposite.

PTate in MN wrote: Actually, it is extremely easy to reduce the human population humanely--it just takes a couple of generations.

Actually, Kurt Vonnegut in his novel Galapagos envisioned that the human population of the Earth could be humanely reduced to near zero in a single generation, thanks to an easily communicable mutant virus that affected only humans, causing very mild, barely noticeable cold-like symptoms for 24 hours or so, while rendering the infected humans completely and irreversibly sterile.

In the novel, the virus spread round the world in a matter of weeks, leading to the extinction of the human species in a single generation -- except for the passengers and crew of a cruise ship that was ship-wrecked on a remote uninhabited island in the Galapagos chain where they were isolated from the virus. After a million years or so, the descendants of that surviving handful of humans had evolved into furry seal-like fish-eating creatures, with much smaller brains, and much happier than most humans are today. As the narrator of the novel (the ghost of Kilgore Trout) described their existence, they would "catch fish and eat and lay around on the beach all day, and when someone farts, everyone laughs and laughs."

This will scare the bejesus out of you.

WASHINGTON May 31, 2006 (AP)— Scientists have found what might have been the ideal ancient vacation hotspot with a 74-degree Fahrenheit average temperature, alligator ancestors and palm trees. It's smack in the middle of the Arctic.

First-of-its-kind core samples dug up from deep beneath the Arctic Ocean floor show that 55 million years ago an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, three new studies show.

The scientists say their findings are a glimpse backward into a much warmer-than-thought polar region heated by run-amok greenhouse gases that came about naturally.

Skeptics of man-made causes of global warming have nothing to rejoice over, however. The researchers say their studies appearing in Thursday's issue of Nature also offer a peek at just how bad conditions can get.

"It probably was (a tropical paradise) but the mosquitoes were probably the size of your head," said Yale geology professor Mark Pagani, a study co-author.

buffpilot: As for Europe and Japan going first, you may be right, but what are the total pops. of this group?

830M

Why are these technologies not being indroduced when Oil is at $70+/barrel?

A lot of the CO2 is produced by burning coal (side note: oil produces about 78% of the CO2 of coal per unit of energy, and natural gas about 56%).

The article also discusses reasons they're not adopted more. Again, there's much emphasis on the use of coal to generate electricity.

Matt wrote: "It probably was (a tropical paradise) but the mosquitoes were probably the size of your head," said Yale geology professor Mark Pagani, a study co-author.

Whereas present-day mosquitoes are the size of Don P's brain.

buffpilot:"The second solution, if we have time, according to PT in MN, would be to enforce mandatory world-wide 1-child-China solution to drop the population..."

Whoa, dude!!! You were the one who came up with the mandatory 1-child-China solution, not me!

"And I expect it to get very ugly since I see no country "going first". I'm glad we have the Pacific and Atlantic, and a robust military. We may need it...

Darwin is important in this as well. When some nations restrict their population and others don't, the nations with growing populations will begin to challenge the advantages of restricted population nations. China was able to implement a one-child policy only because the population was so large to begin with. Europe, the US and Japan have successfully reduced their population growth to below replacement, and the consequence is that the traditional populations are being replaced by people from the nations that haven't restricted their populations. France, that earthly paradise, is going to be Muslim in 100 years. The US will be Latino.

As for the military, it is easy to spin that scenario. It is ugly, but it is a possibility.

Finding alternative, sustainable fuels is our only hope, really. When economic development reaches a certain point, populations naturally begin to stablize and even shrink. So we need to encourage economic development based on non-carbon fuels, and we need non-carbon based fuels.

The US has been been living way, way beyond it's means for some time. I believe we could radically cut our carbon emissions without disturbing our standard of living. Would this prevent or ameliorate global warming? I don't know. I know that what we are doing now is not going to last and is making the problem worse.

"France, that earthly paradise, is going to be Muslim in 100 years"

Too late. The majority of practicing religionists in France are now Muslim, been that way for a number of years.

Easier than what? And when do you claim "large scale steps" will be needed, if they're not needed now?

There's a man interested in nothing so much as contentious chain-jerking. Reason has nothing to do with it.

It is soooo much easier to have a constructive, semi-intelligent discussion when clowns like Don P just do the right thing and go away.

>France, that earthly paradise, is going to be Muslim in 100 years.

Those projections for the EU are based on current average fertility rates, where the majority are first generation immigrants. In fact, as least in the Netherlands, fertility rates drop to the "native" level within a single generation (what's odd though, is that happens even without cultural assimilation). So EU countries can choose to avert that scenario at any time by limiting immigration. Anecdotes about "most children" being muslim tend to be focused on large cities, were immigrants traditionally congregate in any part of the world.

>The majority of practicing religionists in France are now [rationalist agnostics], been that way for a number of years.

It probably was (a tropical paradise) but the mosquitoes were probably the size of your head," said Yale geology professor Mark Pagani, a study co-author.

A simple publication search tells me that Pagani is an expert on CO2 reconstructions and marine paleoclimate. I see nothing about entomology and even less about large fossil culicidae.

buffpilot: "What do you expect to do that will stop global warming? It must be a global, not local-US only, (we are a drop in the bucket in the bigger picture over the timeframes involved), that everyone will sign up to. And maintain our freedoms and increase freedom globally. What’s the Democratic plan?"

You keep asking a very good question--what is the Democratic plan? I can only say what I would like, and I'm still learning. I'm definitely open to suggestion. For starters, I would like to see the US lead the way. The US, in particular, and the world in general need to reduce carbon emissions, fast. None of this 10% reduction in 25 years. If the US took true leadership, if we were serious about cutting our carbon emissions, others would follow our lead. By failing to demonstrate leadership on this issue, we are setting ourselves up as exploitative pigs. The challenge is to use this goal as a way of generating jobs and a strong economy.

For me, I would prefer an approach to global warming centered in values of surviving, equality, rule of law and individual rights. A lot of the issues that the federal government has worried about for the last 30 years would be pushed to the local & regional level. We need to strengthen communities and and economies at the local level. We need to figure out a tax policy that raises enough revenue to pay for the government we need (plus interest on debt)without deficit spending.

The federal government has to be large enough to provide world leadership but small enough to be flexible. One size solution will not fit all. The government can provide incentives for innovation, funding for scientific research, alternate fuels, & transition support for local communities. The government can discourage wasteful use of oil and seek to protect families and individuals from corporate exploitation. I would want to see an immigration policy that did not assume population growth.

We would continue to need a strong military. We would have to restructure or abandon the UN. Europe and Japan are our natural allies, and we need to rebuild our relationships with them.
Our foreign policy would involve applying pressure and incentives to other nations to restrict the size of their population.

One Democratic approach I would really favor is to not give the nomination to Hillary in 2008. Please!!

So those are some of the things that occur to me. Would these ameliorate global warming? We don't know. We do know that doing nothing isn't helping.

1. We don't know for sure what the effects of warming will be, but there is a high probability of very significant changes to our way of life.

2. People fight wars when they sense even a vague threat to a way of life.

3. All we are being asked to do is to ratchet down our hugely wasteful use of energy; We're not being asked to risk our lives or limbs.

4. Why are we being such selfish, stupid, schmucks?

Optimism-ha. Long before global warming occurs there will be World War III. It will consists of Europe, Africa, India, China, Russia, and Canada grouping together to attack the new right wing fascist country, the U.S. (all ready half-way there). Fascism, American style, will again be defeated because the right wing will make enemies of everyone but themselves and therefore drive away all the intelligent individuals, much as Hitler did and those individuals will invent weapons and systems that will reduce the global warming problem and destroy American fascism. Never-the-less in another 70 years ignorant right wingers will re-group in another country and the planet will have to go all through it again and again since, seemingly man never learns, er, I mean right wingers never learn. Anyway, I'm packed and ready, are you?

"Well, my father is a famous Atmospheric Scientist (he really is), and he thinks we passed the tipping point in 2000. November of 2000 to be precise."

FWIW, I tend to agree with your father. The US is doing little or nothing about the problem and I don't see this changing anytime soon even if the Dems were to regain some power. With the US doing nothing, it's impossible to believe - human nature being what it is - that the rest of the world will take up the slack. Key to the CO2 problem is that unlike many other pollutants such as fluorocarbons, it's extraordinarliy difficult to get REDUCTIONS in emissions as opposed to simply slowing the growth.

I believe the confirmation of global warming we are now seeing is at least in part due to the effects becoming far more noticeable. The evidence of acceleration in the magnitude of the effects is very worrying because it suggests we may be beginning to observe just how non-linear the climatic relationships are. I believe we are in for a bumpy ride over the next several decades.

This phenomenon has been described as the greenhouse effect because carbon acts like the glass in a greenhouse. Sunlight goes in and turns to heat, but the heat can't escape because the glass insulates the greenhouse.

Obviously we need to "open the windows" and let the heat out by increasing the size of the ozone holes.

So global warming is 95% assured. What the solution?

The ultimate solution is more energy, not less. More clean cheap energy, "too cheap to meter". Energy is the ultimate coin of the relam. with energy, we can irrigate deserts and live in icepacks and raise crops and do whatever we need to do.

Virginia Dutch...
4. Why are we being such selfish, stupid, schmucks?

Tragedy of the commons.

The ultimate solution is more energy, not less. More clean cheap energy, "too cheap to meter". Energy is the ultimate coin of the relam.

So let me know when Bush writes his signing statement on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

So let me know when Bush writes his signing statement on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

That made zero sense.

Red State Mike:

No, it was actually freakin' hysterical ...

And equisitely to the point :)

Bob

That made zero sense.

Same with your "ultimate solution".

So - where do we get this "clean, cheap energy, too cheap to meter"? hm? I hope you're not talking about nuclear. Because then we'll have to rehash that whole argument about how; 1. we don't have all that much uranium left, and 2. nuclear plants take a lot of energy to construct, and 3. we still have not solved the problem of how to safely store waste for 12,000 years. Unless you're now volunteering your back yard.

Red State Mike:

The only energy potentially "too cheap to meter" would be large-scale fusion reactors that would emit virtually nothing and use the deuterium and tritinum in seawater as fuel.

After about two generations' worth of recouping their investment costs, naturally.

And after they were, umm, invented.

Bob

tritinum = tritium

Of course, a full-blown breeder reactor crash program and its concomitant plutonium economy would prolly be ol' Red Mikey's wet dream :)

Burn the rocks, baby !

Bob

So - where do we get this "clean, cheap energy, too cheap to meter"? I hope you're not talking about nuclear.

Don't get stuck on stupid. I'm not talking tomorrow, I'm talking long term, in the same time frame that global warming will occur. Fusion, space-borne solar beamed down as microwaves, etc. The energy is out there for the taking in essentially limitless quantities. The hard part is the taking, but once we crack that nut...

Red Mikey:

Space-based solar farms beaming down the power in microwaves ...

And a *lotta* waterfowl fricasee for all the lovely residents who lived around the beam, yeah !

Just imagine ... roast pheasant falling from the sky into your back yard. Yum :)

Bob

Just to amplify, in the big scheme of civilizations, the oil burning period will have just been a brief blip, no matter how long it goes on. Unless we keep eternally riding brief blips of different fuels, or go back to the pre-abundant power days, we are going to have to hit one or more of the wide-open, limitless, dense power sources.

rmck1
And a *lotta* waterfowl fricasee for all the lovely residents who lived around the beam, yeah !

OK Mr. Wizard. How are we going to be powering the globe in 200+ years, when the fossil fuel's gone or we aren't using it due to carbon?

Red State Mike:

In a word:

Decentralized power sources and appropriate generation. Small scale wind, geothermal and solar primarily, with some biomass combustion and radically improved battery/fuel cell technology for transportation.

The trick is -- think small, not big. If we can say fuckit to The Grid in all its many insidious forms, we'll be okay.

If we allow megalithic corporations to make all our energy decisions for us and lock us in to questionable technologies of scale -- we might well wind up fucked.

Small-scale survival of the savviest.

Bob

Red State Mike: The ultimate solution is more energy, not less. More clean cheap energy, "too cheap to meter".

I'll settle for clean cost-effective energy. Not to mention that cost will always be relative. Or that an effectively infinite supple of fossil fuel at 1/100 the cost would solve the problem.

The hard part is the taking, but once we crack that nut...

Taking is half the problem. Energy efficiency is at least as important, and global warming is one artifact of inefficient energy use.

Bob/rmck1: Just imagine ... roast pheasant falling from the sky into your back yard. Yum :)

Deja vu... friends at Goldstone and some other DSC sites had some experience with that; apparently a helluva nuisance at times. Of course, the energy was going the other way :)

The trick is -- think small, not big. If we can say fuckit to The Grid in all its many insidious forms, we'll be okay.

Again, that only addresses half the problem. Power in any form is going to cause problems if its use is inefficient and dumps significant waste into the environment.

Decentralized power sources and appropriate generation.

It is going to have to be a mix of decentralized and centralized. Smelting Aluminum and running the factory to produce your distributed power generatoring systems is going to require a lot of power. Cities will continue to require power in gobs.

If we can say fuckit to The Grid in all its many insidious forms, we'll be okay.

The grid will be the only way we could power a city from decentralized power, by having the source decentralized and the sink localized.

And the "magic" power sources like fusion and space-based microwave will be centralized, dense sources.

Small-scale survival of the savviest.

You sound like a survivalist!

Energy efficiency is at least as important, and global warming is one artifact of inefficient energy use.

That's imprecise. Solar cells are not efficient at all, dumping the excess as waste heat, but we could in theory build enough panels to power the planet and not hurt the environment like burning fossil fuels. No matter how efficiently fossil fuels are burned you end up with CO2, which is the problem, not waste heat.

Power in any form is going to cause problems if its use is inefficient and dumps significant waste into the environment.

The second part is the key.

Those projections for the EU are based on current average fertility rates, where the majority are first generation immigrants. In fact, as least in the Netherlands, fertility rates drop to the "native" level within a single generation (what's odd though, is that happens even without cultural assimilation).

That's not quite true. Most projections account for a lowering of birth rates of 2nd and 3rd generations but they still stay above replacement rates. Religious families reproduce at a higher rate than secular families. Europe has a very large 2nd and 3rd generation muslim pool since immigration started in the 50's and 60's.

There are two issues causing the demographic shift. While the difference in birth rates across ethnic groups will narrow the birth rates for the native groups are very low and still dropping. They are expected to remain lower throughout the century and there's no known floor. The fact is there will be a substantial drop in the number of Europeans in Europe in 75 years and the number will shrink at an accelerating rate each year thereafter. The number of Muslims will be much higher and increasing each year. Once you get out 75 years it's ugly and getting uglier quickly.

As far as immigration Europe is in a pickle. France has dramatically cut down on illegal immigration and quickly expels anyone arrested and found to be there illegally. Cutting down on legal immigration would require EU wide agreement and that is unlikely.

Europes best hope is actually Iraq. There has to be a wave of conversions to Democracy and free market capitalism. It's the only chance for prosperity in the Middle East and Africa. Europe needs them to support their own populations and bring some back home.

Spain and Italy have a birth rate of 1.2. Replacement rate is 2.1. Their population will shrink by 40% in 75 years and 40% again every 75 years. They could drop from just under 60M today to 20M by 2150. That's devastating. It's impossible to predict what either would look like but it's clear ethnic Italians will be a minority in Italy and the Spanish a minority in Spain.

has407:

I think Mike's essentially correct. Efficiency per se is important, but it isn't a critical issue if you're dealing with unlimited power sources. Wind, solar and geothermal are limitless.

Biomass and other forms of combustibles are a different story; there's a CO2 output which you want to try to at least zero out through the carbon input it took to grow the stuff. Efficiency's a monster, civilization-busting issue when you're dealing with finite resources like fossils.

Red State Mike:

I was putting my futurist hat on, and including some pessimistic assumptions, like -- the human race isn't going to be sane about thus until after a few *hefty* cataclysms. Maybe most coastal cities will be underwater. Maybe some catastrophic (but planet-saving) biological plague would have depopulated them. Maybe we would have given up on the corporate economic form altogether, because it was a creature of cities -- and we no longer do things like smelt aluminium.

In any case -- it's the people who have the skills to grow their own food locally and fabricate what technology they have in their immediate possession (or which can be batered for) will be in the best position to survive.

And this isn't spoken by a survivalist out of ideological conviction because I'm really juiced by the idea of a depopulated world with only the competent left. Maybe the humans who've died off were just intensely unlucky, and they'll be plenty of bastards and wasteful bad apples still hangin' around and making it worse for everybody else ...

More like a hard-eyed realist, sad enough to say.

Bob

Futurists are usually wrong, especially about things that haven't happened yet.

rdw:

Interesting that in that post you didn't bewail this trend or gloat about it -- as you so often do -- but merely cited the stats.

There's, in fact, nothing to bewail about it if you support the idea of advanced civilization. It's the inevitable outcome of increasing standards of living, increasing education, increasing pluralism and cosmopolitanism. People of all races and cultures inevitably secularize and lose their traditions, especially involving sexuality and married life. Human beings as a product of evolution really weren't programmed to stay married monogamously for life ...

Thing is, of course, this process is happening in America. And while you can crow all you like about how it's depopulating the blue-state urban areas in favor of all those red-state "family values" breeders -- these people -- by any objective criteria you'd care to name -- are also less, well, civilized than *ahem* we are, Wooten.

Ergo -- taking the long view -- modern technological civilization carries with it the *cough* seeds of its own destruction.

Bob

bob/rmck1: I'll restate: Equilibrium is important, not efficiency per se, and the farther you look into the future, the more important it becomes, assuming energy use increases. E.g., As a degenerate case, assume 1000X power production/consumption increase for "free" with no additional increase in efficiency = 1000X energy being dumped into the environment in various forms.

At some point the ability of the planet to absorb energy and remain in nominal equilibrium starts to matter. Is it 10X? 100X? 1000X? I don't know. And maybe that's a matter for 10, 100 or 1000 generations from now, but to simply say that "cheap energy" (in whatever form) is an answer assumes that we can pump energy into the planet with no deleterious effects.

Our problem in the future may be how to pump energy off the planet--unless humans and any other recognizable life today live in what can only be described as artificial climate-controlled environments.

I'm talking long term, in the same time frame that global warming will occur.Posted by: Red State Mike on May 31, 2006 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

We need a clean abundant energy source 10 years ago, not pie in the sky ideas that may or may not exist 20 years from now.

But we're talking "optimism" here:

Fusion, space-borne solar beamed down as microwaves, etc.

Fusion: Not Bloody Likely. We've been "20 years away from fusion" for the past 50 years. While I'd really like to see it happen, in my lifetime, it's more likely the big hairless apes are going to be slitting eachother's throats over the right to burn the last drop of oil long before they figure out how to profit from slamming two protons into eachother so hard they stick.

Space-based Solar: Please. Have you looked at the state of our spacelaunch industry in the past 15 years?

Listen, either of these changes will require a huge, sustained effort and financial investment by an advanced, comitted, industrialized society. I don't know how up on current events you are, but by my count, there's exactly zero of those left.

But we're talking about "optimism" here.

So - say "An Inconvenient Truth" becomes #1 at the box office. Say Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Chris Matthews all are found dead tomorrow morning together in a hot tub. Let's say that this summer, most of the continental US sustains an average daily high of 120 degrees farenheit. Say that Pat Robertson appears in a News Conference, saying that God is punishing America for not hunting down and killing all gays, and a bolt of lightning comes out of the sky and burns him alive on camera, causing all of America's religious wingnuts to disavow dominionism and hope for the coming rapture to save them from global warming. Then America will elect Gore president, who will use the powers Bush created to make these projects happen.

There. We've got at least one more comitted nation. But do we have the financial resources that are necessary to pump into a massive project to "invent" working Fusion, and the heavy spacelift infrastructure that would be required to put enough solar power into orbit to make a difference? Bush has borrowed the US dollar into near irrelavance. We're burning $100 Billion a year in Iraq, and may need to stay there at least another 10 years. And each of these big projects is going to take at least 10 years to bear meaningful "fruit" - by that time, will we still be able to cultivate land in the US? Will we be able to ship food anywhere, if "peak oil" starts to really take hold? Will we have any kind of economy at all? If we stop spending on our Military - will nobody attack us while we work on this problem? Will Politics stop? Will corporations stop trying to eat eachother in the name of the almighty buck? Will somebody try to spitefully patent successful fusion? Will any politician have the spine to revoke such a patent if it would mean the salvation of humanity?

But we're talking optimism here.

Clarification to previous post: "assume 1000X power production/consumption increase" should read: "assume 1000X power production/consumption increase from sources that do not change the planet's energy equillibrium over any period of interest".

E.g., wind, tide, solar, etc. do not change the planet's energy equilibrium; whereas fusion, fossil fuels, etc. do change the energy equilibrium. While there are demonstrable localized effects, from a global perspective, the efficiency of the former are relatively neutral (e.g., the product of solar cells whether as electricity or waste heat is neutral); the latter are not.

Tripp:

I was in Montana in 1999, when it seemed like all the forests were on fire. The air was thick with smoke, animals were fleeing the blazes - including the bears. There were Bear Warning signs all over Glacier National Park.

What will a measly 5 degrees do to Montana?

Increased fire hazard: you might get 1999-style wildfires all the time: every summer, and summers might be longer.

Weather cycles will have changed; Montanta might get more rain than it currently gets, or less. More rain might help reduce the increased fire hazard. Less rain will increase the increased fire hazard.

Your tree species will change. It's hard to say how or how much. Your conifers will vanish - partly because of the increased temperature, partly because tree-eating pests will have longer and warmer breeding seasons, so there will be a lot of them, for longer in the year. And trees depend on more than just temperature; what kind of soil there is and how deep that soil layer is also regulates what kind of trees can grow. When trees change en masse, so do the species that live in and on them. Different birds, different insects. Oh, and different microbes and fungi, too.

You'll have more animals coming down out of the mountains - driven by fires, loss of graze, loss of water. Predators will follow the prey species: bear, wolf, cougars. Assuming that residential and commercial land development has already encroached on their habitat, there's going to a lot more people finding deer and bear and cougars in their backyards and streets and shopping malls.

The glaciers in Glacier National Park will retreat, possibly vanish. Any rivers that depend on glacier melt will also dry up. (There will also be less snowpack to feed them.) Any water supply - whether municipal or well - that depends on the rivers will be in trouble. Whatever fish live in the rivers, and whatever birds depend on those fish as a food supply, will be in trouble, too.

Does that sound like nothing much?

Osama:

1. we don't have all that much uranium left,

We have at least 10,000 years worth of Uranium-238, which fuels fast-breeder fission reactors. We could also use thorium.

2. nuclear plants take a lot of energy to construct,

So does any other kind of power plant.

3. we still have not solved the problem of how to safely store waste for 12,000 years.

Well, pick your poison. We haven't solved the problem of how to deal with the waste products of fossil fuels, either. It is not at all clear that nuclear waste poses a greater threat than fossil fuel waste for a given amount of energy production.

More rain might help reduce the increased fire hazard. Less rain will increase the increased fire hazard.

More rain at the wrong time of year increases the fire hazard. If there is more rain in early spring, you get more flooding and mudslides, and more dense vegetation growth, which then dries out when there's a hot dry summer, which increases your risk of fire.

If you get less rain early in the season, and then some rain later in the season (ie. spread out through the year) then you have favorable conditions, average vegetation growth, which does not turn into a huge tinderbox by mid-July. In California, at least, the El Nino years were the worst fire years.

We have at least 10,000 years worth of Uranium-238, which fuels fast-breeder fission reactors. We could also use thorium.

That's all fine and dandy - if you can solve the political problems associated with breeder reactors, and their intermediate byproducts, which are very handy for people who like to build (and use) nuclear weapons.

Since our current nonproliferation efforts have, in my opinion, completely and utterly failed miserably, I'm actually not willing to back this as a relevant point. (In other words, one can't really argue that we shouldn't have breeder reactors because they increase nuclear weapons proliferation, when limiting them hasn't really stopped proliferation either) I guess then it would be a race to see what gets us first; nuclear war, or ecological collapse.

It is not at all clear that nuclear waste poses a greater threat than fossil fuel waste for a given amount of energy production.

That's because we haven't had any issues with stored nuclear waste. Yet. (with regard to un-stored nuclear waste - ask the residents of Hanford, WA, or those two Soviet cities that disappeared from maps in the 1960's due to improper waste disposal - or ask the residents of Kiev whether environmental contamination with radioactive byproducts are a drag).

That's all fine and dandy - if you can solve the political problems associated with breeder reactors, and their intermediate byproducts, which are very handy for people who like to build (and use) nuclear weapons.

As I said, it's not at all clear that the threats from nuclear waste are worse than the threats from fossil fuel waste. With respect to breeder reactors, there is no particular short-term need for them anyway, because supplies of Uranium-235 are sufficient for at least several more decades, and possibly hundreds of years. I mentioned breeder reactors mainly to rebut your claim that we are running out of nuclear fuel.

That's because we haven't had any issues with stored nuclear waste. Yet.

We may never have an issue with stored nuclear waste. If and when we do have an issue, it may be less serious than the issues from fossil fuel waste (greenhouse gases, global warming, air pollution, acid rain, etc., etc.). Yes, nuclear power is dirty. So is fossil fuel power. All risks are relative. All sources of energy have their pros and cons.

I haven't heard such gabble since the Irwin Allen spectacular disaster movies.

Some thoughts that have filtered through : the ocean is liquid water. If it becomes warmer, messing up the heat converyor to the poles, there will be massive dieout in the cradle of life and it will displace more because that's what liquids do when they're heated.
If the equatorial zone increases 225 miles north that's going to take one hell of a whack on arable land. Unfortunately, just because it's warmer doesn't mean the north will grow food the same way : shorter growing season, shorter days, reduced energy for plants to absorb for growth. And much of Canada is Precambrian shield : that's rock without hardly any soil. In the west old Lake Agassiz might just come back : the inland sea. It's not much above sea level for quite a ways there.
Storms are waterborne heat engines. What kind of hummers do you think you'll get when the water is hotter, ditto the air.
Glaciers and rivers are going to be history PDQ.
All of this at a time when the magnetic pole is shooting off towards Siberia : is the spin axis going to go hokey too ?

Just in case you were getting bored.

Is it getting hot in here?

Polar Bears are mean anyway.

And never heard anyone comment on whether they taste good or not.

And while you can crow all you like about how it's depopulating the blue-state urban areas in favor of all those red-state "family values" breeders -- these people -- by any objective criteria you'd care to name -- are also less, well, civilized than *ahem* we are, Wooten.

Ergo -- taking the long view -- modern technological civilization carries with it the *cough* seeds of its own destruction.

By any objective criteria white liberals are elitists. As amazingly brilliant as they might be simple logic escapes them. While the left is outraged anyone might dispute Darwin theory of natural selection they are blind as to how it applies to them. I know a few conservatives rather confident the gene pool will be much the better.

In addition to being more civilized you are also becoming scarcer. In most of Europe the ethnic populations are shrinking or within a decade of shrinkage. Once it starts it's going to accelerate every year and it's not going to stop for at least 150 years, if at all.

The trends in the USA are just as decisive as we've seen every 10 years with the shift in the electoral college. While the hispanic immigrants might tend toward the Democratic party they are not liberal elites. They are not scarred by Veitnam nor do they carry your guilt.

When people identify with liberal elites it's the rich white guys. How can you not love a Teddy Kennedy lecture the rest of use about paying estate taxes or his nephew Patrick Kennedy lecturing us on conservation as he literally jetsets across the country and around the world.

The elitists in the USA do have one advantage. They get to watch their cousins in Europe struggle with Islamic fundamentalism. They have finally discovered their system of multiculturalism has been a total disaster and a few are passing laws to end it. They understand their segregated societies are a disaster but still have to deal with that. Did you know a study in Sweden showed 98% of 2nd generation turks, born and raised in Sweden marry other Turks. Those married 2x or even 3x's marry other turks. A majority speak only turkish. Sweden, The Netherlands, Denmark, France and Germany all have large minorites of unassimilated minorites determined to remain unassimulated and maintaining much higher birthrates. These are practicing Muslims a majority of whom believe Islamic law trumps European law and s/b the law of the land.

I have no idea how this plays out but Europe tolerance does not match up versus Islamic intolerance. Continued European elitism will result in European extinction. For some reason their obvious sophistication just don't impress Muslims.

osama_been_forgotten
RSM: I'm talking long term, in the same time frame that global warming will occur.Posted by: Red State Mike on May 31, 2006 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

We need a clean abundant energy source 10 years ago, not pie in the sky ideas that may or may not exist 20 years from now.

Well, now we're talking past each other. My argument was on what it will take to live in a globally warmed world, not to stop it.

Fusion: Not Bloody Likely. We've been "20 years away from fusion" for the past 50 years. While I'd really like to see it happen, in my lifetime, it's more likely the big hairless apes are going to be slitting each other's throats over the right to burn the last drop of oil long before they figure out how to profit from slamming two protons into each other so hard they stick.

It has always been about the commitment of funds and effort. It hasn't made sense when oil has been dirt cheap.

Space-based Solar: Please. Have you looked at the state of our spacelaunch industry in the past 15 years?

I threw that one out there off the top of my head, but yes I do know what's up with the launch industry. It's in fine shape (especially from a global perspective.)

Listen, either of these changes will require a huge, sustained effort and financial investment by an advanced, comitted, industrialized society. I don't know how up on current events you are, but by my count, there's exactly zero of those left.

Huh? You lost me on that one. Just look at the Three Gorges Dam. Or Iran's nuke program. Or the Big Dig. Hell, Egyptians built the pyramids without the use of a single bulldozer.

That's what I like, your "Can't Do" attitude.

But do we have the financial resources that are necessary to pump into a massive project to "invent" working Fusion, and the heavy spacelift infrastructure that would be required to put enough solar power into orbit to make a difference?

Oh hell yea. We did the Manhattan Project coming out of the depression. We spent a significant percentage on the moon program while fighting a real war in Vietnam. We could easily form international coalitions for this one (such as ITER, the current fusion program).

Osama, sounds like you're ready to give up right now.

It's the inevitable outcome of increasing standards of living, increasing education, increasing pluralism and cosmopolitanism. People of all races and cultures inevitably secularize and lose their traditions, especially involving sexuality and married life. Human beings as a product of evolution really weren't programmed to stay married monogamously for life ...

All nonsense. As people become wealthier and better educated they reproduce less. That's true but they don't lose their tradions nor necessarily lose their religious connections. You are applying the liberal path to the rest of us. Increased American pluralism isn't the result of icreased education but of increased wealth. Our tremendous wealth creating success and democratic freedons drives immigration to our shores. We are diverse because much of the rest of the world wants to be here. They don't come here for the culture. They come for the money and the freedom. Many resist American culture.

The resistance in Europe among the muslims is powerful. It's far more powerful than the European urge to defend their own culture. Thus at this point it seems likely Islamic cultural norms will exert an increasingly powerful effect and eventually dominate. It's OK to be gay in Europe in most neighborhoods. But in an increasing number it's not OK. It's risky. It's risky to be jewish. It's not the Europe you think it is.

Your train hasn't quite left the station yet. Liberals as is their way, are far ahead of us conservatives. That's not a problem for either of us. Islam most definitely hasn't left the station. They look as though they're 800 years from leaving that station. Europe, as it functions today, won't survive 100 years.

[...] the predicted global average sea level rise in the IPCC TAR is 110 to 770mm (IS92a prediction) and 90 to 880mm (SRES prediction). Thus, the worst-case end of the IPCC prediction is only about 3% of your "25m" nonsense above.

Yes. That is the IPCC projection. As I posted, Dr. Hansen (not the IPCC) made that observation. He acknowledges that no current climate model makes that prediction. He refers us to the geologic record instead. Now, the geologic record covers rather inhuman spans of time. It could easily be that at 3C higher temps that it would take 1000 years to manage the melting required. Or 10,000 years. We're most concerned with the next 5, 10, 50 years. However, carbon feedbacks may act like a switch and this time, 100 years from now, may find a remarkably smaller amount of land above sea level. For example, the transition times between ice ages and non-ice ages are geologically abrupt. Virtually an instant. The slow ride to the peak of a roller coaster doesn't last forever.

CaseyL (and others),

I was in Montana in 1999,

Again, I thank all of you for your information. I really don't want to come across as a troll or a stupid college republican quoting Rush (the drug addict). I hope you can take my questions in this context:

When I came of age in the '70s it was generally undestood that we were turning the planet into one big cesspool with rivers catching fire. Also, the predictions for 2000 were shown in the movie "Soylent Green" - incredible heat and massive starvation in the US.

Obviously we did a lot of things and those predictions have not come true. So I ask (selfishly, I admit it) how would this projected global warming affect ME here in MN.

Mostly I get the stories of how it will affect Montana and the coastal areas and the artic and some wildlife that I never see.

I'm sure this in non-PC of me to say but why should I and my neighbors feel an urgent need to make drastic changes in how we live?

You need to understand - I'm currently fairly green. I'm not intentionally wasteful. MN is clamping down on mercury emmisions because we can't eat our native fish anymore. Is global warming more urgent than that?

MN is clamping down on mercury emmisions because we can't eat our native fish anymore. Is global warming more urgent than that?

No. Nothing is more important than what effects a couple thousand sportsmen in Minnesota.

Jeffrey,

That's a good one, but what I meant was "is global warming more urgent to a Minnesota Sportsman."

Vague future possibilites don't have the same oomph as something tangible right now.

The fundies want to ban Gay marriage because it might cause some vague problem somewhere in the future, yet the cost of the ban is immediate.

In some ways global warming is in the same category.

RSM - part of that "Can't Do attitude" is a realistic assessment of how our economy and govenment are structured. Who is in charge and what they believe and give a damn about will have the single largest impact on what is done.
It has nothing to do with ability.
I have a 99th percentile IQ and am as competent in analytical reasoning as I am in math and english. I'm over 35.
I don't have a single PhD - much less several in divergent fields, nor am I a leader in any field whatsoever. Not due to lack of ability - it just isn't a priority to me.

We'd be in much better shape on the alternative energy/fossil fuel dependence if Reagan hadn't killed all the incentives Put in place during the Carter administration.

Jimmy Carter = right on the need to change our energy production and usage patterns.
Ronny Reagan = wrong. And he has fucked us in the long run. Sand in the vaseling stylie ...

Tripp: Vague future possibilites don't have the same oomph as something tangible right now.

The problem with this perspective is that when something tangible enough to meet your requirements for action comes along, it will be very difficult to do anything effective. Global climate change is like piloting a very large ship; you have to know you need to make a turn long before you're actually going to do it. While self-interest is an understandable motivation, you should consider that the ramifications of our actions can have very long-term effects, much longer than our lifetimes. Just because you won't feel the full brunt of these effects doesn't negate your resonsibility for them.

Try applying the golden rule: how would feel about being born into a world where the climate had been dramtically and adversely changed by people who lived hundreds of years ago, but didn't consider the long-term ramifications of their ations important because they'd be dead by the time everything went to hell? Is that really a sound basis for acting in this world? Seems short-sighted and selfish to me.

cyntax,

I have kids. I most definitely care about the future for them and everyone.

I'm no contrarian. I'm pointing out that people are willing to do some things for good reasons and no immediate results but they are not very good at doing life-changing things without immediate results.

For this reason I like the high gas prices, even though they are regressive. It forces people to consider more enery effecient cars.

My electric company offers wind-power at a slightly higher price and they are selling all that they have. More turbines are being planned and built.

People are buying more efficient AC units and furnaces. Aside from this I don't think we can expect the average population to do much more.

Maybe lower the speed limit to 55. Maybe they'd buy it but I don't know. There haven't been real shortages so far.

Tripp,

But does your expectation that people won't do more mean that we shouldn't try to do more? Like upthread when you asked if New York City was doing anything about this, I answered you with a post showing they were, but my question to you is similar: even if NYC weren't, does that mean we shoudn't?

Kind of like when you said the changes weren't going to be armegeddon. If waiting for serious climate change to happen is the necessary condition for action, we're doomed.

There needs to be an honest discussion about the probablities of climate change, their possible outcomes, and the various actions that can be taken. But why start from the assumption that nothing significant can be accomplished?

I think with the right leadership, we could have an open and honest debate about these issues, and figure out solutions that will be effective and won't be as drastic as "everyone stop driving cars today." There's an interesting nexus of concerns around global warming and peak oil. With a combination of government commitment and the huge opportunity this presents the private sector, I do believe we can do something about this.

cyntax,

Good comments, but the question then comes to how much time we have. If we have only 10, 20 years to accomplish something then a crash program to build fusion or solar-from-space will be needed. If we have a 100 years, the we can go slower. I am totally against any solution that requires the US government to coerce people into doing things (i.e. if you want to drive a H2 with gas at $10/gallon be my guest). Also if you are not willing to handle the problems imposed by the rest of the world that wants to get to the US standard of living, you are not being serious.

Like I said up thread, I'm very worried when people start telling me I must do something(or not do something) becuase "they know best".

From a Democrat perspective all of the solutions can wait until Bush is out of office.

So how much time do we have? And will peak oil solve the problem or will we just switch to coal?

BP: I think you're quite right to point out that prescriptive measures are not only ill-advised but also probably ineffective. But this gets back to what I was tryingto say to Tripp about leadership. Real leadership is confronting a difficult issue, building consensus, and heading down the path of a reasonable (well-planned) solution.

If a crash solutiton is what's needed, how can we know? I think we have to assume a more moderate implementation, while continuing to gather data. Just because we start jogging doesn't meant we can't break into a sprint later, if we deem it necessary.

Also your point about the rest of the world is well taken, but we shouldn't let that box us into a non-starter perspective that we need the entire world's buy-in prior to getting started. Obviously we shouldn't engage in drastic measures if no one else is going to, but that doesn't mean we can't pioneer techniques in the US that can then be replicated by other countries. And it should be possible to get at least some initial cooperation from the EU around a green issue like this. Again, our leadership as the primary superpower and our ability to bring countries along in our wake shouldn't be discounted. That isn't to say this is a slam-dunk that will succeed with little or no effort/sacrifice on our part. But this country has made sarcifices and come up with world changing innovations in the past, couldn't we at least try to again?

And finally, this doesn't have to be an entirely altruistic endeavour. If we can find better, cheaper, and cleaner fuels, it will create quite a lot of wealth in this country. I think peak oil is both a problem and an opportunity, if we can get in front of it, it's an opportunity; if not, a huge problem. At it's best coal only seems like a transitional stage, since it also is non-renewable.

I am doing my part since I don't have any children.

I like Secular Animist's reference K.V. novel. Here might be the perfect solution- a virus that sterilizes 90% of the population.

Either you drop the population through real birth control, or nature does it for you through cataclysm. Which is more humane?

Obviously, one other path might be to ban the use of fossil fuels, but that doesn't seem realistic to me.

It is very late to return to this thread, but I wanted to comment on Tripp, who has been playing the contrarian on this thread.

I believe at least part of his point is that human societies will resist making major changes for reasons that seem abstract or theoretical. And we are unlikely to sacrifice for the benefit of strangers. Until humans are actually convinced the threat is real and affects them, we will dicker and procrastinate. And even in very perilous situations, most humans will do what seems to give them the best short-term advantage. And if everyone WERE on board, ready to make sacrifices, ready to change, it is hard to know what specific actions are required or how to evaluate the effectiveness of what has been done. This is why leadership is everything, and why the Bush adminstration's failure of leadership on Global Warming is tragic.

The years before 9/11 are an analogy: We knew Terrorists were out there. You didn't need to be a CIA agent to guess that the terrorists wanted to strike America. But the Republicans didn't want to talk about the ME or terrorism: Who knew that the terrorists would fly planes into the Twin Towers! And then, after 9/11, over-reaction. Look at the mess we are in now...warmongering, fiscal hemorrhaging, the world hates us!!! Not to mention the billions of inconvenient hours people spend taking their shoes off at airports and yet we still have porous borders and insecure ports. We are no safer. We may be less safe. It's the same kind of thing with Global Warming. Maybe it won't be so bad. Maybe it will just go away. The costs of over-reacting might just be worse. Katrina was a global warming 9/11. But it's going to take more before people are convinced.

Meanwhile, we had a mild winter here in frosty Minnesota, and this Spring has been lush and as beautiful as any I remember. My peonies are blooming, and the flowers are the size of plates. And I am a believer in global warming.

Ptate,

Take a deep breadth and calm down. Do what conservatives do. If life hands you lemons make lemonade. In your case, take up gardening. We'll do fine.

Discount online pharmacy - no prescription! Cheap meridia -
Buy meridia -
Discount meridia -
Buy meridia online -
Generic meridia -
Cheap propecia -
Buy propecia -
Discount propecia -
buy propecia online -
Generic propecia -
Cheap proscar -
buy proscar -
Discount proscar -
Buy oproscar online -
Generic proscar -
Cheap finasteride -
Buy finasteride -
Discount finasteride -
Hair loss pills -
Weight loss pills -
Cheap Rogaine -
Buy Rogaine -
Discount Rogaine -
Generic Rogaine -
Discount minoxidil -
Buy minoxidil -
Cheap cialis -
Discount cialis -
Buy cialis -
Buy cialis online -
Generic cialis -
Cheap tadalafil -
Buy tadalafil -
Discount tadalafil -
Cheap hytrin -
Discount hytrin -
Generic Hytrin -
Buy hytrin -
Buy hytrin online -
Cheap terazosin -
Discount terazosin -
Buy terazosin -
Cheap viagra -
Generic viagra -
Discount viagra -
Buy viagra -
Buy viagra online -
Cheap sildenafil -
Buy sildenafil -
discount sildenafil -
discount anafranil -
buy anafranil -
cheap anafranil -
generic anafranil -
buy anafranil online -
discount asendin -
buy asendin -
cheap asendin -
buy asendin online -
generic asendin -
cheap celexa -
buy celexa -
discount celexa -
buy celexa online -
generic celexa -
cheap effexor -
buy effexor -
discount effexor -
buy effexor online -
generic effexor -
cheap elavil -
discount elavil -
buy elavil -
buy elavil online -
generic elavil -
buy endep -
cheap endep -
discount endep -
cheap luvox -
discount luvox -
buy luvox -
generic luvox -
buy luvox online -
cheap pamelor -
discount pamelor -
buy pamelor -
generic pamelor -
buy pamelor online -
Cheap paxil -
discount paxil -
generic paxil -
buy paxil -
buy paxil online -
cheap prozac -
generic prozac -
discount prozac -
buy prozac -
buy prozac online -
cheap
sinequan -
buy sinequan -
generic sinequan -
discount sinequan -
buy sinequan online -
cheap
tofranil -
buy tofranil -
discount tofranil -
generic tofranil -
buy tofranil online -
cheap
wellbutrin -
generic wellbutrin -
discount wellbutrin -
buy wellbutrin -
buy wellbutrin online -
cheap bupropion -
buy bupropion -
cheap zoloft -
generic zoloft -
buy zoloft -
discount zoloft -
buy zoloft Online -
cheap
vermox -
discount vermox -
buy vermox -
buy vermox online -
generic vermox -
cheap aralen -
discount aralen -
generic aralen -
buy aralen -
buy aralen online -
cheap sporanox -
buy sporanox -
generic sporanox -
discount sporanox -
buy sporanox online -
cheap zyprexa -
discount zyprexa -
buy zyprexa -
generic zyprexa -
buy zyprexa online -
cheap compazine -
generic compazine -
buy compazine -
discount compazine -
buy compazine online -
cheap
claritin -
discount claritin -
generic claritin -
buy claritin -
buy claritin online -
cheap
allegra -
discount allegra -
buy allegra -
generic allegra -
buy allegra Online -
cheap benadryl -
discount benadryl -
generic benadryl -
buy benadryl -
buy benadryl online -
cheap periactin -
discount periactin -
buy periactin -
generic periactin -
buy periactin online -
cheap advair -
discount advair -
generic advair -
buy advair -
buy advair online -
cheap albuterol -
generic albuterol -
buy albuterol -
discount albuterol -
buy albuterol online -
cheap salbutamol -
buy salbutamol -
buy theophylline -
generic salbutamol -
cheap singulair -
discount singulair -
buy singulair -
generic singulair -
buy singulair online -
cheap aceon -
buy aceon -
generic aceon -
discount aceon -
buy aceon online -
cheap altace -
buy altace -
generic altace -
discount altace -
buy altace online -
cheap avapro -
buy avapro -
generic avapro -
discount avapro -
buy avapro online -
cheap capoten -
discount capoten -
buy capoten -
generic capoten -
buy capoten online -
cheap diamox -
discount diamox -
buy diamox -
generic diamox -
buy diamox online -
cheap lipitor -
buy lipitor -
discount lipitor -
generic lipitor -
buy lipitor online -
cheap zocor -
buy zocor -
discount zocor -
buy zocor online -
generic zocor -
cheap lopid -
discount lopid -
generic lopid -
buy lopid online -
buy lopid -
cheap mevacor -
generic mevacor -
discount mevacor -
buy mevacor -
buy mevacor online -
cheap pravachol -
discount pravachol -
generic pravachol -
buy pravachol -
buy pravachol online -
cheap actos -
discount actos -
generic actos -
buy actos online -
buy actos -
cheap
avandia -
generic avandia -
buy avandia -
discount avandia -
buy avandia online -
cheap precose -
discount precose -
generic precose -
buy
precose -
buy precose online -
cheap micronase -
discount micronase -
generic micronase -
buy micronase -
cheap glucovance -
discount glucovance -
generic glucovance -
buy glucovance -
buy glucovance online -
cheap lamictal -
discount lamictal -
buy lamictal -
generic lamictal -
buy lamictal online -
cheap mysoline -
discount mysoline -
buy mysoline -
generic mysoline -
buy mysoline online -
cheap neurontin -
generic neurontin -
buy neurontin -
discount neurontin -
buy neurontin online -
Cheap sodium valproate -
Generic sodium valproate -
Buy sodium valproate -
discount sodium Valproate -
buy sodium valproate online -
cheap tegretol -
discount tegretol -
buy tegretol -
generic tegretol -
buy tegretol online -
cheap dilantin -
discount dilantin -
buy dilantin -
generic dilantin -
buy dilantin online -
cheap aciphex -
discount aciphex -
buy aciphex -
generic aciphex -
buy aciphex online -
cheap bentyl -
discount bentyl -
buy bentyl -
generic bentyl -
buy bentyl online -
Cheap carafate -
discount carafate -
buy carafate -
buy carafate online -
generic carafate -
cheap cephulac -
generic cephulac -
discount cephulac -
buy cephulac -
buy cephulac online -
cheap colace -
generic colace -
buy colace -
discount colace -
buy colace online -
cheap dulcolax -
discount dulcolax -
buy dulcolax -
generic dulcolax -
buy dulcolax online -
cheap imodium -
discount imodium -
buy imodium -
generic imodium -
buy imodium online -
cheap nexium -
discount nexium -
buy nexium -
generic nexium -
buy nexium online -
cheap prevacid -
discount prevacid -
buy prevacid -
generic prevacid -
buy prevacid online -
cheap prilosec -
discount prilosec -
buy prilosec -
generic prilosec -
buy prilosec online -
cheap protonix -
discount protonix -
buy protonix -
generic protonix -
order protonix -
cheap reglan -
buy reglan -
discount reglan -
generic reglan -
order reglan -
cheap zantac -
buy zantac -
discount zantac -
generic zantac -
order zantac -
cheap zofran -
discount zofran -
buy zofran -
generic zofran -
order zofran -
cheap rebetol -
discount rebetol -
buy rebetol -
generic rebetol -
order rebetol -
cheap ribavirin -
buy ribavirin -
order ribavirin -
cheap zovirax -
discount zovirax -
order zovirax -
buy zovirax -
generic zovirax -
cheap epivir -
discount epivir -
buy epivir -
order epivir -
generic epivir -
cheap pyrazinamide -
discount pyrazinamide -
order pyrazinamide -
buy pyrazinamide -
generic pyrazinamide -
cheap retrovir -
discount retrovir -
buy retrovir -
order retrovir -
generic retrovir -
cheap viramune -
discount viramune -
order viramune -
buy viramune -
generic viramune -
cheap zerit -
discount zerit -
buy zerit -
order zerit -
generic zerit -
cheap aldactone -
discount aldactone -
buy aldactone -
order aldactone -
generic aldactone -
cheap calciferol -
discount calciferol -
buy calciferol -
order calciferol -
generic calciferol -
alfa calcidol -
order alfa calcidol -
buy alfa calcidol -
cheap danocrine -
discount danocrine -
order danocrine -
buy danocrine -
generic danocrine -
cheap decadron -
discount decadron -
order decadron -
buy decadron -
generic decadron -
cheap deltasone -
discount deltasone -
buy deltasone -
order deltasone -
generic deltasone -
cheap provera -
discount provera -
buy provera -
order provera -
generic provera -
cheap cycrin -
cheap synthroid -
discount synthroid -
buy synthroid -
order synthroid -
generic levothroid -
cheap levothroid -
cheap robaxin -
discount robaxin -
buy robaxin -
order robaxin -
generic robaxin -
cheap soma -
discount soma -
buy soma -
order soma -
generic soma -
cheap zanaflex -
discount zanaflex -
buy zanaflex -
order zanaflex -
generic zanaflex -
cheap alphagan -
discount alphagan -
buy alphagan -
order alphagan -
generic alphagan -
cheap betagan -
discount betagan -
order betagan -
buy betagan -
generic betagan -
cheap mydriacyl -
discount mydriacyl -
buy mydriacyl -
order mydriacyl -
generic mydriacyl -
cheap propine -
discount propine -
buy propine -
order propine -
generic propine -
discount tobramycin -
buy tobramycin -
cheap tobramycin -
order tobramycin -
buy flour-op -
order flour-op -
cheap flour-op -
discount flour-op -
cheap advil -
generic advil -
order advil -
buy advil -
discount advil -
cheap celebrex -
discount celebrex -
buy celebrex -
order celebrex -
generic celebrex -
cheap imitrex -
discount imitrex -
buy imitrex -
order imitrex -
generic imitrex -
cheap ponstel -
discount ponstel -
order ponstel -
buy ponstel -
generic ponstel -
cheap timoptic -
discount timoptic -
buy timoptic -
order timoptic -
generic timoptic -
cheap tylenol -
discount tylenol -
order tylenol -
buy tylenol -
generic tylenol -
cheap anacin -
buy anacin -
cheap ultram -
discount ultram -
buy ultram -
order ultram -
generic ultram -
cheap benadryl -
order benadryl -
discount benadryl -
buy benadryl -
generic benadryl -
cheap ditropan -
discount ditropan -
order ditropan -
buy ditropan -
generic ditropan -
cheap eldepryl -
discount eldepryl -
buy eldepryl -
order eldepryl -
generic eldepryl -
cheap arava -
discount arava -
order arava -
buy arava -
generic arava -
cheap feldene -
discount feldene -
order feldene -
buy feldene -
generic feldene -
cheap mobic -
discount mobic -
buy mobic -
order mobic -
generic mobic -
cheap naprelan -
discount naprelan -
order naprelan -
buy naprelan -
generic naprelan -
cheap naprosyn -
discount naprosyn -
buy naprosyn -
order naprosyn -
generic naprosyn -
cheap relafen -
generic relafen -
order relafen -
buy relafen -
discount relafen -
cheap zyloprim -
discount zyloprim -
order zyloprim -
buy zyloprim -
generic zyloprim -
cheap ambien -
generic ambien -
discount ambien -
buy ambien -
order ambien -
cheap aygestin -
discount aygestin -
order aygestin -
buy aygestin -
generic aygestin -
cheap clomid -
discount clomid -
order clomid -
buy clomid -
generic clomid -
cheap diflucan -
order diflucan -
discount diflucan -
buy diflucan -
generic diflucan -
cheap evista -
discount evista -
order evista -
buy evista -
generic evista -
cheap fosamax -
discount fosamax -
order fosamax -
buy fosamax -
generic fosamax -
cheap nolvadex -
discount nolvadex -
buy nolvadex -
order nolvadex -
generic nolvadex -
cheap parlodel -
discount parlodel -
order parlodel -
buy parlodel -
generic parlodel -
cheap premarin -
discount premarin -
order premarin -
buy premarin -
generic premarin -
cheap rocaltrol -
discount rocaltrol -
buy rocaltrol -
order rocaltrol -
generic rocaltrol -
cheap triphasil -
discount triphasil -
order triphasil -
buy triphasil -
generic triphasil -
cheap dapsone -
discount dapsone -
order dapsone -
buy dapsone -
generic dapsone -
cheap desowen -
generic desowen -
buy desowen -
order desowen -
discount desowen -
cheap differin -
discount differin -

buy differin -
order differin -
generic differin -
cheap elocon -
discount elocon -
buy elocon -
order elocon -
generic elocon -
cheap halog -
discount halog -
order halog -
buy halog -
generic halog -
cheap Retin-A -
discount Retin-a -
order retin-a -
buy retin-a -
generic retin-a -
Discount antibiotics: cheap Achromycin -
discount Achromycin -
order Achromycin -
buy Achromycin -
generic Achromycin -
cheap bactrim -
discount bactrim -
order bactrim -
buy bactrim -
generic bactrim -
Cheap bactroban -
discount bactroban -
order bactroban -
buy bactroban -
generic bactroban -
cheap biaxin -
discount biaxin -
order biaxin -
buy biaxin -
generic biaxin -
cheap ceclor -
discount ceclor -
order ceclor -
buy ceclor -
generic ceclor -
cheap ceftin -
discount ceftin -
order ceftin -
buy ceftin -
generic ceftin -
cheap cipro -
discount cipro -
order cipro -
buy cipro -
generic cipro -
order ciloxan -
cheap ciloxan -
generic ciloxan -
cheap cleocin -
discount cleocin -
order cleocin -
buy cleocin -
generic cleocin -
cheap declomycin -
discount declomycin -
buy declomycin -
order declomycin -
generic declomycin -
cheap duricef -
discount duricef -
order duricef -
buy duricef -
generic duricef -
cheap floxin -
discount floxin -
order floxin -
buy floxin -
generic floxin -
cheap ocuflox -
buy ocuflox -
order ocuflox -
cheap furacin -
discount furacin -
order furacin -
buy furacin -
generic furacin -
cheap garamycin -
discount garamycin -
order garamycin -
buy garamycin -
generic garamycin -
Cheap ilosone -
discount ilosone -
buy ilosone -
order ilosone -
generic ilosone -
cheap keftab -
discount keftab -
order keftab -
buy keftab -
generic keftab -
cheap levaquin -
discount levaquin -
order levaquin -
buy levaquin -
generic levaquin -
cheap noroxin -
order noroxin -
discount noroxin -
buy noroxin -
generic noroxin -
cheap chibroxin -
discount chibroxin -
order chibroxin -
buy chibroxin -
generic chibroxin
-
cheap omnipen-n -
discount omnipen-n -
order omnipen-n -
buy omnipen-n -
generic omnipen-n -
cheap spectrobid -
discount sprectrobid -
order spectrobid -
buy spectrobid -
generic spectrobid -
cheap trimox -
order trimox -
buy trimox -
discount trimox -
generic trimox -
cheap amoxyl -
cheap wymox -
cheap polymox
-
cheap vibramycin -
discount vibramycin -
order vibramycin -
buy vibramycin -
generic vibramycin -
cheap zithromax -
discount zithromax -
order zithromax -
buy zithromax -
generic zithromax -
cheap zyban -
discount zyban -
order zyban -
buy zyban -
generic zyban -
quit smoking, stop smoking -
cheap wellbutrin -
order wellbutrin -
discount wellbutrin -
cheap cytoxan -
discount cytoxan -
order cytoxan -
buy cytoxan -
generic cytoxan -
cheap DDAVP - cheap stimate -
discount ddavp -
order ddavp - order stimate -
buy stimate -
Generic DDAVP -
cheap detrol -
buy detrol -
discount detrol -
order detrol -
generic detrol -
cheap dramamine -
discount dramamine -
order dramamine -
buy dramamine -
generic dramamine -
cheap exelon -
discount exelon -
buy exelon -
order exelon -
generic exelon -
cheap hydrea -
order hydrea -
buy hydrea -
discount hydrea -
generic hydrea -
cheap imuran -
discount imuran -
order imuran -
buy imuran -
generic imuran -
cheap lasix -
order lasix -
discount lasix -
buy lasix -
generic lasix -
cheap leukeran -
order leukeran -
buy leukeran -
discount leukeran -
generic leukeran -
cheap mestinon -
order mestinon -
discount mestinon -
buy mestinon -
generic mestinon -
cheap myambutol -
discount myambutol -
order myambutol -
buy myambutol -
generic myambutol -
cheap persantine -
discount persantine -
order persantine -
buy persantine -
generic persantine -
cheap pletal -
discount pletal -
order pletal -
buy pletal -
generic pletal -
cheap purinethol -
buy purinethol -
generic purinethol -
discount purinethol -
order purinethol -
cheap pyridium -
order pyridium -
buy pyridium -
discount pyridium -
generic pyridium -
cheap rocaltrol -
order rocaltrol -
discount rocaltrol -
generic rocaltrol -
buy rocaltrol -
cheap sandimmune cheap sandimmune -
order sandimmune order sandimmune -
discount sandimmune discount sandimmune -
buy sandimmune -
generic sandimmune -
cheap ticlid -
discount ticlid -
order ticlid -
buy ticlid -
generic ticlid
Prescription drugs online prescription drugs online

Prescription drugs prescription drugs

Drug prescription drug prescription

drug online prescription drug online prescription

drugs store drugs store

Drugs online drugs online

Discount prescription drugs Discount prescription drugs

Discounted prescription drugs Discounted prescription drugs

Prescription drugs discount prescription drugs discount

Cheap prescription drugs Cheap prescription drugs

Prescription drugs prescription drugs

Discount drugs Discount drugs

Drugs store Drugs store

Adult dating personals Adult dating personals

personal adult dating personal adult dating

dating personals dating personals

Adult dating Adult dating

Adult personals Adult personals

Adult dating personal Adult dating personal

Adult dating services Adult dating services

Adult dating online Adult dating online

Adult dating Adult dating

Online adult dating Online adult dating

dating online dating online

Online dating Online dating

Adult dating services online Adult dating services online

online dating service Online dating service

Adult dating site Adult dating site

Adult sex dating Adult sex dating

Adult dating service Adult dating service

Adult dating online Adult dating online

internet portal internet portal

internet search engine internet search engine

online portal online portal

seek and find seek and find

pay per click search engine pay per click search engine

ppc search engine ppc search engine

Discount pharmacy UK:

cheap cialis cheap cialis

discount cialis discount cialis

generic cialis generic cialis

buy cialis buy cialis

order cialis
order cialis

cheap tadalafil cheap tadalafil

discount tadalafil discount tadalafil

order tadalafil order tadalafil

buy tadalafil buy tadalafil

cheap propecia cheap propecia

generic propecia generic propecia

buy propecia buy propecia

order propecia order propecia

generic propecia generic propecia

cheap proscar cheap proscar

discount proscar discount proscar

order proscar order proscar

buy proscar buy proscar

generic proscar generic proscar

cheap meridia cheap meridia

discount meridia discount meridia

meridia pills meridia pills

order meridia order meridia

buy meridia buy meridia

generic meridia generic meridia

cheap soma cheap soma

generic soma generic soma

discount soma discount soma

order soma order soma

buy soma buy soma



Bad credit: stuff for all with bad credit:

bad credit mortgage bad credit mortgage

bad credit loan bad credit loan

bad credit home loan bad credit home loan

bad credit home equity loan bad credit home equity loan

bad credit personal loan bad credit personal loan

guaranteed bad credit personal loan guaranteed bad credit personal loan

bad credit refinance bad credit refinance

bad credit auto loan bad credit auto loan

bad credit auto loan financing bad credit auto loan financing

bad credit used car loan bad credit used car loan

bad credit debt consolidation bad credit debt consolidation

bad credit debt consolidation loan bad credit debt consolidation loan

bad credit credit cards bad credit credit cards

credit card for people with bad credit credit card for people with bad credit

unsecured credit card for bad credit unsecured credit card for bad credit

unsecured credit cards unsecured credit cards


bad credit military loan bad credit military loan

bad credit lone mortgage bad credit lone mortgage

bad credit loan mortgage bad credit loan mortgage

bad credit mortgage lender bad credit mortgage lender

bad credit repair bad credit repair

credit repair credit repair

bad credit motorcycle loan bad credit motorcycle loan

bad credit unsecured loan bad credit unsecured loan

bad credit boat loan bad credit boat loan

loan for people with bad credit loan for people with bad credit

second mortgage bad credit second mortgage bad credit

bad credit signature loan bad credit signature loan

bad credit motorcycle financing bad credit motorcycle financing

bad credit home mortgage bad credit home mortgage

bad credit lender bad credit lender

bad credit lenders bad credit lenders

bad credit home improvement loan bad credit home improvement loan

bad credit cash loan bad credit cash loan

california bad credit mortgage california bad credit mortgage

erase bad credit erase bad credit

bad credit visa card bad credit visa card

bad credit secured loan bad credit secured loan

bad debt credit card bad debt credit card

bad credit card bad credit card

online freelance online freelance

freelance jobs freelance jobs

bad credit help bad credit help