Yet the argument I made earlier continues to stand. Guilt by association is an ineffective path to reliable conclusions. This isn’t just about having a negative attitude about specific advocates (though at least it appears in this instance there is a balance of negativity.) It is also about having a negative attitude toward a realm of ideas.

I think war is horrible. People die. Stuff is destroyed on an industrial scale. Economists count is as a positive in GDP metrics, even though modern warfare typically consumes tremendous resources without producing material gains for the victors. The recent history of warfare contains much more unwarranted aggression than justifiable combat. It should not take long to make a substantial list of wars that were disasters from start to finish.

Yet if the United States were headed toward another war today, I would not cry out, “Viet Nam was attrocious, and Iraq is the greatest blunder of the 21st century. Therefore we must not go to war in this instance.” Instead I would look at the facts as best I could ascertain them. Is there a real threat to the U.S.? Are alternative ways of neutralizing this threat more effective and/or less painful to us? Are we ready with the capabilities needed to achieve victory if the conflict is not delayed?

Absolute pacifism may be noble, and it may even be sustainable on a personal level. On a national level, in the world we inhabit, it is definitely not a sustainable position. However wrong many wars through history have been, the decision today must be anchored solidly in the facts about the state of the world today. Environmental issues are no different. If we become uniformly hostile to these sorts of reforms, then we become uniformly vulnerable to any hazards that might degrade the ecologies that sustain us.

To say, “global warming is a theory” is a little odd seeing as how the globe (well, the atmosphere around it anyway) actually has warmed in measured ways. If I look out the window and catch sight of a bright moon in a dark sky, I will not formulate a theory that it is nighttime. I will conclude soundly that the present nighttime conditions are a fact. However many nutbars write half-baked criticism of the instruments and methods used to gather this data, the body of knowledge is sound enough to conclude that global warming is a real ongoing phenomenon.

It may be that Ender is making the case that anthropogenic global warming is theoretical. That area is fuzzy, but only slightly. Dispute about the role of atmospheric carbon in bolstering the greenhouse effect is widespread, but the negative case offers up a horde of nonsense and nothing at all compelling in terms of scientific value. Likewise, while honest competent scientists may quibble about the specifics, those quibbles do not amount to a sound repudiation of the correlation between recent CO2 increases and the general warming trend during that same time.

Likewise, there is no disputing that meeting the energy needs of a prosperous industrialized society produces tremendous carbon emissions. While Ender makes arguments invoking some real phenomena, the arguments themselves do not accurately depict a known reality. The thought that the Earth will somehow restore itself may be comforting, but the assorted bases for that thought rest on speculation in the best cases and deception in the worst.

Of course there are some bureaucrats (some of whom are involved in scientific organizations) as well as a few inept scientists, a few pseudo-scientific hucksters, and a vast legion of media personalities all vigorous in their denunciations of the idea that human activities are warming the Earth. As their misinformation reverberates throughout assorted media outlets and online venues, it is often given parity (or even preference) to the real science on this issue. Standards of veracity even on major commercial television networks have fallen so low that, were this contention about the shape of the Earth, editors and reporters would still tend to give equal treatment to “both sides of the story.”

Thirty or perhaps even twenty years ago, the science on global warming was far from certain, even if some of the alarms it raised were not too far from facts to be established later. Now the level of actual uncertainty is reduced to the sorts of things Occam’s Razor should handle. I don’t know for certain that there isn’t a Burger King at the exact center of the Sun. However, I feel it is reasonable to hold firmly to the belief no such restaurant exists. Likewise, I don’t know that a change in the intergalactic medium isn’t wafting over the planet and driving atmospheric change. However, I do feel that in the absence of anything other than the hopes of global warming skeptics to support that belief, I do well to carry on believing that it is not a driving force in the climate change process.

After all, if conclusions about scientific matters can be reached without evidence, we might as well just relax and let the Oompa Loompas inhabiting the Mohorovicic Discontinuity work the climate-restoring magic one random talk radio caller is sure that they will perform in the year 2013. Our thinking on climate policy needs to be guided by climate science. Our thinking on climate science needs to be guided by empirical evidence. As such, it is understandable that people might doubt global warming based on the “well, if this and that and the other thing are like our hunches suggest” speculation of decades ago. Yet that is no excuse for countering the sound science available today with similarly ill-constructed arguments.

It is also imperative to keep in mind that this isn’t a “do nothing and there will be no consequences” sort of situation. Yes, until we reverse the polarity on energy subsidies (i.e. wind down the free ride for petrochemical giants while vigorously kickstarting the next generation of energy technology) we simply won’t have the hardware it takes to cut emissions without paying an economic price. Yes, putting a precise dollar value on the economic damage global warming will cause, never mind the specific fraction that emissions reduction could mitigate, is going well beyond the bounds of what can be established with hard science.

However, the hard science does establish an extraordinary danger level associated with inaction. Even a honest conservative approach to the damages question has humanity gaining new Arctic shipping lanes while losing much more valuable real estate to rising oceans. The effects on regional climates are not subject to specific forecasting, but a roll of the dice seems like an extremely undesirable outcome for an agricultural powerhouse like the U.S. This is not just a choice between making economic sacrifices to fulfill a policy goal or saving money and doing nothing. It is a choice between making economic sacrifices to fulfill a policy goal or facing the full force of economic threats that are literally incalculable.

Responses to the global warming theory (specifically, that human activity is the single biggest contributor to global warming) will have the greatest impact on the lives of every individual since the theories that unleashed nuclear fission and fusion. Demonweed has yet to acknowledge that it is theory, the same being true for nearly every other public advocate for immediate action.

I clearly stated that a notable portion (intended but not stated vast majority) of the sea-borne CO2 reserve would not exist in solution, that it would exist as ice (and this kind of ice sinks). I think we’d all agree that there is significant “acreage” of the sea floor that is shallower than a mile, subject to evolving circulation patterns spawned (in less than millenia time scale) by increasing water temperatures. The hypothetical existence of dry ice on the sea floor isn’t whether it exists, the hypothetical is quantity. Discoveries of deposits have been found on the sea floor, and that spawned (I think) misguided schemes to intentionally pump a liquid/solid CO2 slurry into deep ocean trenches, as a means of sequestering it (yes, liquid CO2 does exist, but only in extreme pressure/temperature conditions, such as human-engineered mechanical processes or deep water). I see this as misguided, in that geological events (the origin of deep ocean trenches) will eventually (could be years, could be epochs) stir it up, merely delaying whatever effects may occur as the result of it’s atmospheric presence. Note that some in-situ experiments (evaluating sequestration) demonstrate a tendency of CO2 ice in deep water to recirculate. The water-ice envelope that forms to encapsulate the dry ice fractures due to extreme pressure, and partial sublimation occurs during the rupture, forcing the CO2 to shallower depths. This process continued in-situ for as long as the experiments supported observation. Larger chunks at shallower depths will survive better, since the pressure will not exceed the strength of the water-ice envelope…Kind of dangerous to sequester at shallow depths, since temperature changes will occur much faster in shallows than depths (excluding the unknown probability of geological/microbial activity).

No matter how many times Demonweed tries to say it, I don’t hate Al Gore. I am skeptical of his words and motivations, as I am skeptical of the words of any politician (Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Socialist, Libertarian). I did point out his personal financial investment in Carbon Offset Trading, because he is as subject to the same influences that so many believe have corrupted Dick Cheney, and I “invoke” Cheney only because he is the closest peer to Gore (being a Vice President with the governmental connections of the Post, as well as private sector investments and commitments that can be influenced by governmental and international actions), and he IS hated passionately because of it. Once again, the invocation of Cheney’s name isn’t a sign of approval or disapproval, it is an illustration of similars.

I have been accused of “sleazeball trickery” for pointing out views of our founding fathers. I have, in fact read the entire series of Federalist Papers, many writings by Jefferson (thanks to books purchased at Monticello), the entire Declaration of Independence and US Constitution many times. To a man, they were extremely cautious in conferring powers from the people to Government. “The beauty of the American Revolution was that it paved the way for people to choose for themselves how they will be governed” This is absolutely right! It also pointed out their firmly-held belief that power is best controlled (safest for the people) in the hands of the people, rather than king or even elected government. This is why the limitations of power were imposed (via the Constitution) on the Government, not the people. They believed this so strongly that they committed high treason, risking absolutely everything (life, liberty, property and taint of blood), to gain little more than a position of service rather than authority and privilege…and freedom from opressive regimes. They did create a mechanism to change the balance of power, but ensured that the mechanism required long, soul-searching, passionate debate and discussion before that change could be implemented, to ensure that changes were made only after the heat (no pun intended) of the immediate situation had the opportunity to cool. They cleverly created a balance that protects every person from the tyrrany of an individual or a regime, while protecting from tyrannical passion of the majority as well.

This discussion is a good illustration of why “the debate is over.” Three times now, I have been painted as a hateful idiot. Why would I want to continue, since no matter what data is uncovered in this discussion, no actions will be reconsidered. Why would I want to continue defending against personal attacks when nothing will change?

I agree that we should wean ourselves off of petroleum. As I said in an early post, I believe that we should be good stewards of this planet, and petroleum is a very dirty tool. The actions proposed (and many already adopted) span so much more than just our use of petroleum. Our individual and collective existence is a filth on the planet, since our very breath perpetuates the worst sin humanity has ever committed against this planet.

Demonweed and I agree that “clever alliances” are a positive mechanism for fostering change. Oddly, patience is advocated by Eco-Americans, to allow ethanol to evolve from its current state (which is now a negative-sum gain from a Carbon standpoint…see planting, harvesting, transporting, fermentation, distillation and combustion…somewhere between 1.8 to 3.5x the carbon footprint per BTU as petroleum), and allow wind farms to bloom (which have been most vocally opposed by environmentalists…see bird in a blender), and wait for a breakthrough in solar power (which at absolute best has a 50% functional cycle…see “night”), but there is no patience offered for the evolution of solid state lighting. There is no patience offered to allow a natural course spawned by positive motivation rather than mandates, fines and jail time.

It is surprising how Demonweed can brush aside previous environmentalist mistakes as bygone trifles. He minimizes their effects, since the intention was positive. Never mind the damage (CO2 emissions, animal deaths, erosion, property damage) caused by fostering devastating wildfires, or our thirty years of continued reliance on oil and coal thanks to a total ban on expanding and researching Nuclear energy. He is dismissing (or not addressing) similar venues for potentially devastating response. He jokes about cow flatulence (which was hilighted by environmentalists) and cosmic forces (in 1989, a single solar flare sent such a burst of additional energy into the Earth’s atmosphere that it almost took down the power grid for the Eastern half of Canada and the Eastern corridor of the United States). He is dismissing that (even though they and I admit the data is preliminary), Goddard Space Center, the keepers of the SOHO solar observatory program, indicate a possible change in solar output, and they (Goddard) would like more time to validate their findings and assess possible implications. He is dismissing that the sun operates on cycles of about 11 years, about 400 years, and about 11,000 years, and that we’re only barely beginning to understand them. He is dismissing that this planet is a wonderfully complex construct, and we have only scratched the surface in really understanding it. He is dismissing many of the “inconvenient truths” in this discussion, which I do see as relevant, as examples of prematurely regulating something before fully understanding the mechanism, contributing factors and peripheral effects.

Faith in a single theory and our need to act without further discussion is driving us towards regulation that will limit an uncontainable byproduct of human life. This faith is blind to the possible incorrect assumptions embedded in the millions of cohabitating variables (which themselves are independent theories) that work together to generate climate models. This faith is blind to the dual advantages of harvesting Methyl Hydrate (access to a domestic energy source, which would reduce the threat of releasing massive quantities of a poisonous, flammable, suffocating greenhouse gas that is far more impactful than CO2). This faith is blind to the potential future effect of returning Mercury into nearly every home on the planet (fluorescent lighting and the 2012 ban on 100 watt incandescent bulbs), with almost nonexistent containment mechanisms (recycling programs). This faith is unwilling to accept any middle ground, except theirs. We are told that this is a global crisis, that we are standing at the edge of a precipice, but they can’t agree on where the edge really is.

I am impressed by an interesting contradiction. Corporate job cuts are frequently presented as the act of selfish bastards who wish to pillage the efforts of the employees and consumers. In my corporate life, it has been a common theme to cut head count for two reasons: A market segment failed, at the unrecoverable expense of millions or billions of dollars, or to force reconstruction of business practices…If the people who remain cannot support an inefficient process, they’ll be motivated to rapidly adapt the process to a more efficient state. Once the process evolves, the employees will be able to be more productive (and they can be proud of that ability). Once the process evolves, the corporation as a whole can be more efficient, providing better goods and services to the consumer quicker. Isn’t this the same tactic being recommended by environmentalists? Attempt the creation of a whole new market segment from scratch and cut the energy supply before a viable alternative is proven and available. Remove the energy-wasting items from the market before more efficient replacements exist. Place devices that report back to the government in people’s homes to force their conservation (California’s Smart Thermostat legislation). Once all these changes are in place, the market and the people will have no choice but to respond. Who cares if the first several generations of alternative energy or more efficient items cost too much? That’s just the (new) cost of being human.

Just to be clear, I evaluate the actions and motivations of ALL bureaucracies, corporate or government, with a skeptic’s eye. I believe that corporations have the potential to be benign or tyrannical or indifferent, just as I believe governental bureaucracies can range from tyrannical to benign to indifferent. I have never seen any bureaucracy at the outermost extreme. They are all somewhere near the middle. Their position is dicated by the motivations of the people who are the cogs of the machine, and the fundamental purpose, goals and methodology of the bureaucracy.

Does anyone doubt that once regulation takes hold, it will impact every aspect of your daily life, and will continue to impact us for decades or centuries? Are we really willing to accept that scale of regulation, knowing that it is based on a theory, where believers personally attack those who question as heritics? Are we willing to accept it, knowing that an organization like the IPCC has denied the very scientists who provided the data the right to defect from their reports? Are we willing to accept it knowing that the most impactful and visible spokesperson (who won the Nobel Prize) has freely admitted to exaggerating facts and figures to give it more of a “punch?” Demonweed has acknowledged that it will have large impacts on the global economy, therefore standard of life, but is willing to accept it freely because he firmly believes the intentions are purely noble.

Perhaps this is just a very odd series of coincidences, but otherwise it seems we have the same pattern produced by others with a passionate desire to believe there hatred for certain political figures is supported by a particular finding of science. “Hey, look, there is interesting news about the Sun — obviously solar activity is driving global warming,” “did anybody consider that maybe it is mysterious radiation from the medium through which our galaxy moves that might be the real culprit?” “do you know how much cow flatulence contributes to the greenhouse effect? Clearly it is the fault of beef eaters everywhere!” . . . the flimsy dodges go on endlessly, because there purpose never was to shed light on hard science. Instead they provide a security blanket. Even if today’s desperate refuge from reality is debunked, an opportunistic scoundrel will have another in circulation by morning.

Is global temperature increasing - Yes
Is CO2 increasing in the atmosphere - Yes
Do humans produce a noticeable amount of CO2 - Yes, on a relatively small (compared to animal, insect and bacterial biological processes) but detectable order of magnitude

We have debated he-said/she-said, and likely/possible sources of passion and talking points, and put out some numbers.

I’d like to return to the fundamental question. Sorry, Crystal for rephrasing your question for you, but correct me if my clarification is wrong…

There are actually two questions:
1. Are human Carbon Dioxide emissions causing global warming?
2. Is airborne Carbon Dioxide a cause of global warming, is it an effect of global warming, or is it coincidental to global warming?

We must answer the second question first. If Carbon Dioxide is coincidental or an effect, then the answer to the first must be No. If Carbon Dioxide is a cause, then we can and should address the first, but must be honest in being as thorough as possible when quantifying all sources. Our actions must be reasonable per what we can actually control vs. the sum of all sources. Let’s split up the second question.

1. Is airborne Carbon Dioxide a cause of global warming? Some say yes, some say maybe, some say no, many say they don’t know.

I’m investigating the sources of the numbers (referred to as CO2 forcing in discussions of the computer models) that describe the causal effect of atmospheric CO2 on heat retention (greenhouse effect). Any honest person must admit that this relationship (that CO2 CAUSES global warming, as well as to what degree) is a THEORY, not a fact, no matter how passionate they are on the subject, or how indisputable they believe their observations are.

2. Is it an effect of global warming? You can probably reverse names for ‘yes’ and ‘no’ above.

3. Is it coincidental to global warming? I haven’t seen this seriously discussed, so can’t give an assessment.

I’d like to focus on the second part of question 2 for this post, adding another massive sink/source of CO2…
Carbon Dioxide’s solubility point (per 100g of water) is 0.355g at 0°C (32°F), 0.232g at 5°C (41°F), 0.126g at 30°C (86°F), an inverse parabolic (exponential) curve. This explains why your soft drink “goes flat” faster on hotter days.

Now, since the oceans are so huge, it takes a while to warm or cool them. The oceans lag the atmosphere by about ten years, therefore momentary spikes (the scale of a couple of years) are profoundly flattened. Of course, the surface responds faster than deeper waters…the ten years to respond is upper level (less than 1 km) response time, not response at depth.

Since CO2 dissolves in seawater, it is subject to the standard interactions of gas and liquid. Without mechanisms to force supersaturation, CO2 will naturally dissolve to its solubility point. Just like gas will evenly distribute itself in a container, it will evenly distribute itself in a liquid solution. As dissolved CO2 reaches deeper water (higher pressure and lower temperature), it transitions to solid. Dry ice exists on the sea floor, just like Methyl Hydrate (Methane ice). I haven’t found data on the amount of solid CO2 on the sea floor, but estimates for Methyl Hydrate are in the scale of hundreds of Gigatonnes…Methane solidifies at -182.5°C, and CO2 at -57°C. If Methyl Hydrate exists in the gigatonne range, needs to be that cold to “freeze” and is less than 1/100th as soluble in water, one can imagine how much solid CO2 exists on the sea floor (I’ve not found data on this quantity). Regions off the coast of the SE United States just North of the Bermuda Triangle are actually bubbling methane due to the “melting” of Methyl Hydrate. This melting is occuring at depths less than one mile.

If the temperature decreases (like in an ice age), a larger amount of CO2 will dissolve in the sea water. Since the water is cooler, it reaches the conditions for CO2 to solidify at a shallower depth. This results in a more rapid deposition of solid CO2 on the sea floor.

As sea temperatures increase, CO2 at the surface will come out of solution and enter the atmosphere. Deep dry ice that reaches its sublimation point thanks to temperature rise will form bubbles in the deep, but the gas will dissolve into the water by the same process that supersaturates a soft drink. Water currents and the different density of the solution will spread this supersaturated solution. The spread will supersaturate a larger volume of water, proportional to the mixing effect, so by the time it reaches the surface and can return to the solubility point, the seawater won’t bubble like a soft drink. It will, however, follow the laws of Chemistry by releasing the excess CO2 until it reaches the saturation point.

There are a large number of warming and cooling trends in the last 2000 years that cannot be explained by human sources. These trends would have an effect on sea temperatures, and would trigger absorption and release of CO2, delayed by decades, centuries, or even millenia.

While this doesn’t clearly answer the cause vs. effect question, it does clearly demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 concentrations can be dramatically affected (with a built in significantly delayed reaction) by atmospheric temperature trends spanning decades or centuries. In addition, it provides yet another source of CO2 that dwarfs human CO2 emissions through industrial and biological processes.

Dittohead claptrap: The 2007 hurricane season repudiates climate change science behind global warming.

Reality: Mainstream climate scientists predict a general trend of more severe storm activity as the Earth’s atmosphere harbors increasing amounts of thermal energy. Focusing on a single hurricane season is just slightly less stupid than reacting to an unseasonably chilly morning by saying “it’s might cold today. Guess there is no global warming eh?” This argument only has resonance to the degree self-styled “skeptics” display a profound failure of skeptical ability when it comes to the words of hacks in conservative media (or the worse yet, little clubs of online fools dedicated to reinforcing such lies amongst one another.) It hard to believe anyone would really be that simple-minded if the matter was given a good bit of circumspect thought.

Ditthohead claptrap: Climate scientists in the 70s warned of a pending new ice age. So they cannot be trusted when it comes to the modeling efforts of today.

Reality: The “science” on old warnings of an imminent ice age amounts to a dash of wild speculation and a scattering of high profile works of sensationalist journalism. Only in the sewers of politically-motivated propaganda do those silly articles get overblown into something on par with the tremendous amount of concrete scientific study supporting the mainstream consensus on global warming. Besides which, there is very little connection between the grandstanding speculators involved in the imminent ice age story and the vast array of serious climate scientists involved in the modern consensus. That alone makes this argument as silly as taking the position that no Presidential administration should ever be trusted when speaking about matters of national security because one particular administration was profoundly wrong about the facts framing a decision of historic consequences. If I were to oppose all future military action based on that isolated and extreme example of misinformation, I would be just as wrong as those who oppose taking action in response to climate science because, once upon a time, some bogus climate science information hit the mainstream. Incidentally, this reasoning also applies to several other arguments, like the critique based on Greenpeace’s anti-nuclear stance or the forestry policies of the late 20th century.

Ditthohead claptrap: Natural systems are self-correcting, and in time other organisms will fix this problem for us.

Reality: The science of “global greening” is about where climate modeling was several decades ago. The very idea of a global carbon cycle was not subject to deep study until the link between industrial emissions and global warming started to hold up under the scrutiny of legitimate skeptics. Perhaps, in theory, such a mechanism will ameliorate the harms of climate change and/or generate some accompanying benefits. However, there is one relevant fact that should not be overlooked here. The measured increase in atmospheric carbon around the world demonstrates that any such equalizing effect must operate on a fairly slow time frame. CO2 concentrations have risen swiftly by a double-digit percentage, pushing the atmosphere through a critical range of enhanced radiant energy retention. Even if Mother Nature has some ability to swallow our proverbial crap, do we really want to incur vast economic losses waiting around for natural forces to clean up our mess? Never mind the possibility that equalizing mechanism might not actually work at all, or it might only exist at levels insufficient to bring about much harm reduction. (For example, many plants respond to warmer temperatures with moisture-conserving adaptations that also cut back on CO2 consumption. While it is unfair to claim that the science isn’t “in” on the broad strokes of global warming, it is entirely fair to claim that the science isn’t in on global greening.)

I can appreciate a libertarian stance on government, though not the sleazeball trickery that links libertarian policies with the Founding Fathers. The Internet is full of apocryphal quotations attributed to men like Franklin and Jefferson because rabid anti-government commentators cannot make due with the actual language of those men. The beauty of the American Revolution was that it paved the way for people to choose for themselves how they will be governed — it did nothing to invalidate specific choices a democratic process might produce in the realms of taxation, business regulation, environmental protection, et al.

Many times I have written, “there is no choice that is not a choice.” Citizens have every right to vote against policies that they believe are a bad idea. A lack of regulation and control is no more sure to be good than an excess of regulation and control. In some instances the facts do support assertions that smaller government is better government. In others they simply do not. Sane informed people usually have no trouble accepting a legitimate, even crucial, role for government in developing and maintaining infrastructure, funding educational institutions, and so on. Adopting a strict emissions reduction policy is a burden to be sure. Yet failure to adopt any emissions reduction policy is likely to also impose a burden by failing to protect the nation (and the world) from a host of tremendously painful consequences.

It is the act of a good citizen to search out the best possible information and support policies that will provide the best possible response to that information. Failing that, it is the act of a good citizen to shut the heck up and spare political dialogs (and elections) the taint of ignorant prattle. To the degree Ender’s view rests on thoughtful analysis of information taken from places other than http://www.algoreizpoo.com, perhaps his civic duty has been honored. Yet to the degree this question of science is addressed by politics — incriminating global warming through guilt by association with Al Gore, fueling a “boy who cried wolf” phenomenon regarding much less legitimate environmental alarms from the past, and confusing the legitimate self-regulatory capacity of a free society with an exercise in fascism — that duty is not merely neglected but also violated.

I am actually a HUGE advocate of Solid-State Lighting (LED technology). There have been massive efforts to improve this technology, and the performance (color temperature and lumens per watt) has improved exponentially.

It is true that many governments (United States and Great Britain most generously) have provided funding to accelerate research, but that only goes so far…It pays to create the product, but what good is it if no one wants to buy it? Even though governments have dangled a carrot, that carrot has to be held over solid ground…Who would reach for if it if it were over a precipice?

The solid ground is people, bureaucracies and corporations like me. The biggest stable (probable) market is corporate. Yes, some is out of P.R. attempts to look “green,” but the majority is the same greed that is sometimes seen as evil. They want to cut their costs! Solid State Lighting is in some areas exceeding the lumens/watt of fluorescent bulbs. They surpassed incandescents nearly a decade ago. They also blow away all the competition in operational and replacement cost. Granted, a SSL bulb or fixture costs a lot more than the current alternatives, but they last (with extreme reliability) on the order of 10 years. I can’t get a CFL to last 6 months. The reduced replacement frequency saves the company money by not needing a “light crew,” (my company has a full-time crew of six people for this for just my site, and at last count we have 50+ sites) and saves them money on electrical costs (my site pays more than $1M per year for power, my girlfriend’s company (one site of nearly 100) pulls 6 Megawatts continually. Granted, lighting is a small, but noticable fraction of that.

If I can be motivated to pay more for the bulb (actually a LOT more, in the range of 20 to 100x the price) out of wanting to reducy my energy bill (NOT my “footprint” and my dislike of replacing burned out bulbs, can’t others be? YES! Will it be immediate? NO! Am I helping these bulbs enter the mainstream? Maybe insignificantly, but YES! Am I a conceited jerk, treating others who don’t follow my lead like morons? NO! I find it’s easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar…

Since my girlfriend’s nephew is autistic, I’ve been exposed to the whole thimerosol debate. That is (was) a common preservative in vaccines, and is as heated as the global warming debate. Some people say the debate is over, others say the data is anecdotal at best. The key to the concern over thimerosol? Mercury. The fear of eating too much tuna? Mercury. The number two threat to sharks (after hunting)? Mercury.

The concern over Mercury is to the level that some parents aren’t getting their children vaccinated. They consider Mercury to be a bigger risk to their childrens’ safety than the diseases they help prevent. I’m not sold on how effective they actually are or are not, but since I don’t have kids, I have time for the research to catch up.

A parent has the right to not vaccinate their children, which puts the entire surrounding community at risk by increasing the possibility of epidemics, potentially leading to drug-resistant strains of otherwise controlled diseases. The exponentially growing motivation for this decision? Mercury, not (theistic) religion. But in 2012, a parent won’t have the right to buy a 100-watt incandescent bulb. Those who can’t afford SSLs will have to buy a CFL. As a parent, you’d be drawn and quartered for having Lead paint, but you’re a hero for having CFLs…wow!

…I digress…but it shows a heated peripheral discussion.

From what I remember of Mercury from high school chemistry, it’s some REALLY nasty crap! Even the slightest use should be weighed EXTREMELY carefully. For that, I am thrilled to know that Mercury thermostats and thermometers are impossible to come by (possibly, probably illegal). We have researched the reproductive and brain function effects of Mercury for decades, and none of it looks good. Thanks to the decades of research, I think this debate can be categorized as over. I am unaware of anyone who is saying that it isn’t nasty crap.

…Except for global-warming advocates…That’s a strange perspective…I’m not saying that they are warm and fuzzy over it, but they are minimizing the concerns. They recommend recycling them, and handling them with gloves. Interestingly, only three of the 39 counties in Washington have the mechanism to recycle CFLs.

Are we maybe entering the same arena as timber thinning? In an effort to protect the animals (see Spotted Owl), timber companies were prohibited from clearing deadfall and sick trees. After some of the worst fire seasons in decades, some of the environmentalists are acknowledging that they missed something…In trying to protect the animals, they harmed them. The timber companies (in their evil, greedy approach to sustaining their business) were performing the same function as naturally-occuring forest fires. They were clearing out the flammables, which rejuvinates the forest. In the past, forest fires happened when and where needed to perform this clearing, but since adjacent land was also subject to the same fire effect (at different intervals), there were natural fire breaks. The natural clearing process kept the fires to a much smaller scale. This allowed proper “housekeeping,” while providing the animals refuges to escape to.

In the attempt to control one possibly damaging aspect, we have ramped up the use of another. Mercury was for a couple of decades nearly nonexistent in the American home (a good thing, I think). Now, it is in the preferred (thanks to environmentalist pressure) slot for home and commercial lighting. We are accepting one form of damage in lieu of another. If we have decades of data pointing to reproductive and brain damage, and a truly minimalized (if not dead) debate over its toxic nature, why have we accepted it over a gas (that surrounds and is CREATED BY us all), whose “tipping point” is still the source of heated debate?

Solid State Lighting is an alternative that is rapidly evolving to being feasible. Within a couple of years, I believe it’ll catch on like a fire storm. Is delaying a couple of years really worth the possible effects of spreading mercury into every home in America? Is CO2 really so close to the edge to justify that? If so, we’re screwed if Mt. Rainier (or any other volcano) erupts. Of course that is an exaggeration, but by how much?

I made no comments about Kerry or Bush, and I don’t appreciate your attempt to put words in my mouth. I did mention Cheney and Gore, and for very specific reasons. I illustrated how one Vice President’s business connections, and possible (probable) influence on policy are perceived as completely improper, while another Vice President’s similar entanglement is excused off-hand (or not known). You seem to be assuming that I am forgiving Cheney. I am not. It is true that I don’t think he is evil, but I don’t think that Gore is evil. I’m using the word evil because I have personally heard people call him so.

Forgive me for using the word “green” like a slur. Would you prefer “Eco-American?” It was a term of efficiency, not insult. I do have a bit of prejudice, because I live in Olympia, Washington. The environmentalist groups that frequent the State Capital are, in large numbers, condescending jerks who treat anyone not driving a Prius (or a bicycle) like a leper. They refuse to actually engage in debate. Instead, they try to paint anyone who doesn’t immediately bow to their point of view as a Right-wing zealot, a tool of large corporations, or someone who is too stupid to waste their time on. My favorite tactic is the little chuckle and rolling eyeballs…Honestly, what self-respecting person wouldn’t resist someone like that when they try to convince the State Legislature to regulate their life?

I have studied the lives and writings of many of our America’s founding fathers, and I agree with their philosophy on governmental entities. I also recognize that power corrupts. It appears that you also agree. I always question the motives of large bureaucracies, and would suggest everyone to do the same. While it hasn’t received a lot of news coverage, there is a large number of scientists who defected from the IPCC report, and the IPCC refused to remove their name from that report. Why would that be? Why would a scientis want to withdraw his/her name, and why would an organization refuse to remove those names? Was there a possible disagreement? Did the IPCC refuse to remove their names because the removal might reduce the political weight of the report, making it harder to institute changes?

I get your point in regards to the bucket. You still don’t seem to get my point. I used termites as an example because I could find all numbers required for the comparison (look up the respiratory stats on a Bengal Tiger…). I came up with 1.3% just with termites…How many millions of other species of animal, insect and bacteria live on this planet? If we assume that termites represent 1% of the total non-human respiratory effect (I’d guess I’m giving them a lot of credit), then humans would represent 1/10,000th of the total CO2 produced through (animal) respiration. Then, we have to consider geologic effects. Since it has lasted for ~3 billion years, and has continuously supported life (granted, through sweeping feast and famine) for more than 300 million of them, I have a hard time believing that the earth is really teetering that close to the edge…And if we are, what is that number? Based on current trends, what year will we hit it? If we “know” we are actually that close, how’s that possible to know if we don’t know what the numbers are?

Any time global warming (climate change) predictions don’t come true, we’re told it’s because of an unanticipated feedback mechanism…Wasn’t 2007 supposed to be the worst hurricane season in history? When they are wrong on so many extremely visible indicators, why am I unreasonable in questioning their larger conclusions? Why am I accused of blindly following a right-wing mantra when I question, and it’s not OK to accuse someone of following a “green” mantra when they don’t question it? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me…

What other feedback mechanisms are out there, that will have an unanticipated effect? Please, explain to me where I’m off base with this…If CO2 increases, plants will have easier access to a critical part of their needs. Won’t this increased CO2 result in plants becoming more productive? Isn’t this one likely mechanism by which termites “are in equilibrium with their environment?” Granted, we have clear-cut and fire-cleared huge tracts of land, but there’s still a lot left. And if it is getting warmer, won’t the shorter winters in the North and South extremes allow the plants in those areas process more CO2 throughout the year?

I agree that “clever alliances” are a good thing, but that takes time, and companies are coming around. Bureaucracies are as hesitant as companies to form these alliances. Al Gore isn’t talking about “alliances.” The Kyoto Accord isn’t talking about “alliances” (with companies, that is). The group I so vocally oppose is the group that seeks to impose limitations on my life through regulation, fines and possible jail time, but refuses to engage in real debate and discussion of all the significant questions. Science is supposed to be subject to peer review and critique. When did that change? Have I said anything in opposition to the DOE’s Solid-State Lighting Project? No. I fully support (really) informed moves towards better energy efficiency. I fully support government assistance in funding research for alternative energy sources.

–As I said, the fear in the 1970’s was an ice age. Now it is global warming. Current trends would validate that our actions were working, so would remain intact, probably indefinately…Isn’t warm better than cold?

–The Founder of Greenpeace admitted that he believes he caused more harm than he was trying to prevent, through opposing Nuclear energy (the only platform capable of supporting Fusion [CLEAN] research, by the way). Because he prevented the growth of Nuclear power, we remained “addicted” to fossil fuels.

–Eco-Americans prevented logging companies from thinning forests because they thought that would be good for the animals. Instead, they allowed the undergrowth to pile up, triggering some of the most devastating forest fires in the last 50 years.

–Eco-Americans are preventing research and possible harvesting of Methyl Hydrate deposits (basically Methane Ice) on the sea floor. One theory for the end of the last ice age is the collapse of one of these large deposits (isn’t methane a worse greenhouse gas than CO2?) There is a deposit off the Oregon coast (dubbed Hydrate Ridge), believed to be in the range of millions of tons. If this gives way (note that it is an undersea ridge on the “ring of Fire”), what damage will that cause? How many square miles will be suffocated when that blows on-shore? How big of an explosion and fireball would this generate? What would that kind of event do to the atmosphere? This sounds like a real win-win to me…we tap an energy source that, if left alone, could wreak massive havoc on the environment. It looks to me like Eco-Americans want me to consider their alternatives, but refuse co consider my alternatives for a single moment. They have the same blind faith I’m being accused of.

Normally, when a person thinks about alternatives for their life, those alternatives have to exist, and they have to be tolerable. Solar is a crap alternative in Washington State. In general, thanks to cost, right now it’s a crap alternative (I have been following information on some studies focusing on organic LEDs and researching spinach as a possible breakthrough in photovoltaics, since spinach is one of the most efficient photosynthetic plants). There has been a lot of oppostion to wind farms (by environmentalists, afraid of the effect on birds). Per Washington State, hydroelectric power isn’t a renewable energy source…Huh? Hydrogen fuel cells don’t exist yet from a practical standpoint.

I heard a quote that I really love. I loved it before I heard who said it, and any intelligent person capable of seeing its beauty through possible blind hatred can appreciate it. “It’s not that they don’t know anything. It’s that they know so much that isn’t true.” How much of what we KNOW isn’t actually true? How much is unproven theory? How dare you (or anyone, or any organization) limit my freedoms because of unproven, REALLY indisputable theory?

http://junkscience.com/Features.html

This guy offered $150,000 to anybody who could successfully prove the existance of global warming a while ago. afaik nobody has claimed the prize.