A draft plan for achieving the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in California emerged from the state air board recently, and everybody -- from local agencies to private businesses to individual residents -- had better get ready for some big change in the way we do things. Here's our editorial today on the subject.
The new rules will take several years to finalize, but when they're in place they will affect the type of vehicles we drive, the ways cities are planned and allowed to grow and the way we handle everything from industrial operations to backyard barbecues.
No doubt the process will be punctuated by litigation along the way. Wait'll all those activist judges get their hands on this.
This is important, because Californians, like all Americans, produce greenhouse gases all out of proportion to our population. We've got to do better, but it won't be easy.
There will be fees and restrictions for everything from your lawnmower to your BBQ and beyond.If you go back in the archives of the Bee and check out" The Best of Brian" you will indeed annoint me as an "Opinion Prophet".No need to kiss the ring or bow down as I am but a humble "Opinion Prophet".
One simple question:
Is there any scientific proof that this alleged increase in global temperature is not part of a cyclical warming/cooling event? No other gobbledygook, but a simple, definitive ruling out of normal, dynamic, planetary cooling and warming?
If that question can not be answered, then why would we need to be in such a hurry to radically change everything? (the answer may be in the question--keyword: "radically"...)
Matt...the horse is out of the barn on this and the other side(environmentalist whackos and followers)have no interest in the truth or getting the horse back in the barn.I think we're screwed on this one.It's a key component in the march to socialism in this country.
Matt, if you're looking for scientific "proof," I'm afraid there is no such thing. "Proof" is found only in mathematics, not science (the term is also used in law, but that's not the same sort of proof).
But if you're really interested in learning more, as opposed to just posing questions to no one in particular, I'd recommend the latest IPCC summary report, at the following link. The first few pages should answer your questions. In short, natural cycles of warming and cooling have been taken into account, but do not explain the warming trends we are seeing. It won't satisfy people like Brian, who prefer Rush Limbaugh sound bites, but this is the scientists who actually study these matters say.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
It's no use Mike. Don't waste your time. Brian's second post is a perfect example why:
"the other side(environmentalist whackos and followers)have no interest in the truth"
Does that mean no one wants the truth then? They don't want it, we don't want it. No one cares. Let's all keep going like that and see how it goes. I'm guessing Brian and Matt don't have children or they would care about what their world will be like. Apparently those who care about the future of our planet and their children's future are wackos.
Scot...are there no scientists who have a contrary opinion. Not according to you guys,your position is there is no argument.I support being a good steward of the earth but we are being sold a bill of goods that is neither man-made or man-solvable.What happened to the coming ice-age the seventies scientists warned us about? You're acting like a punk insinuating Matt and I have no interest in the future... or the present for that matter.I'd put my personal effort to be a good steward up against your sorry ass anytime.Mike(D)...has anyone figured in measurable precipitation in the selected reports you believe in? Just how can they measure and predict that component world wide? They can't.
Why don't you read the report yourself, Brian, instead of asking me what it says? I gave you a link. Unless you do your own homework and honestly look at what the vast majority of the scientific community says (instead of clinging to the small minority of dissenters), you'll give us no reason to believe that you actually do care about the future.
For a better perspective on "global warming" than you’ll see in the local obamafied, neo-Marxist press, check out:
http://www.demanddebate.com/
http://www.junkscience.com/
Ok TC, that first link wasn't anything more than a propaganda website declaring that the debate isn't over and asking for money. If that's not spamming a comment thread, I don't know what is.
And then I found this on Junk Science in regards to those who argue humans are contributing to global climate change:
Sounds like the supporters of Prop. 8. "Teh gayz will ruin the earth!" Maybe I like that second site after all.
Adam, I thought that part sounded a lot like the four horses in Revelations.
TC, I appreciate the websites. They seem a bit home-made, but that's ok. My question to you would be: Why? Why would scientists around the world make this up?
Brian, you didn't offer my sorry ass an argument. Of course there are some scientists who don't think it's a big deal, but that's not what your post was about. You called us wackos with no interest in the truth because we had a differing opinion. On top of that you said:
"It's a key component in the march to socialism in this country."
Of course I'm going to bash you, you asked for it with statements like those. And then your next response after that is all class. Perhaps we'll find it in "The Best Of Brian." Maybe you can answer my question. How is this a key component to a "march to socialism?" Why is global warming or taking care of our environment a liberal leftist socialist thing and not a human thing? Why are we trying to dupe the right? I don't understand why this is an argument. What possible reason on this earth would people have to fake something like this? Is it because it's an important issue to Al Gore? Is that it?
Since you want to put your personal efforts up against my sorry ass...here's what we do out on this property. We have 6 plastic trash cans along side of the garage. There's a crusher there mounted on the wall. The aluminum cans (and other aluminum) are crushed and put into two of the cans, the clear glass goes into one can, the colored glass goes into another can and all plastic goes into the other two cans. They are taken to the recycle depot when they fill up.
Since we're outside the city lines, all paper trash is incinerated in a burn barrel. I'm a little concerned with the burning so we try not to burn anything like Styrofoam or petroleum based materials.
Behind the shop building we have 5 large "bins" about 8'L X 6'W. Bin A is for the raw green vegetable matter including everything from the kitchen and the yard. Large brush from pruning etc. goes to the burn pile in the orchard. From Bin A the green matter eventually goes into the shredder and then into Bin B. From Bin B it goes into a large compost tumbler for 3-4 weeks. Out of there it goes into Bin C. The rich compost in Bin C is used when planting new trees and plants. The other two bins are dirt and sand. What we throw into the trash to be picked up (whatever can't be burned, recycled or returned to the earth) does not amount to much at all and only gets put out occasionally.
If I could afford one right now I'd drive a Prius. My sister has one and can go about 450 + miles on 10 gallons. It does better around town when it runs mostly on battery. I think 90% of the cars on the road should be Hybrids manufactured in the U.S. That includes manufacturing the batteries too instead of getting them from China. I think all new construction, residential and commercial, should be self powered using solar panels on the roof with a power grid backup.
Geeminy....my posts are way too long. I don't even like reading long posts, what makes me think anyone will want to read this?
Scot - I'm sure that's where they pulled the foundation from.
My point is that there are those who will rail against the doom and gloom, slippery slope type arguments when it's in their best interest and then you'll suddenly walk around the corner and bam, there they are, talking about how once you let gay people get married, beastiality will run rampant and the American economy will collapse under the collective weight of all those pagan-marxist-socialist-loving liberals.
It's all just so very silly.
The problem is a combination of the two sides. I believe it is part of a natural cycle for the earth. The geologic record shows glacials and interglacials have occurred before and we can see the effects it had on the environment. It is scientifically proven. That said, it is also scientifically proven that humans and their pollution have had an effect on this natural cycle. Greenhouse gas emissions from cars, industry, etc. have caused the escalation of the normal cycle. It is unknown as to what the effects will be but we do know that even normal warming will be a big problem to our water supply, crops, etc. To not know the magnitude of those effects when greenhouse gasses are added to the mix and speeds up or heightens the natural cycle, puts us in a bad position. Animals will not soil their own beds and humans are supposedly smarter than animals and yet we pollute the air we breath and the water we drink with no hesitation. It doesn’t really matter which side is right, we need to get our act together and stop soiling our beds so to speak. I have never been a bird watcher per se but I’ve noticed there are very many around anymore. I can’t see the mountains from my house any longer. I have developed asthma. When I was little we used to be able to drink the ice cold water from a mountain spring while hiking. I hate to break it to you but once we foul up this world we don’t really have another place to go. Some people with weaker constitutions are already having trouble breathing and thriving in the world as it is. What about them? It is selfish arrogance for humans to feel their own comfort / laziness/ needs are more important than those of future generations. Let's start working it out now before it get mass critical; so we can make gradual changes; before the problems become to big and therefore cost more to solve; or before it is too little too late.
RE: "...global warming gobbledygook..."
I am falling back on my education in the medical field. About one and a half century ago, the physician Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss, (an obstetrician by today's standards) could not understand why so many woman died of puerperal fever after giving birth. But, instinctively and by observation, he knew that it was no morbidity intrinsic to child bearing. He was convinced that it was something that was imposed upon the women during delivery. But he had no scientific proof that puerperal was an infection. He was ridiculed by the medical community. To make a long story short; no doctor today would deliver a child other than by antiseptic methods. It is pure gobbledygook to deny what stares us in the face; and let it take its unexplainable toll.
To sort out the political chaff from the kernel, that can always be achieved by practical and sane legislation. But to stick the head into the proverbial sand and blame the stars, is not the solution.
Anthropogenic global warming is the hoax of the ages. It was decades before the Loch Ness monster "photograph" was debunked as fake. So, we're just stuck with this hoax for awhile. Hopefully, those touting this tripe will stop doing so long before our economy is ruined. It's my understanding that the IPCC report is long on hucksters hoping to make a buck and short on scientists.
Unfortunately, those purveying this fraud have descended into stupidity by saying that we've got to do something about carbon dioxide. Apparently, they are unaware of the fact that that's the stuff we expel into the atmosphere every time we breath. They must also be equally unaware that carbon dioxide is necessary to all plant life, you know those green things that help clean up the air?
Here's a suggestion for everyone who really thinks that man is destroying this planet: take a deep breath, and hold it.
So, on one side of the issue, we have the vast majority of the scientists who devote their lives to studying the field, and who say that anthropogenic warming is a reality, and who offer reams of evidence to support their position.
On the other side, we have an anonymous poster on the internet who says it's all "bunk," just because she says so, apparently.
Gee, who should I believe?
So Roxanna, you shared your correct and basic understanding of how plant life turns carbon dioxide into oxygen. On this teensy specific issue alone, can you not put two and two together?
Booming human population producing more carbon dioxide with every birth, versus massive, ongoing land-clearing for said humans. Can you balance that equation for me?
Who to believe? I tend to believe those who are experts in organic chemistry and its roughly 400.000 carbon compounds sans Loch Ness monster.
P.S. Plant assimilation PHOTOSYNTHESIS is a bit more complicated than just absorbing CO2 out of the air. But even if we stayed with this most basic definition of it, there is a limit to what "those green things" can handle. And that is where science has to come in to monitor those limits, and try to restore the balance which our human activities are forcing out of balance. I apologize for the sarcasm about the Loch Ness monster.
"I'm a little concerned with the burning so we try not to burn anything like Styrofoam or petroleum based materials."
Hello there good fellow blogger "Scot"! I hope you do more than "try". The smoke of that stuff is toxic....