For the sake of argument, let us agree with the Obama Administration that the Earth is warming up. Should we respond by being scared or cautious and, if scared, exactly what should we be frightened of?
Frankly, I am frightened of my president, who goes about justifying huge conversions of our public lands to subsidize wind farms and solar power plants.
Recently announced, a photovoltaic solar project at Soda Mountain, California, is just the latest among dozens to win approval. Has no one in the administration advised the president that two wrongs never made a right?
Now 69 years on this planet, I have yet to see the oceans “rise.” They of course surge during storms and hurricanes, but I remember storms just as big from the 1950s. They are only worsened now because of sprawl. Mother Earth has never lied to us about the tide line, which developers along our seacoasts still ignore.
Of course Super Storm Sandy was super. She had millions of targets from which to choose.
Like Goldilocks in the Three Bears, a host of “experts” now insists that our sea level must be perfect—not too high, and not too low, but comfortably suited for everything we have built.
The problem is: It is indeed our plan and not the Earth’s. Nor has Earth ever given ample warning before deciding to go on a rampage. Hey, humans! I have a 9.0 earthquake coming. Get ready to rock and roll!
Granted, new methods of prediction have helped. Still, as Jay Leno advises, the only sure way of predicting a tornado is to visit the nearest trailer park.
It’s dark humor, but so true. Development has increased the drama. These days, there are simply more structures for storms to reach and destroy.
As for the storms themselves, they are no worse than they were historically. When I was growing up, cities were smaller, fewer in number, and farther in between. When a big hurricane hit, as in 1900 at Galveston, Texas, it left many thousands dead—in Galveston perhaps 12,000. P.S. No one in the country blamed global warming.
The problem is that developers don’t read environmental history—or think critically about it if they do. For them, as for alarmists, every natural disaster becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We demand the country “do something” before Earth exceeds its “tipping point.”
Here the alarmists are entirely speculating. Going back hundreds of millions of years, we know from the geological record that the Earth has warmed repeatedly—and cooled repeatedly. Fifty-six million years ago, palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle. But again, why should anyone be bothered with geology—the grandest history of them all?
“Tipping point” has nothing to do with science. It is rather preferred by politicians, developers, and corporations to scare us into doing something stupid.
Such as parting with our public lands. But zoning 40 million acres for alternative energy? Again, how will that make us smart?
Because we are the problem, they administration persists. We started this warfare with Mother Earth by suffocating her with gobs of CO2.
Mother Earth still has news for us—and for the administration. She will keep adjusting even if we can’t. Nor despite our best intentions will she necessarily adjust the way we want.
She simply doesn’t care. Even as we “model” her she refuses to be modeled. It’s a computer model, after all, showing but a pittance of her incalculable behaviors.
A better explanation for all of this modeling is money. A cabal of green energy developers is getting rich. Face it. Few politicians agreed to this “reform” without first being strong-armed by the industry.
When did President Obama go all out for green energy? The record there is deep. His chief adviser has been Jeffrey Immelt, the Chairman and CEO of General Electric. Now there is a top scientist for you.
And you, Senator Sanders. Just call it green. Wave your arms in the air and shout a lot. Tell them you’re not connected to Wall Street. It will be our secret, senator.
Just don’t mention that some people in Vermont are wising up, seeing wind farms as “moronic.” General Electric has billions on the line here, senator. Forget the tourist revenue.
There is your tipping point—money. News flash! Green acne grips the public lands. Not to worry, the lobbyists say. Lady Liberty won’t even notice the pimples because the rest of her face will remain “pristine.” The pimples, that is, the turbines, will require just five percent of her skin.
Those people in Vermont are right. Green acne is moronic. Five percent or even a tenth of one percent, the public lands were never meant to be picked over like a scab. These are life-giving lands—critical lands—demanding our everlasting respect.
The Obama Administration must believe in Clearasil. Unfortunately, these scars will not soon be undone. Destroying the beauty and biology of the American landscape is never an excuse for “action.”
Granted, global warming is not a hoax. But yes, the statement is designed to deceive. We are not supposed to ask: If global warming is for real, for how long has it been for real? The answer, at least for human civilization, is the better part of the past 15,000 years.
Nor are we supposed to see the deception here: 97 percent of scientists agree about global warming. Of course they agree. After all, they would have to agree. Now with us for 15,000 years, global warming is just about as certain as gravity.
That’s not what we mean, the cabal protests. We mean human CO2 emissions only. We get to say what is causing climate change. No wonder American education, especially higher education, has turned into another mess.
Again pardon history for violating everyone’s “safe zone.” For giving us a Northern Hemisphere virtually free of ice sheets and full of freshwater lakes, we owe thanks to the Big Melt. Without it, Western Civilization would not exist.
What will green energy do to reverse the melting? Not a thing. Are we making the melting worse? Again, what is meant by worse? On a warming planet, ice melts. It is neither better nor worse as far as Earth is concerned. It is simply something that she does.
As for what is meant by “we,” eight billion people on the planet is a pretty big we. With all of those people exploiting resources, we do have a tremendous impact.
However, that especially is what universities mean by a "safe zone," where anything controversial is banned. Lest even a single person in the room be offended, the real problem is out of bounds.
Certainly, there is little chance of going back to “us”—that sweet spot in the middle of the twentieth century when the United States stood virtually alone in the developed world. When I was born, there were just 145 million people in the country and everyone could get a job. Now the entire world wants what America has, nor will they let some Paris “emissions treaty” stand in their way.
What most countries don’t have are public lands. It’s up to us to use common sense. We set aside our public lands for a very specific purpose, at once both biological and aesthetic. They were never meant to be industrialized.
We’ve done enough of that already looking for oil, coal, gas, and minerals. Breaking faith with biology—wilderness—we break faith with America the Beautiful period, undoing the wisdom of some of our greatest leaders, especially Theodore Roosevelt and FDR.
As an exceptional history, it remains immovable, and so yes, the green energy cabal is stumped. Getting their way with the White House and Congress first depends on silencing us. Give it up, Dr. Runte, lest we next throw you to the wolves as a denier and card-carrying member of the three percent!
Here again, I grew up with black-listing and commie-baiting. I know censorship when I see it. “I have a list,” warned Senator Joseph McCarthy. “Be careful your government doesn’t put you on it.”
The ancients called it hubris, filling their mythology with the inevitable result. Nor will the gods now be appeased by mere mortals showing no respect for creation.
Pummeling the American landscape is hardly less criminal than emitting CO2. As George Perkins Marsh first reminded us (remember that Vermonter, Senator Sanders?), the public lands are America’s antidote to what happened to Greece and Rome.
George Perkins Marsh would know what to tell the White House. No more wind farms and solar power plants on the public lands. If they worked, they would work just as well on private lands paid for by the ratepayers.
Of course, that explains the censorship. Suddenly, few of those plants would work. Without their subsidies, they are bound by physics. Perhaps “the battery” they need is just around the corner. Well, so was fusion 50 years ago. I’m still waiting for fusion, as I suspect the nation will be waiting for that battery years after I am dead.
Simply improving a technology does not make for a revolution. Those are few and far between. There will be nothing revolutionary about wind or solar power until their reliability is 100 percent.
It may happen, and we should hope it does happen. Then no one will need the public lands—or polluting fossil fuels. Investors will be speculating on a proven technology and laughing all the way to the bank.
The point is that until it happens we have no business acting as if it will—or has. Instead we are left crying as our public lands die piecemeal. For what? At this point, still at best for a costly experiment and at worst another scam.
Every time Mother Nature fails to cooperate, wind and solar power call for backup, in other words, fossil fuels. Wind not blowing? Fire up the gas. Sun not shining? Fire up the coal. Actually, keep the fire hot 24/7 because both can die in an instant.
Where, oh, where, is that perfect battery? Lacking it, proponents next talk about “improving” the grid. The wind will always be blowing and the sun always shining somewhere. We simply need enough projects that overlap.
In short, they plan for even worse. More pimples, more power. After promising to treat with Clearasil Ultra, bring on the concrete, asphalt, rebar, culverts, bridges, retaining walls, service roads, transmission lines, and more. Fence it all off for security. Put up floodlights to hold back the night. What? No CO2 emissions in any of it?
As for wildlife, let the arrogance flow. Demand from the government a legal “take.” Failing in that, fudge the numbers in the EIS. Eagles? Following a very “rigorous,” “comprehensive,” “meaningful,” and “responsible” assessment—that after consulting every “stakeholder”—we didn’t see a one. Well, maybe one, but it was flying away from us. We therefore concluded it will not come back.
What the Interior Department calls an environmental impact statement is just about that bad. All are fudged; all are rushed, unless some judge, refusing to be bent by politics, forces the department back to the drawing board.
We may hope that will happen at Soda Mountain. Certainly, green energy has flaunted every principle of stewardship, if by stewardship we mean do no harm.
Us? Harm the environment? If it lives, we first try to move it. If it dies in its new location, so be it. When the public gets suspicious, we know to repeat the mantra. We are being as “green” as we possibly can.
The immovable history remains: Nothing dismissive of life and the American past has any place on our public lands.
History will already venture this. If the Obama Administration persists in making tradeoffs—as if what the public has to trade is expendable—future generations will never allow that a pittance of national monuments “balanced” out the loss.
The urge to start someplace is no excuse for starting badly. Might we then elect for ourselves a president who believes in the public lands? There again, and especially in this election year, I join Mother Earth in not holding my breath.
An environmental historian and frequent contributor to the Traveler, Alfred Runte lives in Seattle, Washington, where he writes about the public lands. His books include National Parks: The American Experience (Taylor Trade) and Yosemite: The Embattled Wilderness, which he is revising for a second edition.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
Comments
Anon- that project is being massively subsidized. If it is going to be as effecient and effective as you seem to believe, that would need to be the case.
Northing to hurt in Nevada, eh, EC? In that case, I can't wait until some electric company puts up a 64-story, thermal solar power plant tower in your neighborhood, and surrounds it with 10,000 heliostats. At least, you know that the darn things don't work as advertised, unless again, in the instance of Tonopah, they come with a $750 million government loan guarantee.
Alfred - the joke was, there are no neighborhoods.
Is it safe to assume that a professor of environmental history would be able to quantify data in order to present a worthwhile assessment on the negatives of a project? The misuse of hyperbole to establish an argument is not enough to create informed dialogue. I simply asked for quantified data so that I could draw an informed decision. I did not draw the conclusion that these projects would not have an impact on wildlife in the effected area. Certainly there will be impacts, and there are impacts with all energy projects.
I very much approve of a judge throwing out fraudulent or poorly developed EIS, which forces the stakeholders of the project to redevelop their procedures, or even abandon their plans. In your article, you did not list any substantiated data on the effects of wildlife and one was left to draw the conclusion that coal and gas fired power plants that burn fossil fuels are a much better alternative..
You stated you drove through Tonapah and were effected by the glare. Did your action not have any effect on the immediate environment? You did not kill any insects with your car? You did not burn fossil fuels, placing emissions into the atmosphere? Is it safe to assume, you do not require energy?
The question then begs, where to place these energy development projects, since it is assumed that many other humans on this planet do require energy. Complex solutions, require complex processes. If you believe coal plants are better, and think that they do not disrupt vast amount of public lands, and in turn create negative impacts on streams, forests, and the air on this Earth, then you need to provide quantified data if a reader is to make an informed decision.
ecbuck, every single energy project within the USA is subsidized. Everything from geothermal development, to coal plant development, to the extraction of resources in the ground is subsidized.
And let's not be foolish. The nuclear testing that was performed in Nevada has had a lasting impact on life throughout the west. That atomic dust released into the atmosphere had to settle somewhere! There are plenty of reasons high cancer rates exist throughout portions of the west where that concentrated dust settled. Just like there are lasting effects from the emissions from transportation, and coal plants. The emissions belched out into the atmosphere later returns to the forests, and deserts throughout our country in the form of acid rain.
I think someone mentioned distributed energy. Almost all of us are connected to the grid and solar on our houses and businesses could displace man of those mega solar projects and transmission lines industry wants. But then the electric industry would lose control. But we all need to pay our share of the backup power and the transmision lines we need with distributed power but what is a reasonable price?
Really, that's not what the quantified data says:
http://blog.dana-farber.org/insight/2015/03/which-u-s-states-have-the-hi...
Al, it would seem that the questions were reasonable whether they come from Anastasia Anonumous, Freddie Mickelschnortz, or anyone else.
To an outside observer, it would also seem that the only reason to deflect with a demand for a name of your questioner would be to lay a ground for an adhominem.
Now, Anonymous, please reread your posts. Where is YOUR scientific data? Nor are your assumptions scientific data. You say you were left to assume that I favor coal-fired power plants. Here is what I said: "It’s up to us to use common sense. We set aside our public lands for a very specific purpose, at once both biological and aesthetic. They were never meant to be industrialized.
We’ve done enough of that already looking for oil, coal, gas, and minerals. Breaking faith with biology—wilderness—we break faith with America the Beautiful period, undoing the wisdom of some of our greatest leaders, especially Theodore Roosevelt and FDR."
How will industrializing the public lands for wind and solar mitigate having industrialized them for the extraction of everything else? You're right. Everything has a trade-off, but I never said I liked coal.
As for your so-called "quantified data," who the quantifier is counts a lot. It's a dodge as old the hills. You didn't give me the data I wanted, so I will now declare everything about your data suspect. Fine, call my data hyperbole, but when a single wind farm gobbles enough land to cover Las Vegas, I think any environmentalist is entitled to worry. Agreed, mountain-top removal is just as bad--or worse. Nor is the data there disputable. But yes, the same people promoting wind and solar are often promoting mountain-top removal, too. After all, any energy company will follow the money, and if Uncle Sam is offering money for wind and solar, you can bet that everyone will be piling in.
Is this what we want for our public lands? As i see it, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because some Americans want to correct for coal, oil, and gas does not give them the right to repeat the mistake of turning our public lands into an industrialized mishmash.
And no, don't put the blame on George W. Bush. A Texan, he believes in Big Oil. This all started under President Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and there the data is clear. Yes, it can take many years to site a power plant, but these were all sited in a rush. Nor did we, the American people, ever get the proper say.
I could have used more data, but nothing I have said has been disproved. If you now want to prove me wrong, I also look forward to chapter and verse. Tell me how a 300-megawatt power plant is worth losing the Mojave Desert for? Rooftop solar could do that in an instant, but then, Uncle Sam isn't buying because General Electric has convinced President Obama to give away our public lands. From Forbes Magazine, hardly a defender of the public lands, here is but one citation to that:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/04/08/the-unholy-marriage-of-ge...
ecbuck,
I don't need to go any further on this subject, since it remains mostly unrelated to this topic. Plenty of studies on this subject from a variety of reports based on quantified data are out there for you to discover.
You can start by reviewing this link.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/fallout-from-nuclear-weapons....
Rick, in the newspaper world of old--and still when you write the editor--you have to give your name, address, and phone number for verification. They will not publish your letter if you don't. They will also usually call you and ask if you sent the letter, and again, will not publish you without direct confirmation.
Now that we have this thing called the Internet, we are all calling ourselves this and that. Is it protection? Perhaps. But I wonder protection from what. Often, it is merely protection from accountability. We needn't really get serious because we can vent.
For the same reason I dislike polls (why should pollsters be able to influence our vote?) I would prefer that the Internet be more formal. But then, I do see and appreciate your point. Some people are legitimately protecting themselves from harassment. As an author, I simply consider that a luxury in my case.
You can start by reviewing this link.
And there is nothing in that article that says cancer rates are higher in the west. At best, the article speculates that a small number of people 50+ years ago may have had a higher risk. Nothing "quantified" about it.
But you are right, it is irrelevant. My comment was merely a joke about the desolate terrain of Nevada.
I don't disagree that solar, wind, and tidal energy come with cost, and risk. I dont consider any energy source, "green" and think that term is overused.
Regardless, I do not, nor will not reject the scientific method, and quantified data is a real asset in forming a solid theory. Unfortunately, your article presented no quantified data, and a lot of hyperbole. I simply asked for quantified data to form a better opinion in regards to your ideology, which seems to take the approach that we should keep the status quo, and not develop any further energy technologies. Unfortunately, after your few posts, you have yet to provide any quantified data, and to accept a forbes article as a substitute leaves me a little cold.
The USFS and BLM were not formed strictly to preserve wilderness. As the years have moved on, and scienfic knowledge of forest and land conservation ecology advance, that philosophy has changed, quite a bit. Yet, BLM land is still committed to energy development as one of its main uses. The National Park Service, on the other hand has a much different mission, and in that we can agree.
The Bush administration, and especially the energy policy in 2005 created tax credits for large scale wind, geothermal, and solar projects. Many solar thermal projects were sited during the Bush administration, and the Obama administration has carried the policy further. To state that solar thermal development is strictly an Obama administration policy is false. It very much takes many years to site large scale solar, geothermal, wind, and tidal development, and many times these projects have development phases crossing over at least two administrations.
In your op-ed, you did not state that solar thermal development, as an option, should instead commit itself to projects within city limits. I was not left with enough information to conclude that as an opinion of yours. I was left to the opinion that we should take a lazze faire approach to the status quo. I do not disagree that roof top solar is an option, at least for a portion of the capacity to allievate the energy grid. However, in an economic landscape as diverse as California, the question remains is that enough to meet California's vast energy needs? And once again, that data needs quantified.
The Obama administration has set aside 265 million acres as National Monuments in many BLM and USFS areas. Many, of which are in the Mojave desert region. Perhaps you have heard about them.
Anonymous, I think you mean 2.65 million acres of national monuments. 265 million acres would be the size of Washington State, Oregon, and California--and would triple the entire national park system in both the continental US and Alaska.
But fine. You needn't believe in Forbes Magazine. Just put these words in Google "Obama Green Energy Wind Solar General Electric Immelt," and dozens of sources will pop up. Hyperbole, you say? How about the hyperbole of the press that every storm is caused by climate change?
News Flash! The climate of the Earth is always changing, and has been changing for billions of years. As for the "quantified data," consider alone the formation of the Great Lakes, the Finger Lakes, Lake Bonneville, and Lake Missoula. Missoula, Montana, is at the bottom of a lake bed that used to be hundreds of feet deep. Lake Pond OReille in Idaho is that lake's remnant.
You want to get serious about climate change? Good luck with that, unless you can figure out (which the press never reports) how to stop the loss of millions upon millions of acres of CO2 absorbing forests, croplands, wetlands, and grasslands every year (between two and three million in the US alone) to population growth and urban development.
Yes, I believe we should transition from fossil fuels, but not at the price of fear and misinformation, of which there is plenty to go around among climate "scientists," too.
Call it hyperbole if you wish. But yes, you are losing your public lands to this latest "space program," and this time you won't even get to land on the Moon. However, that is what your public lands will look like--the Martian invasion from War of the Worlds. Just take a pleasant little drive to Tonopah, Ivanpah, or points south. See what your government is up to in the name of "quantified data." Do you feel "saved?" I don't.
Your news flash is nothing new. What you fail to comprehend is the climate of the Earth has not had an organism dig up billions of tons of coal, burn it, and in the process add billions of tons of C02 to the atmosphere. That is a process that has accelerated substantially over the last hundred and fifty years since the dawn of the industrial revolution. It is hard to take your comments seriously, or authoratatively when you refuse to recognize this fact. The burning of coal has also attributed to acidifying lakes forest and soils.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html#.V7Cyk1elgck
While a large scale thermal plant does effect and displace wildlife from the immediate area in which it is built these plants are sitting there absorbing the suns energy and transfering that to the grid.. The only use of fossil fuels is in the development, and the transfer of the the equipment that goes into an array. Once that process is complete, the plant will do less damage to an ecosystem than coal plants over a 30 to 50 year scale. These plants are not being placed in tropical rainforests, or areas of high co2 absobtion. In fact, most plants of this nature would not work in rainforests. Let's not get carried away.
Talk about getting carried away. . . Quote: "The only use of fossil fuels is in the development [of these plants]." No. At Ivanpah, natural gas backs up the entire operation, generally for four hours every day. Every wind farm here in the Northwest is also backed by natural gas or hydroelectric. The grid is getting slammed trying to accommodate all of the fluctuations. As for wildlife "displacement," large raptors tend to migrate. So do bighorn sheep. Allegedly, thermal power plants working on molten salt require no extra energy for operation. But again, I am aware of only one of those--at Tonopah, and the plant still is deadly on flying birds.
As for the "facts" of coal, no one is disagreeing with those facts. But that does not make those "facts" any more relevant when used to defend wind and solar. If wind and solar cannot stand on their own (and they don't), how are they to offer any panacea to the problems of King Coal?
The other day, in Sprague, Washington, I watched a large coal train pass. Several pass through the town every day on their way to ships bound for China. We haven't told the Chinese this must end--or the Japanese, Indians, Indonesians, etc. We have rather accepted, on their say-so, that they will "stop" in 2030. In other words, 14 years from now--allegedly all of them "critical" years for the planet--the rest of the world will start doing the "right thing," too.
By then, I will be 83. It's quantifiable, to be sure. 69 plus 14 equals 83. Now a senior citizen, I am being told that when I am an old man the entire world will start getting ethical. Been there, done that, my first 69 years on this planet. Don't tell me what is good for me unless you are willing to do it NOW. And the government is not willing, which makes it a scam, because no treaty works like this treaty, giving half of the world a total pass.
I will accept my responsibility for the mining of all that coal. On the other hand, my country isn't topping off at 1.4 billion people, with India right behind.
No amount of destroying our public lands is going to reverse global warming--a few days or months, perhaps, out of an entire century. That is indeed the conclusion of other eminent scientists who have studied the price of our going it alone with Europe. And even if China and India started now, would we insist that they contribute at the price of their remaining vacant lands? No more tigers? No more pandas? Everything a wind farm from sea to sea?
Unique in the world, we have a glorious public domain. No one has convinced me we should give it up. However, I do believe, when I turn 83, China, India, et al. will still be saying they can't comply.
Against that likelihood, why would we take the risk? To prove our sincerity and/or to assuage our guilt for having led the Industrial Revolution? Now we are to apologize for what we have? What country in the world has ever believed in doing that? Sure, poorer countries would like us to feel guilty and give in, but give in to what? The same poverty and lack of opportunity that drove their best and brightest to our shores?
Regardless, in any marriage, both parties take the vows. So far, those saying "I do" on our behalf have forgotten what a treaty--a world marriage--is.
I'm left to draw the conclusion, that you have no solutions, other than we shouldn't use public lands, or any land for energy development. That's basically the extent of all this back and forth. You still haven't provided any solutions to prove if this opinion is wise, simply based on quantified data that allows an informed reader to conclude that throwing up our arms and say "we don't care" is the right opinion.
I'm left to conclude, by your opinion that global warming just happens, and it will surely end with a global cooling event, and all will remain fine. That we shouldn't have to worry that one day the planet's atmosphere might resemble something like Venus and in the end nothing will be able to survive on the planet, because your opinion will prove otherwise even without any quantified data to back up such an opinion. Of course, your only example is that cooling and warming periods on the geological timeline have yet to point to an "end game" or "tipping point" so why show any concern? Of course, the Earth never had an organism digging up large amounts of coal, and burning it in such a short time period, which through quantified data by monitoring atmopsheric conditions, organizations like NOAA and NASA are proving that such activities are changing the atmosphere. And of course, an astromically large amounts of scientists that study these data patterns tend to agree that these activities are changing the atmopshere and over a long enough time period could threaten our survival on this planet.
To conclude, let's give up. Have a party, and place our heads back in the sand, instead of converting marginal amounts of land to solar technology, life will be better to just reject everything, and even if we require energy, we shouldn't need it, nor should other countries.
Anon - It appears you have drunk the AGW kool aid. Perhpas you can answer the question that the rest of the cult have run from. If AGW is proven, if it is science, if it is undeniable, if it is "quantified data" why have all the predictions been so wrong.
I recall my first trip to Lawrence Livermore Labs outside San Francisco some 20 plus years ago and my discovery of the Altamont wind farm. There were 1,000’s of Inoperative and rusting wind turbines as far as the eye could see. Yes, occasionally there was one actually rotating (and I assume generating a small amount of electricity). They scarred what was an otherwise beautiful landscape. I later learned these were actually built in the 70’s thanks in large part to tax and investment credits given to people with big money. Fast forward 20 years and in my home state and across the country more and more turbines clutter the horizon and while more of them are functioning than 20 years ago there are still many days when they sit idle despite the wind.
Why the rush to subsidized “green” power before it is proven? Research can be accomplished with a handful of turbines or small solar panels until the technology has sufficiently proven itself. I don’t disagree with EC that capitalism has created many great innovations but that is not what is at work here. Not when there are govt. subsidies funding (I would argue overfunding) everything every step of the way. Why would someone stand up and say this is nonsense when the money keeps flowing? Blame the over zealot “green” people who have good intentions but no common sense or understanding of economics or science. Blame the govt for handing out money like it was theirs to give. I am in favor of encouraging research and the govt can certainly play a good role in that regard but to throw billions of dollars when a fraction of that would do just as well or better is disgusting. Thanks for the great op-ed Alfred.
Go back in history and you'll find countless examples of people who fought hard against progress in their times. There were those who feared development of steam engines, electricity, elevators, and many other of the things we now take for granted -- and helped improve the quality of life for all of us. But just as was the case when reciprocating engines driving propellers on passenger airliners were rapidly replaced by more dependable and economic jets, the world moves on. Now NASA is working on development of electric propulsion systems. Some of the work may revolutionize aviation again. But even that has its detractors and naysayers.
Alternate energy sources are now taking baby steps. Baby steps that must be taken if there is hope of making those sources useful in the future. I'll bet that future generations will look back on those who now oppose these efforts and ask, "What on earth were they thinking?" That will be especially true if (or when) that generation is looking at a dry and dusty planet with massive die-off of plant, animal, and even human life because we failed to make any efforts to stop a calamity when we had a fighting chance.
We sit around and argue endless arguments. Fiddling while our planet is beginning smolder. How much more foolish can we be?
I'll bet that future generations will look back on those who now oppose these efforts and ask,
Noone opposes "these efforts". What they oppose is the government picking winners and losers and taking our money to do so.
Lee, it's called technology assessment. I am not opposed to technology assessment, but yes, I am opposed to losing our public lands over any assessment suggesting that two wrongs make a right.
Think about it. If indeed a planet like Venus is in our future, any delay in cooperating would be an act of war. But there it is--years of delay allowed to China, et al., and the US government streamlining the sale of coal to THEM.
When it takes fear to sell a pending catastrophe, at least be consistent when selling the fear. But we aren't consistent, are we? The president says one thing and allows another. Here, China, take our coal.
Under that scenario, do you not feel foolish arguing for Venus and tipping points? Or is it the Koch Brothers we should blame again? They are forcing our president to do this, and besides, it all started with George Bush.
No, it all started with the Industrial-Military complex originally outlined by President Eisenhower. When you want to sell Americans something, the best pitch is fear. Supporters also sold us on the Interstate Highway System as the National System of Defense Highways. We needed to get across the country to stop the Russians before they "invaded" Peoria, Illinois. Ultimately, all of that fear led to Vietnam, and we sure know how that turned out.
How will global warming turn out? A student of American history, I will venture at least one prediction. We will go broke before we know.
And its not only our federal lands that are being put at risk. Its our security as well.
http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/affordable-energy-national-u-n-/2016/08...
You and I certainly agree on at least one thing, Alfred. We Americans (humans, for that matter) are terribly awful when it comes to planning and working toward the future.
Future? Nah, the only thing important is RIGHT NOW ---- and how much money can I make out of this?
Lee, difficult issues, but I agree with Dr. Runte on the issue of Soda Mountain. On politics and the art of the possible, just finished reading an interesting book, "The Politicians and The Egalitarians" by Sean Wilentz. The preface to the book starts with a quote from Reinhold Niebubr, I thought it was good. Mr. Niebubr writes "It maybe well for the statesman to know that statesmanship easily degenerates into opportunism and that opportunism cannot be sharply distinguished from dishonesty. But the prophet ought to realize that his higher perspective and the uncompromising nature of his judgments always has a note of irresponsibility in it. Francis of Assisi may have been a better Christian than Pope Innocent III. But it may be questioned weather his moral superiority over the latter was as absolute as it seemed. Nor is there any reason to believe that Abraham Lincoln, the statesman and opportunist, was morally inferior to William Lloyd Garrison, the prophet. The moral achievement of the statesman must be judged in terms which take account of the limitations of human society which the statesman must, and the prophet need not, consider.
Interesting quote, Ron. Thanks for sharing it. And the article from EC. In what now seems like "ancient times" (1971-1978), I was on the faculty of Environmental Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, first as a teaching assistant and then a lecturer. I got to meet (and work with) so many exciting people. It was like going to college all over again. I sat through hundreds of lectures, and read dozens of books, by the best minds in physics, geology, biology, human ecology, economics, political science, and history, history being my personal specialty. One theme from all those years stood out: You never get something for nothing. If humans were to achieve fusion, for example, or anything else "sustainable," it would still come with some unsustainable price tags. In the end, and however we looked at it, human beings were nobly "trapped."
Yes, we went to the Moon, and learned many wonderful things along the way. But getting there also cost us dearly, nor were we able to stay. So we keep circling what we have--the Spaceship Earth that is our home.
The big complaint among the student body was that Environmental Studies was so depressing. Here they were being told of all the things humans can't do, while over in Engineering they were building "the future." Yes, after 45 years we can say how that turned out--about the same as the present-day we had at the time. We're more "efficient," certainly, but we're also three times larger as a world population, which now eats up all of that "efficiency," at least insofar as energy is concerned. Our planes are no faster; our ships are no faster; and our cars have virtually stalled. A freeway, we were calling it then--and still do. But we are moving today at a crawl.
None of it is worth losing our public lands over, because those we will never get back. If scientists now have much better ideas, then show me those ideas without saying I have to lose the Earth. It made no sense then, and it makes no sense now, just because someone's idea of "efficiency" forgets that there is no turning back the clock. We're stuck with ourselves--and all we have done to this planet--and CO2 is but the tip of the iceberg. But yes, lose the land on top of that, and boy, are we in Big Trouble.
I agree, and we already are. Every living system is in decline. insects, birds, fish are all in steep declines as well. Lots of cats and dogs though.
Still waiting argalite, and the Ricks and Lee and Ron and half dozen others, if it is science. if it is quatified data, if it is undenyable, why have the predictions been so wrong. Crickets.
Since you seem to deny everything, perhaps you can add to the data of cancer research in radioactive exclusion zones by spending a few months living within Fukushima, or Chernobyl. If you don't end up with cancer within a decade after spending some time there, you can prove that you are an anamoly, and all the "quatified data", as you put it, is bunk when one is exposed to high levels of radiation.
Agralite is very much correct. There are numerous research reports that suggest many lifeforms are changing their behavior. Sometimes these changes are occuring rapidly in response to a changing environment due to the warming of the Earth. Othertimes the behavioral changes are much more subtle.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/09-1641.1/abstract
Ecbuck is teasing me! Statements without references are just bait. The world is hotter, glaciers are melting, get a clue loser.
Bottom line, argalite, no one is obligated to engage with those who live under bridges.
Argalite, why have the predictions been so wrong?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-p...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430380/al-gore-doomsday-clock-expi...
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
And the list goes on. I have a clue and the clue is your "science", your "quantified data" is pure junk. Which is why you, Rick B and all the others run from the question.
No. We turn our back on you, personally, and ignore whatever questions you pose.We have all tried. For years NO engagement with you has been productive. "Discussing" with you is like sticking your finger into one of those Chinese finger traps. A decision to not engage is not a confession. It is ignoring a squeaky loud and very lonely voice out of the internally consistent echo chamger of the right wing. But you go ahead and tell yourself whatever fairy tales you need to for your own self respect.
Because you have no answer. You are more than happy to engage when you think you have one of your gotchas but pull a Forest Gump and run as far and as fast as you can when confronted with the facts. Your "science" has been terribly wrong and you can't explain why. I can. Because its garbage.
Better said, everyone, the science is "incomplete." It's why we are still doing research. The question is: What will even that research show? My position is that it will never show a roadmap to sustainability, because the very thought goes against the physics. We all die, for one thing. Some scientists promise us a lifespan of 200 years, but we still seem to die at 70 or 80.
How do you control the Earth? You don't, especially when we cannot even control ourselves. Last night, Tom Brokaw was in the Amazon on NBC News, talking with a distinguished ecologist. Apparently, 24 ecologists/activists have died just since the start of the year--killed by developers who want to exploit the Amazon. Still 20,000 square miles are logged and cleared every year. What will wind turbines and solar collectors do to reverse those losses? Nothing, although that is my statement and not Tom Brokaw's. Another interesting fact he reminded viewers of: The Amazon has 20 percent of the Earth's fresh water.
It's not about who's right or wrong on global warming. It's rather about EVERYTHING humans should not do. When they still do it--and say to me that losing our public lands will be "helpful"--I remind them that the system is much too big for any such certainty.
Except the certainty that there is no getting out of the game--and that we haven't even begun to understand what the game is. Why are we here? The closer I get to not being here, the more I realize how out of control we are. Reverse global warming? Clean up our mess? Make everything "right" again? But what was "right" to begin with? Who would not have started civilization by burning fossil fuels? Before that our ancestors were killing whales for oil. No one likes the dark. Or the cold. EC is right about that problem. Now to suggest that people should fear a little more heat is like telling them to move unalterably backwards to the time when everyone huddled around the fire.
Saying there is climate change is like saying we will all die. So, what else is new? Let's just not lose the Amazon, folks, but you know what? We probably will.
"July 2016 was the warmest month ever recorded, the latest in a slew of new temperature records set in the past several years, according to two new reports.
Scientists have recorded month after month of record-breaking temperatures this year, but July shattered all those records to become the hottest of any month in any year since record keeping began. The data was confirmed separately by NASA and the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA), and provides near certainty that 2016 will be the hottest year in recorded history."
Their conclusion is that much of it is caused by human activity. For some on this site this is just another example of how scientists lie. I fear that regardless of whether natural or human caused the problem is so great that politicans around the world will be unable to get public support to solve the problem. The fossil fuel industry and the politicians they own will not allow it to be solved. An un-substantiated claim I know, apologies to EC.
So tell us Siglin1 - why have the predictions been so wrong? Whether July was the hotest month of any year since record keeping began (which is a miniscule fraction of the history of our planet) is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the AGW cult claims they have the science that proves the warming is due to human activity but their predictions based on that "science" have been horribly wrong. Why have the predictions been so wrong? I can tell you, it is not because of the fossil fuel industry or politicians.
Realtors killing off scientists? Sounds like the same thing is happens here, except in this case they are being drowned out by a realtor without any obvious skillset in science.
Seems that those predictions are coming to pass even as NPT s resident troll makes baseless accusations based on stories in a few questionable publications.
He must be a fiddle player.
More accurate satellite measurements of the lower troposphere show July as quite a bit cooler than both July 1998 and 2010. In fact, this is the coolest El Nino July in over 20 years.
The data: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_...
anon - baseless accusations? Questionable publications? Perhaps you would like to get specific and identify those baseless accusations. The National Review is a questionable publication? The Washington Times is a questionable publication? The Telegraph and the UNIPCC are questionable publications? - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712... Well maybe the UNIPCC but even they admit they don't have a clue.
You only find those publications questionalbe because you don't like their conclusions. There is no baseless accusation, there is merely presentation of the facts. And the facts are that the predictions have been horribly wrong and you, Rick B. argelite, Ron et al can't explain why.
Please post peer-reviewed research documents, and not links to propaganda sites if you want intelligent people to take you seriously.
Almost 7 trillion gallons of water were displaced over the gulf this past week. I guess, the fact that the oceans are getting warmer each year, and water is evaporating faster than it has before, and this evaporation is creating displacing over large chunks of coastal land isn't any "proof" either. Just aanother historic flooding event that trumps the one from last year along another section of American coastline.
You don't need peer reviewed research to observe that a prediction didn't come true. Are you claiming all the AGW predictions have been accurate? Even the UNIPCC doesn't beleive that. The predictions have been horribly wrong because the "science" upon which they were based is garbage.
You continue to talk like someone that has never spent a day in a lab, or even has an iota of understanding in regards to the scientific method. The problem seems to stem from allowing politicians to shape your opinion.
As the planet warms, many changes are occurring. Some very drastic that is effecting our ability to survive in certain regions of the world. You seem to want results within the hour, when these results occur over decades, into centuries. Now, please go back to school, instead of pretending to have any knowledge about subjects you have little understanding of. If you actually had some training, you would maybe come to realize that you currently sound a little foolish.
I think it would really help lend some credence, Anonymous, if you would reveal yourself. One of the downfalls of the Internet is hiding behind a wall of invisibility. While there certainly are times for anonymity, a discussion on climate change and its drivers is not one of them.
I read the denial links ec provided a couple days ago and was not impressed. Most of their talking points are well-rebutted at these links:
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Here's a six-minute video that lists many climate prediction successes:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
So which seems more likely, a conspiracy and misinformation campaign by over ninety percent of the world's climate scientists or one by fossil fuel corporations and their political allies?
Your talking points don't address at all the inaccurate forecasts identified in my links. And the fact that a few predictions were true doesn't negate the fact that the vast majority were wrong. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
And you 90% of climate scientist is pure baloney. Show me where 90% of climate scientist believe that man is the primary cause of climate change.
As you all banter, you prove my point. Anonymous says: "these results occur over decades, into centuries." Exactly. And what does Mother Earth have in store for us next? Even if Adam and Eve began our current bout of climate change, Mother Earth will still get her say.
Is that any reason to rip apart the Garden of Eden on the say-so of 90 percent, 97 percent, or even 100 percent of "scientists?" If they were competent scientists, they would also be saying this. We don't know what the future holds. We can only make our predictions on current trends. But no, over in Yellowstone they are already predicting an end to snowfall, although note how they carefully say there will be "some" good years.
Sixty years ago, when I was growing up, the ski areas of New York State had both good and "bad" years. EC is right. If you're going to predict a catastrophe, it had better show up, because when it doesn't people start to wonder. William Miller, in 1843, predicted the second coming of Christ. When it didn't happen, he declared a miscalculation--and kept his religious sect alive for another year. By 1845 his sect was dead. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, declared that God had come to him, and him alone as a man of purity. His religion still survives--indeed thrives, but yes, I would sure like to see those golden tablets.
I do not want to lose my public lands over Millerism, Mormonism, or Predictionism--the religion practiced by scientists who have nothing new to say. I know when a prediction is meant to confuse me into doing something stupid. It's stupid to say that we can reverse global warming while we are still tearing the Garden of Eden apart. At General Electric, they gave President Obama the Apple--and he bit. Then Elon Musk at Tesla gave him another apple, and he bit. And so on, and so on, and so on. The point is: What they are chewing up belongs to all of us--and the future.
In 1981, Interior Secretary James Watt also predicted the second coming of Christ. No need to save a thing; Jesus would be bringing us another planet. Well, I happen to like the one we have, and I wish we would stop playing games with it as if we were God instead of God himself. But of course we burned--and continue to burn--too much fossil fuel. On the other hand, we are doing too much of everything destructive, and yes, that now includes planning to "reverse" global warming. As William Miller learned, God listens to his own schedule, and it just might include rethinking us.
Predicting the coming of christ, is not quantifiable. Measuring weather patterns and anomalies, and observing distinct changes in the behavior of wildlife species within an environment to predict future results is very much quantifiable. May we quit with the hyperbole?
Here is the best overview of why a lot of people are skeptical of the climate change agenda. It's a video made last month.
https://youtu.be/Gh-DNNIUjKU
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/07/my-temperature-record-presentation...
I wish I had the time to research NPS history and pictures from the 1930-1940s that would correlate with the actual hottest period in temperature records.
Pages