Comments on: Dusk On Earth

The Nation: The Planet Has Reached Its Tipping Point, And It's Time For A Hail Mary Pass

[mandylou4u]

I don''t know about you guys, but I personally have been recycling since 1995. Everybody at my work said I was wasting my time and they were too dam lazy to put paper in one box and trash in the other. This is what will kill our plantet. Too many dumba@@es not wanting to give up there perfect little way of life. You have to get the people to make the effort and that will be the hardest job of this whole thing. Next time you talk to someone who drives an suv, ask them to give up their car and see the response you get to that. Shame shame.

[random_radar]

Think globally
Act locally
Commit suicide to save the planet

[middleman8]

this article only worries about the spoiled united states. Its about time the us woke up and stopped feather bedding on the worlds back. U S 4.9 percent to world population grabs 29.5 percent of world resources

[sepa2]

The trick is we have to make conservation part of the economy growth - encorage new products, technologies and recycling etc. I think US is the last among the developed countries in this regard. We define growth by consumer spending and everyone is encoraged to spend. Everytime there is a conservation measure, the argument is it will affect the growth. Despite being a highly technological society US is sadly lacking decision makers with science / engineering background both in parivate and public sectors.

[perceptions5]

The Nation gives us another far left-wing liberal doom and gloom view of the world.

Definitely a "mouthpiece" for the Democrat party and all it''s "speical interests" groups.

Just another story from the most corrupt institution in America, our mostly liberal MSM wolfpack press.

And, as ususal, their trying to scare Americans with their "theories".

Really sad indeed...........

[joyous88]

mocaleo- is just anothet example of why we all have to

get out there and vote and support democrats across the board this time.

mcbushsame, bush, even little mocoleo care more for

their ideology than they do for the rest of us, they

do not care if we all die, as long as we die christians, mindless christians.

McSame'' plan is the same as Bush''s, in spite of his

big talk express BS, he says the ''free markets'' will

solve the problem, right! thats how we got into this

mess. reublicons and thetr CON friends have destroyed

america, they are the real terroists

[doctor--o]

We''ve have had the information for years.
Instead our thinking has been:
Let''s see:
Al Gore, George Bush,
Al Gore, George Bush,
Al Gore, George Bush
Oh, I know that one name and I don''t like it that Bill Clinton was diddling in the oval office.
I''ll vote for the worst mistake in human history.
That''s right.
Good choice.

Hmmm, What''s that funny piece of paper that just fell on the floor.

[hk94]

Ok, if this is the case, then you would be willing to drink untreated water from the Hudson river as it passes Manhattan, or Mississippi river water in Louisiana? How about a bottle of Detroit river water?

Posted by brianbwb

Actually that would be better than drinking the water from a river in the middle of a pristine rain forest. I would likely die of disentery within a few days if I did.

Regardless, my point was about global climate change and long term effects not sewer water. Even in that case did you notice the previously dreaded zebra muscle cleaned out Lake Erie pretty good from the sewer that it was.

You also missed my other posts about how the GW hype is detracting from attacking real pollution, such as *** in our rivers.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Guess what? The planet does what it does and it is human arrogance to think we can do so much to change such massive natural systems." Posted by hk94

Ok, if this is the case, then you would be willing to drink untreated water from the Hudson river as it passes Manhattan, or Mississippi river water in Louisiana? How about a bottle of Detroit river water?

[noloyalisti]

We all need to stop buying and driving SUVs. some of this knew this back in 2000 when the oil companies were voted in to run the government. We certainly do not need cheap gas, nor do we need further growth in the economy. Even progressives don''t want to talk about this. It is important that we cut back on our lifestyles (read consumption). The government can step in and levy severe consumption taxes. This might save us if we do it soon.

[hk94]

"We inspected the nine administrative reports that were commissioned by the U.S. government.
Since the current population of bears is not at a level that causes concern, the case for listing
depends upon forecasts of serious declines in bear numbers in decades to come. None of the
reports included references to scientific works on forecasting methods.
We found that the two reports that we judged most relevant to the listing decision made
assumptions where forecasts were required. Even if these assumptions had been valid, the bear
population forecasting procedures described in the reports contravened many important
forecasting principles."

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/PolBears.pdf

[hk94]

"In their audit of the GCM climate modelers%u2019 procedures they found that only 13% of the relevant forecasting principles were followed properly and some of the contraventions of principles were critical. This finding was consistent with earlier cautions. For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects on climate of
additional atmospheric carbon dioxide given the severe limitations imposed by uncertainty about
the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes. Indeed,
some climate modelers state that the GCMs do not provide forecasts. Here is a statement by one
of the lead authors of the IPCC%u2019s AR4:
%u2018%u2026there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead
proffers %u201Cwhat if%u201D projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.
There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended
to cover a range of possible self consistent %u201Cstory lines%u201D that then provide decision makers
with information about which paths might be more desirable.%u2019
(Written by Kevin Trenberth of the Climate Analysis Section, National Center for
Atmospheric Research, and posted on ClimateFeedback at nature.com on June 4, 2007.)"

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/PolBears.pdf

[hk94]

Ubrew12

Polar Bears International is a special interest advocacy group whose finances are directly dependent on donations. In fact making a donation is the first thing listed under "what you can do". They have cherry picked information that talks about population in a particular area, not their entire population range.

These days I am more likely to listen to the whole story from those who are more neutral in their interests. Take for example Forecast Principles. They evaluate such claims and related studies using tried and true scientific, investigative and predictive priciples. See link below. They take issue with the studies involved in much of the media push around the issue. They find them full of political bias andn lacking in scientific methodology.

If major policy decisions are to be made that effect our daily lives and our futures, then the studys upon which those decisions are made need to be based on sound scientific principles.

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/PolBears.pdf

[ubrew12]

Polar bear international: "Some Native communities in Canada have been reporting increasing numbers of polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this indicates an increased population, although the increased presence on land may, in fact, be related to shrinking sea ice and changes in the bears'' distribution patterns. Data is needed to understand the change. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states, "In the declining polar bear population of Canada''s Western Hudson Bay, extensive scientific studies have indicated that the increased observation of bears on land is a result of changing distribution patterns and a result of changes in the accessibility of sea ice habitat."

Maybe you''re seeing what you want to see.

[hk94]

Got a link or is that just your subjective opinion?-
Posted by ubrew12

Glad you asked. Below is from a Canadian newspaper.

"If the polar bear is the 650-kilogram canary in the climate change coal mine, why are its numbers INCREASING?"

"The Inuit have always insisted the bears'' demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.

As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit were right. There aren''t just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears."

Their widely portrayed lurch toward extinction on a steadily melting ice cap is not supported by bear counts in other Arctic regions either."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868

Also see:
"Between 1965 and 1970 the population of polar bears was estimated at only 8,000 - 10,000 and it was classified as an endangered species.

"the current population worldwide is now between 20,000 - 40,000."

http://www.ypte.org.uk/docs/factsheets/animal_facts/polar_bear.html

[ubrew12]

hk94 said: "The polar bear populations has actually been increasing the last 10 years and "

Got a link or is that just your subjective opinion?

[element51]

hk94....I kind of come down in the same place as you. Having lived in Los Angeles most of my life I have seen the effects of smog and can remember going over the hill from Santa Monica to the San Fernando Valley being able to see the air. So I tend to believe that we are doing damage to ourselves. But when I read the right wing posts here I am certain that nothing will be done. Profit is all that is important and these people will never even try to see that there a danger. As usual, anything they disagree with is because of the "liberals" and as we all know liberals are a sub-human species that cannot grasp the simple facts of any subject. Their main purpose is to stand in the way of the "chosen ones" and they would be much better off if they either converted to Limbaughism or died. So, the helll with it. If we live as a species good, if not they can die with money in their pocket. I am not going to argue with a bunch of people who can''t see past the end of their noses.

[hk94]

While the junk scientists and media incite hysteria on CO2, we have taken the focus off or real life affecting pollution. Ethanol emissions actually increase smog which has an immediate effect on human health. The massive use of food for fuel, jump in the clearing of land for crops and increase in fertilizer drainage into rivers, lakes and oceans is wrecking our natural resources. This is immediate harm to people and our food sources. All of this from government mandated market distortion causing inefficient use of resources. I am not an environmentalist by any means, but I ma disgusted by what I see.

[hk94]

Does the climate change? Yes. Is is man-made? Doubtful. 1000 years ago the Vikings lived in Greenland where they were able to farm, raise livestock, fish for cod, and make a good living. In England they grew grapes for wine. 300 miles north of where wine is grown in Europe today. Guess what, it was warmer then. There was no massive flooding. No doom and gloom. No industrial society. So what if I gets warmer. We are coming out of a mini cooling period.

Junk science is pushing their own selfish interests, including lucrative grants and the eco-industry that pushes us to produce biofuels and drive up food prices, starving people in poor countries. They ignore that we have record ice in Antartica this year. The polar bear populations has actually been increasing the last 10 years and the temperature have not been increasing. This is explained away as a short term anomoly. Everything that does not fit the model is ignored or excuses are made that it doesn''t mean anything.

Guess what? The planet does what it does and it is human arrogance to think we can do so much to change such massive natural systems.

[txgrouch2004]

THE FIRST STEP to reducing global CO2 emissions is to STOP GLOBALIZATION of the USA economy.

Most U.S. business travel is to overseas offices and factories that were built to house all the jobs that left. BRING THE JOBS BACK, and business travel goes down.

Massive oil is being consumed and converted to CO2 to ship products to this country THAT USED TO BE MADE HERE. BRING THE JOBS BACK, and shipping goes down.

Massive oil was consumed and converted to CO2 to BUILD ALL THOSE OFFICES AND FACTORIES. And now that the Chinese workers are demanding DECENT WAGES - factories in China are being moved to Vietnam and other countries WHERE PEOPLE ARE STILL DIRT CHEAP. MORE OIL will be consumed and converted to C02 to build a trail of abandoned factories as GLOBALIZATION keeps pursuing the motto "CHEAPER, EVER CHEAPER."

BRING THE JOBS BACK, and the problems go away.