Re: [asa] Subglacial Water System Moving Faster Than

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Mon Feb 19 2007 - 14:01:17 EST

Previously Thought
Precedence: bulk

At 12:28 AM 2/19/2007, Rich Blinne wrote:

> Of course -- as always -- you don't deal with nor do you quote the
> substance of my post, viz. that the scientific community is not
> letting China et al off the hook and it's the global warming deniers
> who are playing politics with the science. ~ Rich B.

@ Since I have made it clear to you that I don't agree with your
premise, why would I deal with the beliefs you state above as if they
have any anchor in reality, ie: "substance"?

> As a [R-word], I'm glad that the stranglehold by those in my party
> who have played politics with science is slipping away. Maybe now
> we can propose some good conservative solutions to the problem. ~
> Rich B.

@ As a classic liberal (after the order of Hayek), I am trying not
to laugh.

> If you have problems with Kyoto, fine. So do I, e.g. by having all
> six Kyoto GHGs as part of cap and trade, 28% of the "market" is an
> obscure refrigerant, HFC-23. ~ Rich B.

@ You and Pim seem to want to twist what I previously wrote into
some sort of simple-minded complaint about me "not liking
Kyoto". You STILL don't get it.

> But instead of complaining about socialistic proposals, propose a
> better plan to reduce GHG emissions. With conservatives on the
> sidelines just throwing bombs, guess who is the only game in town
> trying to solve the problem? With the scientific community looking
> for partners to solve the problem and only one side coming to the
> table, this is why the "solutions" have been skewed ideologically.
> Don't blame the scientists or the liberals. Blame us conservatives.

@ A babe in the woods planning to spin his wheels. How novel. :)

I know you won't want to believe it, but you've been "had".

Here's my "reality" post for the day, + more

WASHINGTON -- You could be excused for thinking that we'll soon do
something serious about global warming. Last Friday, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- an international
group of scientists -- concluded that, to a 90 percent probability,
human activity is warming the Earth. Earlier, Democratic
congressional leaders made global warming legislation a top priority;
and 10 big U.S. companies (including General Electric and DuPont)
endorsed federal regulation. Strong action seems at hand.

Don't be fooled.

The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution.
About 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal,
oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases.
Energy use sustains economic growth, which -- in all modern societies
-- buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace
fossil fuels, or find practical ways to capture their emissions,
governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly
affect global warming.

Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to
"do something'' with skepticism, disbelief or contempt. These
pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested,
misinformed, stupid or dishonest.

Politicians mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming when
they're not. Companies want to polish their images and exploit
markets created by new environmental regulations.

Anyone who honestly examines global energy trends must reach these
harsh conclusions. In 2004, world emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2,
the main greenhouse gas) totaled 26 billion metric tons. Under
plausible economic and population assumptions, they'll grow to 40
billion tons by 2030, projects the International Energy Agency in
Paris. About three-quarters of the increase comes from developing
countries, two-fifths from China alone. By 2009, the IEA expects
China to pass the United States as the largest source of CO2.

Poor countries won't sacrifice economic growth -- lowering poverty,
fostering political stability -- to placate the rich world's global
warming fears. Why should they? On a per person basis, their CO2
emissions are only about one-fifth the level of rich countries. In
Africa, less than 40 percent of the population even has electricity.

Nor will existing technologies, aggressively deployed, rescue us. The
IEA did an "alternative scenario'' that simulated the effect of 1,400
policies to reduce fossil fuel use; for example, fuel economy for new
U.S. vehicles was assumed to increase 30 percent by 2030. The result:
by 2030, annual CO2 emissions would rise 31 percent instead of 55

Since 1850, global temperatures have increased almost 1 degree
Celsius. Sea level has risen about 7 inches. So far, global warming
has been a change, not a calamity. The IPCC projects wide ranges for
the next century: temperature increases anywhere from 1.1 degrees
Celsius to 6.4 degrees; sea level rises anywhere from 7 inches to
almost 2 feet. People might easily adapt; or there might be costly
disruptions (say, flooding of coastal cities resulting from melting
polar ice caps).

I do not say we should do nothing; but we should not delude
ourselves. In the United States, the favored remedy is "cap and
trade.'' It's environmental grandstanding -- politicians pretending
they're doing something.

Companies would receive or buy quotas ("caps'') to emit CO2. To
exceed the limits, they'd acquire some other company's unused quotas
("trade''). How simple. Just order companies to cut emissions.
Businesses absorb all the costs.

But in practice, no plausible "cap and trade'' program would
significantly curb global warming. To do that, quotas would have to
be set so low as to shut down the economy. Or the cost of scarce
quotas would skyrocket -- and be passed along to consumers through
much higher energy prices. Neither outcome seems likely. The program
would be a regulatory burden with little benefit. It would be a
bonanza for lobbyists and lawyers, as industries and localities
besieged Washington for exceptions and special treatment.

What we really need is a more urgent program of research and
development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries,
alternative fuels and the capture of CO2. Naturally, there's no
guarantee that socially acceptable and cost-competitive new
technologies will result. But without them, global warming is more or
less on automatic pilot. ..It's a debate we ought to have -- but
probably won't. Any realistic response would be costly, uncertain and
no doubt unpopular. That's one truth too inconvenient for almost
anyone to admit.

Washington Post ^ | 02/07/2007 | Robert Samuelson [refresh browser] [refresh browser]

~ Janice

> On Feb 18, 2007, at 9:23 PM, Janice Matchett wrote:
>> At 09:56 PM 2/18/2007, Rich Blinne wrote:
>>> Now I trust China about as far as I can throw it and their
>>> pollution control effectiveness so far has been poor. But, your
>>> issue is with others and not China itself. Everything points to
>>> the concern about climate change being genuine and not an oblique
>>> attempt at wealth transfer.
>> @ Puhleeeeeeeeeeze!
>> ~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 19 17:36:09 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 19 2007 - 17:36:09 EST