Fri 29 May 2009
Global Warming: Science, Economics, or Politics?
Posted by Canada / sherljim under Balkers
[28] Comments
If you reached this Balkingpoints.com article by direct external link, stop by the front page for an incredible satellite view of the earth in rotation!
At the outset let me state that I think it is clear to anyone who has been around for more than a couple of decades that the weather, at least in the northern temperate latitudes has changed decisively in recent decades. Personally I remember vividly the snows of my childhood; snowball fights, chilblains (we called them “hot-aches”), and building snow forts on the school playing fields of the Midlands of England, where today snowfalls are extremely rare and most of today’s schoolchildren, in the Midlands at least, have never thrown a snowball.
In spite of this however I remain skeptical on the climate change issue. Changes in the weather don’t necessarily mean changes in the climate . . . . . . . . .
My skepticism can be divided into two separate “skepticisms” as follows:
1.Skepticism that the current warming trend is outside of the normal range of climate variation.
2.Skepticism that anything we will do can effect a change in the current warming trend.
Let me take a minute or two with each of these:
1.Skepticism that the current warming trend is outside of the normal range of climate variation.
Statistics gathered in the last few decades are questionable as to their validity in assessing or predicting a system as complex and large as the earth’s climate. I studied meteorology at university in the 70’s. Back then the climate was irreversibly cooling and life as we knew it was threatened. The evidence was presented in peer-reviewed journals so we believed it. It was caused by particulate pollution by the way. Today the evidence is pointing the other way, and the culprits are greenhouse gases. I personally think the earth may simply be “breathing in and breathing out” and we are trying to “forecast its career” from the study of a single breath. Certainly if you delve a little more deeply into the scientific literature you will find the scientific consensus claimed by people like Al Gore simply does not exist. And the skeptics are not on the lunatic fringe of the issue either. In fact it is fair and true to say that many if not most in the top echelons of environmental scientists have severe reservations about the report if the IPCC.
2.Skepticism that anything we will do can effect a change in the current warming trend.
This is where the politics and economics come in. One problem with a democracy – any democracy – is that the government sits for a specified maximum period of time. In the USA, for example, it is 4 years; in Canada and the UK the maximum term is 5 years. As a result it is a courageous government indeed that embarks on a course that might have detrimental effect on its citizenry if the course in question is likely to see negative impacts within its term of office. The problem with climate change – even if is a fact, and even if it can be influenced by either our technology, or by changes in our behavior as a species – is that it is the ultimate long-term challenge. Even if it is a fact, and even if we did do it, it took centuries. With all the will in the world (and we do not have all the will in the world) even the experts agree that significant climate change improvements will only come by making huge changes to our behavior, economy, standards of living and lifestyles for a very long time – fifty years at least. Any government that really takes on the challenge will not only jeopardize it’s own longevity, but will condemn whole generations of its citizens to a substantial decline in the quality of their lives compared to that of their parents and grandparents.
Added to that we have what I call the “you go first” problem. The climate problem is international in scope and can only be tackled on an international basis. No single economy – not even the “mega-economies” of the USA, the EU, and China, can either afford, or hope to achieve any change, by going it alone. Certainly the governments of the west will not voluntarily agree to tackle the issue if it puts them in a disadvantageous position economically. Meanwhile the economies that are in the ascendancy – south-east Asia, China, and India for example, can legitimately blame the “west” for the current state of affairs, and will not voluntarily slow down their own growth to rectify a problem they did not create – especially if they have suspicions that the “cure” will serve to prolong the dominance of the western economies on world affairs, and continue to subjugate their own citizens to a subservient lifestyle compared to that of the west.
So – where does all this leave us? On the one hand there is skepticism of the fact of climate change, and on the other, skepticism that even if there is climate change we can do anything to reverse it. Though not a solution, a partial answer to the dilemma may be in the decisions we make about resource allocation. If you buy the argument that there is little we can do on a global scale to combat climate change itself, then we must reduce our commitments, monetary, human resource and research, to “flogging this horse.” Where we should be making resource commitments is to the development of technology, defenses and strategies that will allow us to survive any changes that may be coming. If global warming is a reality, for example, then sea levels are inevitably going to rise. Maybe the Thames Barrier and London’s embankments need to be raised, and we should certainly do something for the Netherlands and New York City (which has an average elevation above sea level of only 33 feet.) Pardon the pun, but New Orleans is in deep trouble.
Maybe we should be relocating development and settlements, or reinforcing the flood defenses in the low-lying areas. Maybe we should be researching the support that will be required in our hospitals to handle conditions associated with a warmer climate than that to which we are accustomed. Maybe we should be examining our agriculture – crops and practices – to see where we can take advantage of the changes.
If I’m right that the climate changes are not anthropogenic then the course of action above is obviously the way to go. If I’m wrong – and we did cause this debacle – what are the chances that we can get a real global consensus on a solution? I mean – really? We need to adapt to the coming changes in either case.
The bottom line is that the sky is not falling. I have ultimate faith in the ingenuity of the human race to tackle any problems thrown at it. Mammals survived the extinctions that destroyed the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous. We are their descendants and have the same genetic resilience. We survived the ice ages of the Pleistocene (where the climate changes were far greater than even the most pessimistic climatologists postulate for our future). We can and will survive the changes that are coming – whatever they may be.
Excellent analysis sherljim. I have also suspected that the data window would be too small for factual declarations of man-made warming. If warmer, maybe it is part of a normal earth or solar cycle.
And we’re still getting very cold winters and springs in the U.S. I realize that is only anecdotal – but we’d like to receive some of that warmer Arctic air… ;^)
But it should be pragmatism over ideology on most matters – global warming being no exception. I wouldn’t toe Gore’s line only because I’m progressive politically, if it doesn’t seem to add up. Nor was I happy with the Bush admin suppression of climate evidence, Kyoto Protocol refusals nor their general war-on-everything scientific.
And it does redown to political will & global cooperation. It’s amazing the Kyoto effort got the nations on board that it did. I find it useful to sidestep the warming question and focus on energy conversion – fossil to bio.
Nations need to do it anyway for economic and geopolitical reasons. Being totally dependent on oil-producing nations for your economic survival, is a bad idea that causes inflation, pollution, recessions and wars. There is so much science in the can that will power things without carbon emissions, nations like the U.S. have simply been stupid not to make a national effort of it. I don’t believe energy independence will happen without leaders pressing the matter, every president since Nixon after the 1973 oil embargo, has proven that here in the U.S…
I would also support contingency plans for rising sea levels of course. In addition to the pending disaster of global cooling in the 1970′s, we were also facing one from the global population explosion.
But then later, we weren’t… ;^)
Have you seen any of the statistical data on climate change, rising global temperatures or any other of the myriad pieces of data that flat out prove that this is a completely human induced crisis? It is no coincidence that the years of increased temperatures directly correlate with humans burning of fossils fuels as energy starting in the mid to late nineteenth century. This is not some natural cycle of incredibly hot temperatures, but in fact an example of human beings destroying their environment with their shortsightedness. We always make the technology first, and find out the consequences (as perilous as they sometimes may be) at a later time. Hopefully the course is not already too far set to recover from, but it will take a global effort at least a decade, and probably many decades, to stop it.
Is this phenomena different to anything that went before it?
Why is the 1º F temperature rise in the last 100 years to blame for anything and everything that it’s blamed for?
It wasn’t blamed for anything 50 years ago, so why now?
Welcome Walter & veldar. Here is an interesting site;
http://surfacestations.org
It’s cast as an objective survey of the physical condition and accuracy, of the weather stations from which climate data is obtained.
I actually suspect it cloaks an anti-progressive (read, pro-Limbaugh… ;^) political agenda – since they conclude (of course) that the data has been all wrong.
But it does bring up a legitimate question, regardless of bias from this particular source: Are the weather stations completely accurate?
How are they verified and how often?
You must be assured of that before you can be certain of global temperature trends, of course.
Walter – sorry it took me so long to respond to your comment – I was away for a couple of days.
To answer your question – yes I have seen the data and I’m sorry to say they don’t “flat out” prove anything like the conclusion arrived at by the global warming lobby. As I said in my initial post I was a student in the ’70′s when the data “flat out” proved that we were irrevocably doomed to declining world temperatures and we faced the extinction of the human species as a result. It’s all in the way the data are interpreted.
Please understand I don’t deny the possibility that the climate is warming – it may well be. There is sufficient evidence in the fossil record that it has happened before, and it will likely happen again – with or without any intervention from man. The evidence is that there have been several periods in the earth’s history when the ice caps completely melted – with the corresponding rise in sea levels. My contention is that the data are open to any interpretation you care to put on them. If you are prepared to have an open mind on the issue a good place to start would be to read the series “The Deniers” published in the Toronto National Post. Lawrence Solomon, the author of the series, set out to examine the “crackpot scientists” who denied the “inconvenient truths” of the climate change debate – the “Deniers”. As he met with them he gradually changed his view on the issue, they weren’t crackpots after all, and he now recognizes the flaws, activism and politics involved.
All that being said I think you’ve missed my main point – I apologize if I was not clear enough. The point is this: it doesn’t matter whether climate change is anthropogenic or not. If on the one hand we did cause it I am pragmatic (some would say cynical) enough to believe we will never get the global cooperation and consensus necessary to reverse the effect. We should therefore embark on a research and actions to prepare – to minimize damage and maximize advantage in the event, for example, of a significant sea-level rise, or other climate change effects. If on the other hand we did not cause it (i.e. the changes are a natural swing in global climate) then the same course of action is indicated. Either way the best course of action is the same.
All hype. If the democrats/lefties were around back during the last ice age they would be banning the number of logs you can burn & how many berry you can pick.
How about them saying the Great Lakes water levels were lowering due to (gasp) man made golbal warming. It can’t possible be Mother Nature. Look it up, the ice age “compressed” the Earth’s crust due to the weight of the ice/snow. It is still “bouncing” back to a sphere every year. The CN Tower in Toronto actually get taller by an inch each year because of it. So where do you think the water will go if you raise the land around it. How about out to sea.
Nah, it must be those SUVs.
Morons.
Veldar: to your question “Is this phenomena different to anything that went before it?” The answer is that we simply don’t know. The system is so complex and so difficult to model, and the time scales so long that anyone attempting it has to make massive assumptions. The models can produce a myriad of forecasts, which are as much a function of the assumptions made as they are of the data input.
Make no mistake though that a 1 degree change in average temperature is an enormous change. I calculate that it takes 50 million calories simply to raise the temperature of my swimming pool by one degree – how much additional heat is required to increase global temperatures by one degree – it boggles the mind!
The tragedy in all of this is that the whole debate has become so highly charged politically that the “truth” depends on your political stripe as much as anything else. I say tragedy because reasoned debate is difficult – is even politically incorrect, and good science is smothered. It’s simply too easy to blame everything on the large corporations – especially the oil companies (they are easy targets I admit!)
Welcome back Jeff. Swamped here the last few days, looking at something for the Obama speech in Cairo next (and wondering how Marwa Rakha received it).
Sherljim the political aspect and influence upon the global warming issue,
is indeed an inescapable point IMO. I have a few more comments on it when I get a chance here.
First, let me point out that the weather warmed between roughly 1900 and 1940, then cooled until roughly 1980 and then warmed until roughly 1998 to 2007, depending on who you ask and whether or not they are politically and idealogically motivated or scientifically and honestly motivated. Second, despite loud claims to the contrary, it got hotter and did so faster during the first warming period, that ended in the 1940s, than it did more recently. Now we know that the most recent warming was heavily influenced by the sun, once again despite loud protests from those determined to blame it on humans and CO2. The most recent warming coincided with extreme solar activity of a type known to influence our atmosphere and weather. We also know it is currently cooling, coincident with an extremely quiet phase of the sun, last seen when a similar period coincided with a mini ice age. Yes, the planet is warming – that is what it does naturally when it emergets from an interglacial period. But to say there have been no snows in norther regions misses the fact that we just had record snows, some of which reached down into temperate areas which haven’t seen snow in 100 years or more, in the past year or so. The warming is not unusual with respect to it’s speed or amount and in fact it is not as presented by those who have something to gain by scaring us into thinking the sky is falling. Rather what we’ve actually seen is a gentle warming in norther latitudes and warmer nights such that growing seasons have lengthened, the northern limit of arable land has moved poleward and less frosts and freezes occur. All of these are POSITIVE effects so even if my conclusion that the changes we see are all natural is wrong, I still see a net positive balance of effects from global warming. Change is the only constant, climate change is inevitable and cannot be stopped. We must simply deal with it and move forward. Each claim used to support the farce of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism has proven false and Al Gore famously admitted his intent to lie to us to get us to adopt his personal agenda – one which has brought him fame and fortune as he demands we reduce our carbon footprint even as his is ever expanding. If he believed any of what he was saying to us he would not act as he does. I used to post a link to the NASA page that monitors the fact Arctic ice is steadily increasing now, despite ongoing alarmist claims it will soon be all gone. Then suddenly, due to technical problems, NASA took the site down. Finally, if you want to see whether they’ve been lying to you about how much peril the Earth is facing due to global warming, go here (unless NASA takes THIS site down, too):
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1804
Welcome Gregor – well done remarks.
I don’t personally see an Al Gore or leftist plot, but do suspect that the
G/W conclusions may be overstated. But I want to convert from fossil
fuels to bio-fuels and bio-power anyway – so we are no longer hostage to
the ravages of oil price hikes, shortages (1973), geopolitical conflict over supply, and the pollutions oil causes.
We can do far, far better. And by we, I mean all dependent nations. It’s time to break the addiction & harness newer technologies.
Any political agendas at NASA, would have undergone a drastic change
in stripe with the transition from Bush to Obama of course. As an aside, change is coming to NASA I hear also – a comprehensive review of budget and mission – long overdue IMO.
I’m all for exploration, but in this time of fiscal austerity and deficits,
it should move into unmanned missions only. And we should also internationalize the effort and it’s costs. Space exploration can be a font for global cooperation and good will, not so different than the Olympics
are now.
Growing up in southern Indiana I remember 20 foot snow drifts in the 70′s and fond memories of school closed for weeks due to impassable roads. I knew where we lived was where glaciers had melted leaving all sorts of remnants just lying around for a kid to play with, fossils of sea life so far away from the oceans, and huge caves, underground “Lost River” of Brown County where you could hear the water rushing through underground caves. I also assumed the glacier were all receding. But until I left Indiana at age 16 I was pretty uninformed about the real world, because I also assumed that everywhere, like on our land, fresh water fit to drink just bubbled up out of the cracks in the rocks from underground springs. Imagine my disappointment in the big wide world out here that not everyone grew up with clean fresh cave filtered water that you just scoop up and drink from the ground.
I’ve only seen a glacier for real in Iceland where plates meet, the divide of the two sides of the continents growing wider and Iceland getting some centimeters bigger every year. That was so “cool”.
Well, anyway how cool is this? — In Alaska, one glacier is getting BIGGER!! See linked info on the Hubbard Glacier, Alaska: http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/hubbard
“Why Study Hubbard Glacier?
Hubbard Glacier is the largest tidewater glacier on the North American continent. It has been thickening and advancing toward the Gulf of Alaska since it was first mapped by the International Boundary Commission in 1895 (Davidson, 1903). This is in stark contrast with most glaciers, which have thinned and retreated during the last century. This atypical behavior is an important example of the calving glacier cycle in which glacier advance and retreat is controlled more by the mechanics of terminus calving than by climate fluctuations. If Hubbard Glacier continues to advance, it will close the seaward entrance of Russell Fiord and create the largest glacier-dammed lake on the North American continent in historic times.”
Well, apologies my comment isn’t very scientific, and economics are a bit depressing lately, but I’ve found a few places where the world is still beautiful where man hasn’t trampled it yet. So here’s my political bit: I’d vote for better trash and sewage disposal systems rather than spending so much on space exploration, just to keep some of the world beautiful. Though I doubt that better waste disposal will bring back the pristine bubbling springs of clean water I drank as a child (the strip-mining coal companies got rid of those), maybe at least some human responsibility will keep some nature from disappearing.
Welcome aboard Dawna – good remarks.
…hey, I wonder if Al has sent a film crew yet to Hubbard Glacier? ;^)
Roy G.:
I’m fully on-side with your comment that we should be reducing our dependence on imported fossil-based fuels, but we need to be careful. I must preface these remarks with a statement that I’m straying away from my area of expertise, but here are a couple of thoughts:
On the issue of bio fuels, – intuition does not necessarily serve us well. I read a report two or three years ago pointing out that with current technology the amount of energy consumed in the manufacture of bio-diesel (for example) was greater than the energy released as it was used in a diesel engine. I’d guess this situation will improve as the technology advances and as economies of scale kick in, but it’s sort of counter-intuitive isn’t it? An additional thought is that the last thing we want to do IMO is to set up a competition between the use of crops for automobile fuel and for human “fuel”. There are massive famines going on in various parts of the world and the more crop growing area we divert to feed our cars, the less will be available to feed people. I wonder just how many millions of acres would have to be diverted to replace imported oil???
The second thought is about the efficiency of the modern “fuel-efficient” cars. I read a study – again a couple of years ago – comparing the “cradle-to-grave” energy consumption and carbon-footprint of a Hummer on the one hand and a Toyota Prius on the other. The astonishing result was that the Hummer was the less damaging vehicle from an environmental point of view. Again – I fully expect that the situation will improve as economies of scale and new technologies (fuel calls??) kick in, but it can be all too easy to make the wrong environmental decision if you only trust your intuition.
I believe the algae biofuel route, may solve both both issues – yield and also displacement of food production;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080818184434.htm
And of course electric cars running on bio-power – solar, wind or hydro generated – gets us to clean independence also. That can probably be only
a piece of the solution at best. I personally would favor major zoning restrictions, on where those hideous giant windmills go up. But solar panel technology is advancing, and we’ve yet to harness the economies of mass-production of them even as currently constructed.
They are expensive because per-capita production is low – start outfitting millions of roofs with them, and the price should drop like an ink-jet printer. Then they’d become cost-effective to install in many more regions than just those with high sunlight.
Individual attempts at reducing our carbon footprint,or Cap and Trade schemes will do little to slow greenhouse gasses.As long as the U.S. is operating an endless war economy with a thousand foreign military bases.The U.S. military uses more fuel in a month than Sweden in a year.Global climate change will accelerate logarithmically when the melting premafrost releases all the pent up methane from the last ice age.Peace is life,if you want to save the planet work for peace.
Welcome johnny. Sam from Maine will like your remarks especially.
From your paragraph “Skepticism that the current warming trend …” “Statistics gathered in the last few decades are questionable ….”
I find your contention that “most in the top echelons of environmental scientists have severe reservations about the report if the IPCC”, I assume you intended to say of not if the IPCC, highly suspect. Are you able to produce hard/electronic evidence of this statement or is your word all I should require as proof? Virtually all of the electronic and media audible and visual articles I have heard and read disagree with your contention; as a point of fact these sources contend just the opposite of that which you purport. Tens of thousands of scientists worldwide agree that “global warming” is a human endeavor and a few hundred of the energy industry’s “hired guns” contradict. Kind of reminds me of another industry’s fabled 50+ year loosing battle to convince smokers and the rest of the public that smoking did not increase your likelihood of contracting cancer Cigarette ads I recall from the black and white days of TV even had actors portraying doctors earnestly touting the healthful effects of smoking one brand vice another. Hopefully you never participated in the smoking practice (I never did) and perhaps you might revisit the evidence you are touting for human incapability to affect the Earth’s climate and come to your senses.
This sums up my opinion of mans effects on climate change.
If the ice caps on Mars are shrinking, who is the cause of that change???
What are those Martians doing to their planet?? How can they change thier climate???
Welcome to B/P Ken & Rob – good remarks.
The mini ice age while America was being settled from Europe wasn’t that long ago. Proof of which is the millions of beer and whiskey drinkers we have as opposed to the wine drinkers still in the south of Europe. Grain was the only thing they could grow and ferment. Famine forced a lot of those people to migrate to the states while southern Europe could stay put. Napoleon’s pilage, burn and run strategy helped with that too. A major volcano eruption clouded Asia first and then the States near the end of that period producing the summerless year where it peaked and has since been warming ever since. What kept it from being a full fledged ice age no one knows for sure. But at this warming trend it sure doesn’t seem to be wise to fool with mother nature and do anything to increase the trend because the earth will rebound, one way or the other. What’s scarier? The population chart that seems to hit the baby boomer era and change from a steady rise to a bolt to the ceiling.
Hurricanes serve the natural purpose of re-distributing hot air, hot water, cooling off those hot parts of the oceans. I lived in Barbadoes for two years and got blown about by a few hurricanes, Hurricane Ivan in 2004 about swept me and the Kentucky Fried Chicken sign right over the sea wall, YIKES. In 2005, the hurricane names went all the way through the alphabet and started over again, very active that summer. Cuba seemed to get slammed over and over, and Hurricane Wilma cancelled my honeymoon in the Riviera Maya/Yucatan that fall.
But WHAT IF, man could minimize hurricane intensity or path with a strategic douse of cold water in the superheated portion of water energizing the hurricane? Should he/she do it??
If man did not want hurricane damage on their structures, (like a rich person with a private island) should they try to halt or minimize the intensity of the hurricane if they could? What would be the impact of purposeful mitigation of hurricanes? I personally don’t think man should mess with Mother Nature that way, but here’s what I heard is afoot…
I heard today that Bill Gates, with some weather expert scientists, and computer software tracking system he is developing, will track projected path of the hurricane, predicting where it will intensify and analyze the landmass about to take the brunt, and ??? before it gets to land to cause damage, add cold water to the reduce the intensity before it hits land. The hottest water areas which would have energized the hurricane would then be cooled enough to gentle the storm. The Gates software would determine which areas of water are the most heated and would likely intensify the force(say in the Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico by Jamaica for example). After figuring out the most heated water area which would intensify the force of the hurricane, they look at the land damage anticipated, say south of the Florida keys, add cold water, and PRESTO, a gentle misty rain storm instead of Hurricane Andrew.
I don’t like it, even if it works, but what do YOU think????
(As I write, now I’m sitting in a drought here in Tijuana, so that cool water sounds like it could be of better use here than dumped in the Gulf of Mexico in front of a hurricane. In fact, I’m kind of missing a blustery rain storm right about now.
Welcome back Dawna. We hear on U.S. commercial media that Tijuana
is a mess right now, with a war between drug cartels and the Mexican government. How are you finding that?
First I’ve heard of trying to manipulate hurricane strength with cold water – good post. Supposedly man has made recent hurricanes more intense artificially via global warming, so wouldn’t this be one way to reverse that in a small area? Wouldn’t we be also cooling the waters (if real) with a human intervention of reducing carbon emissions?
These are vexing questions… ;^)
I’m skeptical however that anyone could possibly transport & drop, or cool & pump from a ship on location or something, enough cold water to make a significant dent in ocean temperature. I’d like to see that demonstrated.
Yes, Tijuana is a mess right now. The war is not just between the Drug Cartels and the Mexican govt., its a bloody battle between two drug cartels vying for control of this lucrative route. As the cartels kill cops, and the opposing cartels kill each other, bystander get in the cross-fire regularly. Literally, blood runs down the streets, heads without bodies and bodies without heads are found routinely, or fragments of unidentifiable dissolved persons are found in acid barrels in commercial areas in broad daylight.
Parts of Mexico now rank among the most dangerous in the world. However, this isn’t some nameless African state, it is a major US trading partner, a member of NAFTA, the world’s eleventh largest economy by GDP at purchasing power parity and a popular tourist destination for westerners. What has precipitated this absolute collapse in the security situation in great chunks of the country? The Cause: Drugs. Simply put, the operation of the drug cartels in Mexico is responsible for almost bringing Mexico to its knees.
The Tijuana cartels are not bit-players. A couple of days ago in Tijuana, a member of the El Teo cartel was arrested while carrying drugs, guns, jewelry and $3.6 MILLION US Dollars CASH. I mean really, can you imagine walking around Tijuana with $3.5 million dollars cash? Surreal.
Well, welcome to TJ! And thanks for asking…Dawna
Last night near Tijuana, another tragic shooting. A U.S. Border Patrol Agent, shot and killed at 9:15 pm by presumed illegals along the border between Campo CA and 18 miles east of Tecate, a rugged rocky area used as a smuggling route. The shooters still at large.
STATEMENT BY HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY JANET NAPOLITANO ON THE DEATH OF BORDER PATROL AGENT
ROBERT ROSAS
“I am deeply saddened by the tragic death of one of our own. Agent Robert Rosas was gunned down while protecting our nation’s Southwest border. This act of violence will not stand—nor will any act of violence against the Border Patrol. I have directed that the full resources of the Department assist in the investigation to find and bring to justice those responsible for this inexcusable crime.
“My thoughts and condolences are with Agent Rosas’ family and his fellow agents at this difficult time. I want to commend those in the law enforcement and first responder community in Southern California for so quickly responding to the scene and attempting to save Agent Rosas’ life. His death is a vivid reminder that we are engaged in a serious effort to secure our border and that thousands of Border Patrol agents and other DHS employees risk their lives every single day to protect and defend our nation.”
That is really an awful situation. Are you able to leave Dawna, or are you
in a safe part of TJ somehow?
I heard that there was an arrest today (Saturday) in the murder of agent Rosas.
There is some serious talk now in California about legalizing marijuana,
in order to tax it because the state is running a major deficit and issuing IOU’s instead of checks to it’s creditors. But folded into the idea is an alleviation of demand for illegal marijuana imported by the cartels of course.
However I believe they traffic in other drugs also, which are not on the table for legalization anywhere in the U.S.
The U.S. has put a lot of effort in the last 10 years in patrolling the border better – more agents I believe, new surveillance technologies and of course the fence they started building. Obviously it’s not nearly enough interdiction at this point. What a mess…
Here in the Central Midwestern USA summer, less than 150 miles away from my home, record high LOW temps for a day have been followed only days later by record low LOW temperatures for another day. (a good deal of this stuff, including almanacs of previous conditions all over the U.S. are followed at http://www.wunderground.com)
This may not mean much in the larger scheme of things, but most honest oldsters believe that the climate is now more variable.
But, of course, the weather was absolutely catastrophic in the 1930s and most now believe that the severe drought was exacerbated by plowing under hundreds of thousands of square miles of prairie grass, leaving bare soil for the “Dust Bowl.”
Of these two things I’m certain:
I. Using less fuel per person can hardly be a bad thing (and driving an SUV is hardly virtuous) Less oil revenue-related conflict plus cleaner air* are good things, right?
II. The snows of Kilimanjaro ARE disappearing–but it’s pretty tough to say just where that water vapor went, isn’t it?
*Roy, I’ve got a little 50 mpg diesel and I’m ready (mostly) for your algae !
It is easy to confuse meteorology and climatology, just as it’s easy to conflate scientific rigor with scientific doubt, and anecdotal evidence with empirical evidence.
Scientists perform experiments more to disprove hypotheses than to confirm them; in this way, only those hypotheses with merit survive. But their professional skepticism makes it easy to cherry-pick odd data or isolated research to make it look as if there is an actual dispute among climate scientists, and doing so has evolved into a cultural meme.
32 national academies of science concur: anthropogenic climate change is real. Rigorously peer-reviewed science is available by the ream. But for some reason the media seem to think the story needs to be artificially “balanced” by finding “the other side,” thereby reinforcing the meme. In this sense, McLuhan was right: the medium BECOMES the message, and the message (erroneous) is that there is legitimate debate.
For some reason, people seem to forbear a climate debate, while none would endure a debate between a geographer and a flat-Earther, or an obstetrician and a storkist. Would they also mandate that discussions of the Holocaust include Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for “balance?”
I suppose in any field it might be possible to find one or two well educated people whose world view taints their science or amps-up their cognitive dissonance. For example, Dr. Kurt Wise is a Harvard-trained geologist and member of the Geological Society of America, but he’s also a “young Earth creationist” who swears the planet is just 6,000 years old and that the Flintstones was nonfiction. His credentials are impeccable, but he’s still delusional.
There might be one or two like him on the GW denial side, but they’re easy to spot. They’re the ones at the conference reception standing off by themselves.
The central intellectual dishonesty in the GW debate is the debate itself.