Terry Cowgill

18 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. Not only is the argument constructed so that all weather “proves” global warming, but the solution is prescribed so that no change needs to be achieved. If you listen to the global warming “advocates” they say that even if the we implement everything they want, we will not see any impact for fifty years. As such, they don’t have to show that any of their prescriptions actually work.

   Polls show that Democrats almost universally believe Global Warming will be disastrous. The same polls show that almost as many Republicans are highly skeptical. The only way the Global Warming folks are going to change those numbers is if they can convince Republicans that this isn’t a huge government “land grab”. Given the way the argument is constructed at this point, it is going to be a hard sell.

   Comment by jake — February 12, 2007 #

2. Actually, there are some very recent Zogby polls that contradict Jake’s statement, above. This August, a Zogby poll of 1,000 registered voters found an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Independents and 56% of Republicans are more convinced that global climate change is happeneing than they were two years ago.

   http://www.livescience.com/environment/060823_poll_katrina.html

   In another poll, a majority of hunters and fishermen believe that global warming is negatively impacting the environment. Respondents were overwhelmingly male, voted for president Bush by 2-1 margin in 2004, and 1/2 identified themselves as evangelical Christians. This group favored by about 2/3 “a presidential candidate who supports strong laws and immediate action to address global warming. 75% agreed that “Congress should pass legislation that sets a clear national goal for reducing global warming pollution with mandatory timelines because industry has already had enough time to clean up voluntarily.”

   http://www.livescience.com/environment/060607_hunter_poll.html

   This is a mainstream issue, complicated by the uncertainty of predictive models but which nonetheless contain have a wealth of verifiable evidence that change is happening and influenced by anthropogenic factors, by timescales longer than human life spans, and by the economic and lifestyle consequences of some of the changes that some people recommend in our collective behaviors.

   I will offer one piece of anecdotal observation which you may treat as such. On January 6th of this year, three timber rattlesnakes were observed outside a den site in the mountains of Eastern New York. Normal emergence for this species is mid April, and this is the only record of them ever emerging in January in this region. On this same day, maple sap was running in trees that are usually dormant for another two months. By any modern measure, these are unprecedented events for the prevailing climate conditions of this area and outside the “normal range of variation”.

   One data point (and anecdotal at that) does not a theory make. But there is a great wealth of verifiable data that change is taking place - however we may quibble about the relative contribution of our species’ part in it. I dislike smug scientists and simplistic political opportunists just as others do, but that does not address the consequences of our actions or inactions. It seems to me if we are going to reject some courses of action in favor of others it should be an informed (and timely) choice.

   So dope slap Mr. Gore when he deserves it, certainly, and Exxon/Mobil too while we’re at it, but then we would do well to try and get the best picture possible on climate change in the time we have and respond decisively. Even the Marines aim for the 70% solution.

   Comment by Tim Abbott — February 12, 2007 #

3. Tim,

   Jake can speak for himself but I think he was indicating not that Republicans are in denial that the planet is getting warmer, but that they’re more inclined to question the extent to which it will be “disastrous.”

   I agree that the issue is not necessarily a left-and-right matter, but there is no question that Dems are less critical of the science behind the doomsday scenario than Republicans are. I know some who argue that’s because Republicans are ignorant — which brings us back to name-calling by the passionate.

   But it always struck me that Increased CO 2 emissions + higher temps = human induced global warming has always required a leap of faith of an undetermined distance. It may be true but unprovable.

   Comment by Terry — February 12, 2007 #

4. And indeed, uncritical acceptance of anything just because it is agreeable to one’s view is an unprovable leap of faith and a bad basis for policy decisions. The climate change debate is overtly political because any meaningful action to modify our species contribution to the problem will involve a regulatory aspect and will impact how we consume and conserve. It is reasonable to question the trade-off. It is unreasonable to delay confronting the problem and taking deliberate action based on the best available data in a timely fashion.

   Comment by Tim Abbott — February 12, 2007 #

5. Global warming, if such a thing really exists, may or may not be something that mankind can solve.

   I believe that this is more of a natural change that is happening, basically part of the evolution of the planet.

   Was the ‘ice age’ global freezing caused by the dinosaurs? Did they die because they failed to do something about it?

   For some reason mankind seems to think it is responsible for everything on this planet. Naturally, mankind also thinks it is capable of fixing all that it see’s as wrong. Are we truly that grand?

   Finally, I point to Mr. Abbott’s comment, “It is unreasonable to delay confronting the problem and taking deliberate action based on the best available data in a timely fashion.”

   I would remind all here that the United States Congress took exactly that approach when they authorized the war in Iraq, and we now know the results of that ‘best available data’.

   More thought, proof, and debate need to occur before we impose our will upon the rest of the planet.

   Comment by Michael Flint — February 13, 2007 #

6. Ah, but the one difference (among many) between Congressional authorization of the war on terror and what I was advocating was that there have been precious few methods of assessing the impacts of our choices and taking corrective action in response to unintended or unacceptible consequences in Iraq. One does not just stay the course without incorporating new data into decision making. But neither, in my view, does one fail to act when the potential to make a difference still exists, so that there is ultimately no other option but the acceptance of what becomes inevitable.

   Finally, I said nothing about imposing our will on the rest of the Planet. That I leave to our esteemed commander in chief, who appears quite happy to assume that mantle when it suits our foreign policy objectives.

   For more on the subject of human choice and our species impact, you might check yesterday’s post at my blog and the comments therein. Terry, thanks for providing a forum for this exchange.

   Comment by Tim Abbott — February 13, 2007 #

7. I find it shocking that there are still so many people who doubt that global warming is a problem that does exist. I find it especially scary hearing this redundant debate continue, because it means we may miss whatever outside chance we might have to do something about it. It is way past time for democrats and republicans to stop arguing across the aisle, and time to start working together to find solutions.

   Comment by Mark Alexander — February 14, 2007 #

8. Mark,

   Thanks for your comment.
   I think the main question is how much man is to blame for global warming.

   Be that as it may, whether or not one believes the warming is primarily anthrocentric is really beside the point. We all have an interest in reducing air pollution, so let’s do it.

   Of course, as Tim has aptly pointed out, anytime combating a problem requires people to change how they live and anytime it has potential economic impacts, the issue will get wrapped up in politics.
   That’s why we argue about it. So the debate will likely continue and — much like matters of war and peace — it is much too important to be left entirely to the experts.

   Comment by Terry — February 14, 2007 #

9. As I sit here, watching the blizzard fall, I am reminded that 30 years ago, the same Chicken Little Society was calling for GLOBAL COOLING. BUT, as someone previously posted, the CLS has framed the discussion so they are never wrong.

   Now, Mark may be willing to place his faith in people that cannot predict what will happen in 48 hours, but I and a host of others are not.

   With my faith in the msm well documented, I have investigated this for myself. I spared myself algore’s diatribe; he has NO scientific credibility and does not practice what he preaches. Typical socialist attitude and behavior. Discoery Channel, The Learning Channel, The History Channel, and various sites, pro and con on the internet.

   We are in a natural cycle of earth. Is it getting warmer? Yes. We are coming out of a period of cooling; climatologists peg this period as occurring during the “Dark Ages.” The earth cooled about 3 degrees centigrade during this period. It has been verified by written records and geological records. Not much of a change, but it did contribute to all sorts of natural disasters. Since our ecosystem strives for balance, if one period is cool, then the next will be warmer.

   Is man the main culprit? NO. How much are we affecting the climate? NO ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN. Interesting tidbits:

   More methane is released daily by the insects in the world than by man. That ant you step on is a leading contributor to greenhouse gases.

   Our tax dollars have been spent by some idiot in DC to determine a way to reduce flatulence in cows. I believe the “study” had a $10 million price tag. The “study” concluded that the idea is impractical.

   There are many more such follies. We may be able to reduce our emmissions of greenhouse gases, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s like wishing HillBilly would go away: it just doesn’t matter.

   Comment by Paul Bartomioli — February 14, 2007 #

10. The scientific community has a system of peer review that time has proven to work very well. The first scientists to shout out about the current Global Warming problem were looked at as alarmists, but then as other doubting and curious scientists reviewed the alarmist’s claims, they found them to be essentially accurate and were then able to contribute further scientic and provable evidence that the problem of Global Warming was even worse than imagined. Of course there are detracters. Of course ther are some scientists who think that Global Warming doesn’t exist, or isn’t our fault, or isn’t something we can do something about. However, the HUGE majority of scientists around the world DO feel Global Warming is a problem, that it IS our fault, and that we MUST do something about it. I have to say I am very comfortable believing the scientific majority view over those scientists who want to remove the clapper from the alarm bell. Besides, even if it is a false alarm, how tough is it to do away with Hummers?

    Also, remember that Al Gore is acting merely as a reporter with his movie. He never made any claim to be otherwise. I trust his report based on ample hard science evidence, regardless of what his political aims may be. He certainly knows more about this issue than I do. And I dare say I trust the evidence of the majority of the world’s scientists more than the evidence posed by arm chair experts like Paul, above, who seem to make their claims to align with whatever axe they’re grinding.

    To see if any actions taken to reduce or slow the effects of Global Warming will impact you, take this survey:
    http://www.myfootprint.org
    I always thought of myself as relatively sensitive about my impact on the world, but I was surprised to see that if all the people of the world adopted my lifestyle, we would need 2.4 earth’s worth of resources to support us all. How does your lifestye measure up?

    Comment by Mark Alexander — February 15, 2007 #

11. Mark,
    Thanks for posting the link to that quiz. You’ve got to be kidding me! You scored a 2.4? How do you manage that w/out public transportation or access to a bicycle year-round?
    I scored a 16, below the average of 24 but the quizmaster still admonished me with a finger-wagging “IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.7 PLANETS!”
    BTW, who in the U.S. version of the quiz lives in a “Free standing house without running water?” Is a house without running water less damaging to the planet? That would make for tricky toilet flushings.
    And I wasn’t sure how to answer the flying question. Since I left the fundraising biz two years ago I haven’t set foot on a plane (much to my delight), so I put zero. But I used to fly a lot, so I don’t know if I checked the right answer.

    Most interesting. Thanks again for passing it on. I would be interested to see what scores other readers get.
    Paul, remember the political test? Will you be off the charts again? Marshall, you use too much electricity at Geer. I would put your score at 46!

    Comment by Terry — February 15, 2007 #

12. Terry, As incredable as it may seem, I do live in a freestanding house with no running water, in the winter, anyway. For those 6 months I use a measured 25-30 gallons of water per week. For the warmer 6 months its harder to measure, but I know I use much more…I do love a good soak in the shower. I also seldom fly, but I did fly twice in January, so I entered an average from the last five years. My car gets 25-30 mpg, but I travel as little as possible, but now in retrospect I feel I may have estimated that answer low. I walk a lot, but may have answered high there. Cheating? Maybe. So it goes. But the point is that a very small percentage of the world’s population is using the majority of earth’s resources…. including forces which are increasing the rapid depletion of the ozone. It is those same few people of the earth who have the power and the tools and the responsibility to do better.

    Comment by Mark Alexander — February 15, 2007 #

13. Score: 25

    That test is the height of silliness. Not worth the effort to point out all the fallacious assumptions that have to be taken to even ask those questions. I hope children aren’t being exposed to that site.

    Responding to Tim Abbott above and the polls, I was referring to the National Journal Poll of US House members. I should have stated that. You can read it here:

    http://syndication.nationaljournal.com/images/203Insiderspoll_NJlogo.pdf

    And finally, for all the people who think the global warming debate is over, I would mention that there was similar scientific “concensus” around the “population explosion” in the 1960’s and Eugenics in the 1920’s. The former ended wasting tons of good people’s money for nothing (let alone things like China’s one child policy) and the latter led to a very nasty fellow in Germany trying to “cleanse” his country of what he considered a lower genetic order. So, global warming or no, we should err on the side of skepticism when politicians use “pure science” to promote their agendas.

    Comment by Jake — February 15, 2007 #

14. Jake, I’ve got your back.

    BTW: Which of the listed cities has weather like ours? Listening to the “meteorologists” that predict weather for CT, they are generally wrong about our weather here. Danbury? Hartford? NYC? NOT EVEN CLOSE. Try listening to WGNA FM out of Albany. Remember, we are south and east of Albany. Their prediction, Tuesday, for weather SOUTH and EAST of Albany was 6-10 inches of mixed precipitation. What is on the ground here?

    SO, the test is designed to show that MAN is responsible for global warming.

    Vegan questions? Not too political here.

    Sorry folks, I will not take this “test.” If you believe its results, you are sheeple. I answered 2 questions honestly and scored a 32. I ignored the test. Now, let’s go back and really tell the truth. By leaving their preset answers up, I scored a 46. I used NYC as my hometown weather.

    BTW, Terry, scoring 90% on a test is still considered an excellent score. Y’all need to meet my goals and raise your sights.

    No, Al Gore is not merely a “reporter.” How many people like the mandated “low flow” toilets? That is an Al Gore creation. HE is a politician with an agenda. His agenda, based on his lifestyle, is do as I say, not as I do. Kinda getting bored repeating that phrase about the socialists that masquerade as Democrats.

    Mar, who are you to decide how anyone should spend their money? See, that is part of living in a country where you can make your own decisions. When was the last time you heard of an American importing a doctor from a foreign country to treat a serious illness, like stomach cancer or maybe diverticulitis? Not sure of the illness, it might even be death, the press is tightly controlled in Cuba.

    Where is your criticism of the saints of your ecological movement? Pelosi and Gore are only the high priest and priestess. Yes, the orders listed are correct. Don’t forget Moore, Streisand, and the rest of our “betters?”

    Let’s try this: You live your way. I live mine. I don’t try and force you to change to my way of life, and you do likewise. If your postings are any indication, I have just asked you to buy a new H2 with all the bells and whistles.

    Comment by Paul Bartomioli — February 16, 2007 #

15. As a reader commented to me in an an email, the quiz assumes residents of the industrialized world should be compared to billions of people in third-world countries who are living “the norm” (no water, vegan, low overall consumption) by default. Anyone here want to live at the global average or even close to it?

    I suppose the implication is that they are noble savages whose enviro-purity we should aspire to. The quiz makes you think, but as Jake points out, the questions require a certain leap of faith. I thought it would be fun to throw it out to see how people would react and the nature of the quiz would speak for itself, which it evidently did.

    BTW, Mark, how do you square having no running water with having a computer?

    Comment by Terry — February 16, 2007 #

16. I got a 10.

    I guess that is all attributed to my tiny-ass appartment, and the only place I go is to work and back in my 4-cyl car that gets darn good gas mileage.

    Comment by fred — February 16, 2007 #

17. Terry,

    What does my lack of running water have to do with my computer? I try to keep water away from my computer!

    Really, for me to do what I need to do, I need my computer. I have found that running water is an option that is quite easy to do without. I just use walking water instead of running water. Not as big a deal as most people seem to think.

    The reasons I choose to live this rather spare lifestyle are multifacited, but primarily its just so that I can afford to pursue a much-less-than-non-profit project that I am passionate about, at a level most people apply to their jobs.

    I live this way also because I enjoy having no neighbors in the wintertime, in a fabulously beautiful and inspiring forest I share with nature and my dog. It’s poetic here.

    I’m not trying to set any example for you or anyone else. I’m not suggesting that everyone throw out the comfortable lifestyles they enjoy and try to live this way. In fact, if my kids were still in the house I probably couldn’t pull this off.

    However, if more people did live this way, obviously a lighter impact on earth’s resources would result. I am convinced that most people could reduce their consumption of earth’s limited resources if they chose to. At today’s rate of consumption, eventually it will no longer be a choice. Serious shortages will one day soon force change. Maybe not in my lifetime but very likely in my children’s lifetime.

    Living this way does provide me an interesting perspective. I often think about how my lifestyle appears quite impovershed compared to the living standards of most of the industrialized nation’s citizens, but in fact mine is a living standard well above that of the average world citizen.

    Just to provide a little glimpse…the only utiltites I buy are electricity, telephone and propane (only 50lbs propane per winter). My water and woodheat is paid via my own labors. I do without TV, DSL, dish washer, garbage disposal, garage door opener, lawn mower and many other things that I do not miss at all. I do use the laundromat every few weeks to wash clothing because washing clotes in the river presents other problems. I do drive an old car getting decent but not great mpg, because I can’t afford a hybrid and due to the area’s population density there is no public transportation. I do have a part time day job to pay for food, etc., but I really live on very little money compared to most of society around me.

    There’s no law against driving Hummers and big SUVs to the mall, but eventually there will be. The writing is on the wall. Change is blowing in the wind.

    I’m no hero. I’m just doing what I feel I have to do to get done what I feel I need to get done.

    Comment by Mark Alexander — February 16, 2007 #

18. Hummers and other SUVs sell all over the world. It is a choice that people make. As long as a product has a market, it will be made and sold. Over time improvements will be made to the product to reflect changing tastes. Remember when auto A/C was an option? In the future these vehicles may well become hybrids, or run on an entirely alternative fuel. Heck, if I had a spare $250k, I would gladly convert my Suburban to run on hydrogen. But, I am not the governator.

    Where will this “law” occur? Not in the US, as long as the CLS and its mouthpieces have their way. I am tired of hypocrites lecturing me. Al Gore is becoming like HillBilly: syphilis. (Thanks Marshall, I love that comparison!!)

    Mark, you continue doing your thing, and I’ll continue to do mine. The world will not end or continue because of our choices. We are not even the pawns in this game.

    Comment by Paul Bartomioli — February 16, 2007 #

Leave a comment