BS: Palin v. Gore...

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:56 PM

Okay... I'll take it...

100!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:57 PM

Guess I won't...

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 05:12 PM

The probolem here isn't who would win a live Gore v. Plain debate on claimate change and global warming... He would kill her in the eyes of everyone that isn't part of her fringe extreme... But if this is allowed to be fought out in the media with Palin's team of Big Energy lobbiests then she can go toe-to-oe with ol' Al... This isn't necessary realted to, ahhhhhhh, actual facts but the perceptions that folks have of global warming...

The Big Energy lobby has plastered the media with ads that have created ***doubt***... Might of fact, Big Energy even advertises on Keith Olberman??? But then again, so does the health insurance lobby...

Face it, these are the same folks who wrote the ***mystery*** energy policy with Dick Cheney back in '02... We know who they are even thought the Bush administration invoked executive priveledge and exective order to protect the American people from knowing who these folks are... But nevermind that... They have set up shop in Palin's camp and are makin' her the spokesperson of doubt...

Now to my progressive friends here... Get real and get political... If ya' want an planet-friendly energy policy then get off the Global Warming Express to Nowhere and get talkin' clean air and toxic waste and renewable rersources... Folks can beleive that stuff...

Just my observations...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 05:46 PM

Please list some of these Big Energy advertisers who oppose change.
BP, Shell, Chevron and other have research programs aimed at reducing greenhouse emissions (OK, not those who have big tar sand leases).

But Bobert, I agree that the approach emphasizing clean air, reduction of toxic waste and safe environment might be best at present.
Even here in Alberta, where people are drunk with money from the oil sands (what downturn?), some are uneasy about the biggest open pit mine in the world, destruction of forest and doubtful reclamation, overuse and contamination of water in its extraction, injection of solvents into the subsurface, quadrupling the area being dug, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:23 PM

Q, I wonder if pointing at what the coal companies have done in the southern mountains (Kentucky and environs), leveling whole mountains because it's easier to get all the coal that way, but resulting in devastating small communities, poisoning the ground water and clogging streams, and generally leaving a disgusting mess in their wake.

Two songs at least that I know of—Jean Ritchie's Blackwaters and John Prine's Paradise (cover ~ the YouTube audio on all of John Prine's renditions were so bad you couldn't make out the words)—give pretty graphic descriptions of the widespread devastation that the coal companies left behind. There are undoubtedly more songs.

Pretty good example of the kind of "concern" for the land and the people that the big energy companies characteristic exhibit.   (PTUI!!!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:33 PM

I was referring to the petroleum companies who drill the subsurface, but yes, you are right about the coal companies active in the Appalachians. A sad story.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:40 PM

BP, Shell, Chevron and other have research programs aimed at reducing greenhouse emissions

Well, they would wouldn't they? Remember Sarah Palin reprieving that turkey while a bloke in the background was carrying on with the slaughter?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 08:05 PM

McGrath, what is that remark in aid of?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 08:29 PM

Sunspots do not cause climate change, say scientists
Key claim of global warming sceptics debunked

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Monday, 14 December 2009SHARE PRINTEMAILTEXT SIZE NORMALLARGEEXTRA LARGE
PHOTO BY UNIMEDIA INTERNATIONAL/REX FEATURES
Leading experts say solar cycles cannot account for current global warming



Leading scientists, including a Nobel Prize-winner, have rounded on studies used by climate sceptics to show that global warming is a natural phenomenon connected with sunspots, rather than the result of the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide.

The researchers – all experts in climate or solar science – have told The Independent that the scientific evidence continually cited by sceptics to promote the idea of sunspots being the cause of global warming is deeply flawed.

Studies published in 1991 and 1998 claimed to establish a link between global temperatures and solar activity – sunspots – and continue to be cited by climate sceptics, including those who attended an "alternative" climate conference in Copenhagen last week.

UK Independent

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 08:43 PM

Hey, if ya' believe the full pages ads in the Washington Post, BP is some kinda benevolent corporation that rivals Jesus, Ghandi and God hisself in being so pro-human... lol...

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 08:45 PM

The "UK Independent" is a 'news' medium; nothing peer-reviewed and not reliable.
Quoting or linking these media serves no purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: EBarnacle
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 10:23 PM

Bruce,

While you are correct that water vapor is a constant value as part of the totality, you are incorrect about vapor's position as a global warming factor. It is commonly accepted as the #3 factor.

Part of the problem is that the oceans are becoming fresher. Another part of the problem is that we, by development, are interfering with
the water cycle, in that we are paving over land and not allowing the water to seep into ground to replenish aquifers. By the same token, we are paving wetlands and interfering with purification. All of this means that we are wasting a replenishable resource.

We are working on establishing Atmospheric Water Generation [AWG] as the technology of choice. Unlike other technologies, AWG only needs the ambient temperature to be greater than 40 degrees F in order to extract usable amounts of water. The technology can be used for disaster relief as the largest "portable" machines can produce 60,000 gallons per day at 90 F and 90% relative humidity.

A secondary advantage of AWG [primary in terms of this discussion] is that, as you remove water from the atmosphere, more evaporates from the oceans, seas and large lakes. This allows a rise in salinity as the fresh water is applied to various human uses, such as providing water where there is insufficient clean water for consumption and agriculture. It also has the potential to ease uncomfortable high humidity during the warm months.

One of our goals is to produce sufficient high quality equipment to relieve droughts, refill aquifers and, eventually, push deserts back. In the case of Florida, for example, the aquifer has been so depleted that the limestone beneath a large part of the state has become dehydrated and lost strength. This allows sink holes to form. The best way to resolve this problem is to replace the missing clean water with clean water. The rate of natural replenishment is too low and, in many coastal areas or areas unserved by sewers, there is a good chance of toxic infiltration because of a lack of relative pressure from the aquifer.   

It is impossible to do only one thing. By improving quality of life we can also relieve Global Warming and relieve a source of political conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 07:06 AM

The sun just rose in the West!

"Now to my progressive friends here... Get real and get political... If ya' want an planet-friendly energy policy then get off the Global Warming Express to Nowhere and get talkin' clean air and toxic waste and renewable rersources... "


I agree with this statement by Bobert. I have NO problem with many of the GW "solution" as being good and worthwhile- BUT I do not think they will PREVENT GW as Gore et al claim.

We need to adapt to change, not try to keep a dynamic system static.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 08:15 AM

Well, from a purely politican point of view, BB and I are on the same page... Og course we have arrived there from different directions, so to speak...

That doesn't mean that, unlike LH, that I don't believe that human's are the cause of glabal warming because I do... I does, however, mean that the "proof positive" is lacking...

The problem, as I see it, is that the same measures are called for be it "global warming" or "water, soil and air pollution"...

Now I'll be the first to admit that the science may have the "proof positive" but if it does then the story has not been told convincingly enough because too many folks just ain't on board... And then again, maybe the reason folks aren't on baord is that for the last 8 years we've had flat-earth scientists hired by the Bush administartion to tell us that it's all baloney... Or maybe it the cumulative results of the subtle ad campaigns by Big Oil... Doesn't really mater that much... Like I said, the measures that are called for are very similar be it GW or pollution we are trying to curb...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 08:26 AM

Frankly, I think if they wanted to do something constructive, they'd engage in a program to contain human popultion growth.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:21 AM

Peter Laut, a former adviser to the Danish Energy Agency who first identified the flaws, said there were practically no observations to support the idea that variations in sunspots played more than a minor role in global warming.

Mr Laut's analysis of the flaws is accepted by ... Paul Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on understanding the hole in the ozone layer. "There is definitely a problem [with these studies]. Laut has really pinned it down but the [sunspot] argument keeps reappearing and its quite irritating," Professor Crutzen said.

Professor Stefan Rahsmstorf, of Potsdam University, agreed: "I've looked into this quite closely and I'm on Laut's side in terms of his analysis of the data."


"Their controversial papers must be retracted or at least that there will be an official statement by them acknowledging their mistake," said Andre Berger, honorary president of the European Geosciences Union.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: pdq
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 11:54 AM

Here are some ideas that seem to be proposed by serious people...

                                                 10 Ways To Slow Global Warming

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 12:21 PM

"
For general purposes, the energy output of the sun can be considered constant. This of course is not entirely true. Scientists have shown that the output of the sun is temporally variable (Figure 4). Some researchers have also suggested that the increase in the average global temperature over the last century may have been solar in origin. This statement, however, is difficult to prove because accurate data on solar output of radiation only goes back to about 1978. "
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation



I was NOT talking about sunspots ( 11 year cycle), but the longer cycles that many here seem to be ignorant of.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
accurate data on solar output of radiation only goes back to about 1978.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

So how can ANYONE tell me that they know there is NO long-term variation, when other indicators ( Earth's past climate amoung them) have shown there to be?


Don Firth,

As I have a BS degree in physics and astronomy, and have 30 years experience working in the field of satellite data collection (EO-1 Data Manager as well as other positions) and interpretation, perhaps you might tell me YOUR credentials in the field of solar flux determination?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 12:34 PM

In case you want a picture, let me find one for you...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg

If you want the original source, feel free to look- I am tired of wasting time telling idiots what the scientific community has known for some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 12:42 PM

Though if you WANT to use sunspots, ...

"Sunspot activity has been measured using the Wolf number for about 300 years. This index (also known as the Zürich number) uses both the number of sunspots and the number of groups of sunspots to compensate for variations in measurement. A 2003 study by Ilya Usoskin of the University of Oulu, Finland found that sunspots had been more frequent since the 1940s than in the previous 1150 years.

Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional - the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago. The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode."


So, if there is any further discussion of the solar output being "fixed", please supply at least a theroy as to why the data indicates otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 12:45 PM

"Solar cycles
Solar cycles are cyclic changes in behaviour of the Sun. Many possible patterns have been suggested; only the 11 and 22 year cycles are clear in the observations.


2,300 year Hallstatt solar variation cycles.
11 years: Most obvious is a gradual increase and decrease of the number of sunspots over a period of about 11 years, called the Schwabe cycle and named after Heinrich Schwabe. The Babcock Model explains this as being due to a shedding of entangled magnetic fields. The Sun's surface is also the most active when there are more sunspots, although the luminosity does not change much due to an increase in bright spots ( faculae).

22 years: Hale cycle, named after George Ellery Hale. The magnetic field of the Sun reverses during each Schwabe cycle, so the magnetic poles return to the same state after two reversals.

87 years (70-100 years): Gleissberg cycle, named after Wolfgang Gleißberg, is thought to be an amplitude modulation of the 11-year Schwabe Cycle (Sonnett and Finney, 1990).Braun, et al, (2005)

210 years: Suess cycle (a.k.a. de Vries cycle). Braun, et al, (2005).

2,300 years: Hallstatt cycle
Other patterns have been detected:

In carbon-14: 105, 131, 232, 385, 504, 805, 2,241 years (Damon and Sonnett, 1991).

During the Upper Permian 240 million years ago, mineral layers created in the Castile Formation show cycles of 2,500 years.
The sensitivity of climate to cyclical variations in solar forcing will be higher for longer cycles due to the thermal inertia of the ocean, which acts to damp high frequencies. Scafetta and West (2005) found that the climate was 1.5 times as sensitive to 22 year cyclical forcing relative to 11 year cyclical forcing, and that the thermal inertial induced a lag of approximately 2.2 years in cyclic climate response in the temperature data."


Predictions based on patterns
A simple model based on emulating harmonics by multiplying the basic 11-year cycle by powers of 2 produced results similar to Holocene behaviour. Extrapolation suggests a gradual cooling during the next few centuries with intermittent minor warmups and a return to near Little Ice Age conditions within the next 500 years. This cool period then may be followed approximately 1,500 years from now by a return to altithermal conditions similar to the previous Holocene Maximum.
There is weak evidence for a quasi-periodic variation in the sunspot cycle amplitudes with a period of about 90 years. These characteristics indicate that the next solar cycle should have a maximum smoothed sunspot number of about 145±30 in 2010 while the following cycle should have a maximum of about 70±30 in 2023.
Because carbon-14 cycles are quasi periodic, Damon and Sonett (1989) predict future climate:
Cycle length Cycle name Last positive
carbon-14 anomaly Next "warming"
232 --?-- AD 1922 (cool) AD 2038
208 Suess AD 1898 (cool) AD 2002
88 Gleisberg AD 1986 (cool) AD 2030

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 12:58 PM

BB, when it comes to astronomy, I might be what is called a "talented amateur." I have been interested in the subject since I was eight years old, have read widely on the subject, and have taken a number of courses at the University of Washington. I have also logged in some observatory time.

Granted, I don't have the degrees that you say you have, but I have known of, say, anatomy professors who couldn't find their own butts with both hands and an anatomy chart.

Inaccurate information is still inaccurate, even if the promulgator of that information has a whole string of degrees.

In my post above, I also talked about the sun's long term cycles, not just the 11-year sunspot cycle. And I am also fully aware of the work done on temperatures and atmospheric content by studying such things as tree rings and core samples taken from glaciers and ice sheets. So there is considerable information that can be at least inferred about solar radiation that goes back a long way before 1978.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 01:03 PM

Yes, and the inference is that solar output drives climactic change.


"Inaccurate information is still inaccurate, even if the promulgator of that information has a whole string of degrees"

Yet the GW "hotheads" insist that since they have supporters with "a whole string of degrees" they cannot be argued with.

Make up your mind- you can't insist we respect "AUTHORITY" when YOU do not do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 01:16 PM

BB, I know what I know, and I can't be held responsible for what other people think or say, so quit trying to shove everyone you disagree with into one convenient pigeon-hole.

Over and out. I'm not done with this thread, but I have things to do for the next few hours.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 01:21 PM

"BB, I know what I know, "

Yet you declare that ** I ** do NOT "know what I know."


Be careful- you might have to be elevated to one of the Ubermench.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: pdq
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 01:28 PM

...fade out Debbie Boone singing "You Light Up My Life"...cue the Robert Shaw Chorale...


                                                    "Sunspots We Have Heard on High"

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 01:35 PM

McGrath, what is that remark in aid of?

Seemed self-evident to me, but clealruy not to Q.

My point was about tokenism, as symbolized by stuff like politicians "reprieving" the odd turkey.

"Clean energy research" by major polluters looks very like mere window dressing, while normal business, wrecking the planet, goes on as per normal.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 02:13 PM

If you wish to call petroleum suppliers "major polluters," remember their investors, hundreds of thousands of them, the people who gain employment from the uncounted companies who depend on their products, and all of us who use plastics, fuel and materials whose production depends on petroleum - it is US who created them and find them necessary to our well-being.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 06:09 PM

it is US who created them and find them necessary to our well-being.

And that's the problem that needs sorting out, or there won't be any well being for you for the US or anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 06:15 PM

Consumerism in all its guises, is the worlds foremost cause of pollution. How many of us would be willing to rewind our lifestyles and living standards back to pre 1900 levels?

That would be the minimum required to make any impact on co2 levels.
It woulds also mean the end of Capitalism as we know it
Instead of buying our living standards, we would be obliged to become self sufficeint in food production, return to living as three and four generation family groups,sharing in housing, heating and the production of food.

All the talk about alternative energy sources is only a load of "hot air", if these new sources are to be wasted producing items whos only purpose is to encourage people to exchange their lives for money and the money for a consumerist dream...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: olddude
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 06:29 PM

I like that Canadian Scientist David Suzuki I think his name is. The effects of man's activity will hasten the event even if the event is a natural occurrence or not. That is if it normally would take 1000 years than maybe it will only take 200 due to the carbon emissions.

Now how anyone else can think in the big scheme of it all that reducing carbon emissions,   is a bad thing, then I don't get it because even if it does not cause global warming, it causes enough other problems in the environment and in our health that it is worth doing. So trying to reduce the fossil fuel emissions is a good thing I think and I applaud Gore for doing something other than sitting on his butt like so many others have been doing for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 06:58 PM

I am sort of weary of those who seem to insinuate that quibbling over fine points of some arcane bit of physics and astronomy affects the overall preponderance of the data about warming!

Here are 50 of the supposed objections and some comments on them

There are MANY things to sort out, but winning the battle over sunspots won't cover it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 07:00 PM

But that's the fucking point!

Do you seriouly think anyone here would be willing to make any more than a token gesture?

What is required is a worldwide change in how we view the way we live.
At the moment the non-developed world wants a lifestyle "just like the Americans"   thats what they dream about! they already have self sufficienct to a minimal standard.

They want to be like us....and we know we must be like them to survive, if man made global warming is a reality.

But we will go on denying and apologising for ourselves to the bitter end.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 07:51 PM

There is clear and incontrovertible evidence of a link between climate and variations in solar activity - with climate lagging solar activity by about 10 years. This linkage is documented for millions of years. That is why it is so significant that the link seems to be broken since about 1975. This alone should be sufficient proof of something new happening to trigger implementation of the precautionary principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: EBarnacle
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 08:19 PM

Bruce, follow the link and look at item 6.

http://www.alternet.org/story/144557/12_hilarious_corporate_attempts_to_look_green?page=2

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:02 PM

Foukai, Frohlich, Spruit, Wigley, 2006. "Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate," Nature 443 (issue 1038): Existing literature suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, with little likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time.   "...brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century."
See list of peer-evaluated articles consulted in this review.

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:02 PM

Well, one thing which cannot be argued is this:

1. To the best of my knowledge there is no pending Climate Bill in Congress...

...and...

2. Big Oil (or someone) is allready spending big bucks telling folks that the "climate bill" will cost us jobs and raise our taxes???

Hmmmmmmm??? Someone who is making alot of $$$ doesn't want Congress to even think about climate legislation...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:03 PM

Opps... Make that 2 things...

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: EBarnacle
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:46 PM

Bobert, take a look at my 8:19 post today.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:49 AM

They're talking about everything but the one thing that would help--controlling human population growth.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:29 AM

I've done my bit on that. No kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:40 AM

Well, that's a start.

          The problem with trying to control population by war is, smokeless powder consumes oxygen and expells nitrates into the air. Then there's all those messy bodies to deal with, tanks and huge ships running around burning fossil fuels...

          On top of all that, it's not efficient, and we know there's a better way.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:59 AM

It's far from efficient. There is usually a big rise in the birth rate after a major war.

If you want to reduce the birth rate, it is best done by raising people's standard of living and improving their education. It is the poorer and less educated people who generally have the highest birth rate in any given society.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:08 AM

If you want to visit Cleopatra's masion home you now need scuba gear.

The most ancient cities on Earth are below the waves.

Take a look at the latest discovery!
http://www.heralddeparis.com/previously-undiscovered-ancient-city-found-on-caribbean-sea-floor/65855

Mass extinctions occur during sea level rise as well as sea level drops. Climate change forces out life that can ill adapt.

Too much heat as well as excessive cold is what we call climate change. Currently the co2 levels are stromnomically high. We are breathing less Oxygen and the sea is warmer. Our response will be less enthusiastic compared to the ingenuity of how to steal 8 trillion dollars with deregulation, Credit Default swaps and derivities (all of which stole enough money to finance an effective global response to climate change.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Martin Harwood
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:25 AM

While population growth is certainly an important issue, I think it's an all too convenient way to shift the onus onto the developing nations. The disparity in per capita energy consumption figures are staggering. We've got to stop being so bloody greedy!

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:39 AM

The problem with that analogy is when people migrate to a developed nation they become a super-consumer just like the folks who are there now. Reducing population growth at the source is the best way to deal with the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Martin Harwood
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:58 AM

All the more reason to reduce consumption in the developed world.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: pdq
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:03 AM

"...if you want to reduce the birth rate, it is best done by raising people's standard of living..."

But raising the standard of living for large group of people causes them to be be big polluters since...

                   high standard of living=
                   large consumption of goods=
                   large consumption of energy...

and we are back to the same problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:09 AM

"They're talking about everything but the one thing that would help--controlling human population growth." ake

I suspect that the same people who say this would be among the first to raise the alarm if they became aware that we are imbibing birth control through our water or some such means.

Education and raising the standards of living for all is the only answer. It is slow but inexorable.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:22 PM

Italy stands alone as the only country in which the population is markedly dropping. And the Vatican scratches their collective heads.