Some real, accurate observations about the bigger picture of environmental destruction of which global warming is but a tiny part. How about some real answers?

Nowhere in most articles about global warming, including the one I urge you to read following this section, is anything ever mentioned or suggested other than conservation of energy. There is rarely, if ever any real solution to the problem even hinted at. In the article by Paul Loeb, there was not a single reference to any serious effort at solving the problem - none! Other than the obvious political thrust of the article, conservation is all that is ever mentioned.

China and India, two of the most populous nations in the world, are rapidly accelerating their energy use as their burgeoning economies expand rapidly. These two nations each promise to dump far more CO2 into the atmosphere and dwarf any contribution from the US in a very short time. They are exempt from the Kyoto protocol. In both nations, pollution has already become overwhelming and deadly.

There are real, practical solutions. Not the government or the many university and public research groups, but the free-enterprise capitalist organizations in the US have it within their power to solve this problem and solve it quickly. No, not by stop-gap measures such as conservation, or very long range, pie-in-the-sky proposals like the hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle, but with real solutions that provide nearly boundless energy, fixed and portable, for buildings and vehicles and with very little modification to power plants large and small. All this while putting a complete stop to increases of atmospheric CO2. We have the technology to do it right now! We have the raw materials at hand. We have the people who know how to design and produce the infrastructure, the power plants, the vehicles and their engines large and small. They are already here and working! A complete changeover can be handled in as little as ten years.

The benefits to our nation and to the world are staggering: no drilling in pristine places, no imported petroleum, no huge investment in a radical new distribution system, no obsolescence of current vehicles, no drain on our resources as we send increasing billions to oil-rich nations. Instead we are looking at numerous and widely spread small fuel producers, producers of safe and efficient fuel out of totally renewable resources - right here in out own country. Many more high-paying jobs right here! The billions now going to the middle eastern nations will stay right here at home.

The answer is detailed in a little book titled, "A Convenient Solution" by Howard Johnson. This book is currently being updated to reflect the rapidly progressing elements of this amazing answer to our growing energy crisis and should be published by fall of 2006.

To read escerpts of the book click: A Convenient Solution, Excertps.
For an overview of the book, click: A Convenient Solution, overview
For information on alternative fuels, click: Alternative Fuels.

Another, far more important point:

I have for at least twenty years given lectures on a far more comprehensive problem of which global warming is but a very small part. The current name of this lecture is: "The Decimation of the Environment - The Real Culprit." This is the real, root cause of virtually all of our growing environmental problems and is what will ultimately bring about our total demise and the collapse of the entire world of human societies.
Text of the current lecture can be read by clicking on: An Unmentionable Menace!

My son gave me a book for Father’s Day entitled, "Collapse - How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" by Jared Diamond, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "Guns, Germs, and Steel.". This book, published in 2005, Says, in fine detail, how and why past societies have died out, literally. It also projects where we are headed. It details precisely what I have been saying in my lecture for at least twenty years even using one of the same examples I have used in my lectures, Easter Island.

To my mind, this book is far far more important and definitive than Al Gore’s movie, yet I can guarantee it will not get but a tiny fraction of the attention (if any) that the movie is getting. This is probably because it is not political and isn’t primarily a "bash someone for political purposes" book. At the back of the book are listings of many articles, studies and references to more in-depth information relating to the content of the book.

If you want a real, highly definitive look at our earth, society and where we are headed environmentally and what we can realistically do and expect, I urge you to get and read this book. It doesn’t blame George Bush or Bill Clinton or liberals or conservatives for mankind’s insatiable appetite for sex and procreation that is now inundating Europe with Muslim immigrants and the US with Latino immigrants. It does describe the human foolishness that has, in the past, brought about the cruel death of all individuals in certain societies and draws the conclusion that, unless we do something immediately, the whole of mankind could suffer the same cruel fate and in the very near future.

Unfortunately, not only will mankind be cruelly eliminated, but most other life on earth as well.  ¶ 6:18 AM 0 Comments

  Global Warming, Local Hope by Paul Rogat Loeb HJ Note: This is but a symptomatic approach to the problems and offers no real long-term solutions.

As the evidence of global warming becomes inescapable, I fear Americans will switch instead to a fatalistic pessimism. Maybe it’s real and maybe it’s our fault, this sentiment goes, but at this point there’s nothing we can do, so we’re off the hook.

It’s hard to deal with melting arctic glaciers, Katrina refugees who might never return to New Orleans, and floods that recently covered half of Bangladesh. Weather-related catastrophes cost a record $225 billion last year, with the impact of global climate change just beginning. Add in a president deep in denial, and it’s tempting to feel powerless. We can’t even escape to the Weather Channel without a sense of impending doom.
Yet people are beginning to act, sometimes from unexpected places. By so doing they’re opening up new possibilities. The heads of BP Amoco and the world’s largest reinsurance companies, Swiss Re and Munich Re, have spoken out. So has the vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals, joined by other key evangelical leaders like the country’s largest megachurch pastor, Reverend Rick Warren. In Britain, even the Conservatives are demanding the issue be made a top national priority. In spring 2005, in Seattle, where I live, Mayor Greg Nickels recognized that even though the Bush administration was still denying the consequences of global warming, local mayors could still take a stand. Nickels committed Seattle to meet or exceed the Kyoto standards of greenhouse gas reduction and challenged the mayors of other cities to make the same commitment. Now 238 cities have signed the US Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement, from New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago to Omaha, Charlottesville, and Laredo. Together they represent 44 million people and greenhouse gas emissions exceeding those of the combined population of Great Britain, the Netherlands and Scandinavia.

Nickels also created a committee of environmental, business and community leaders to issue a Green Ribbon Report on specific ways Seattle could cut back. They just issued their report after a year of work, and the municipally owned utility, City Light, will now meet all new electrical demand with conservation and renewable resources—they’ve already been giving rebates for energy-efficient light bulbs and appliances. Seattle will expand infrastructure for public transportation, biking and walking. The city will offer incentives and requirements for city contractors to use more fuel-efficient vehicles or ones using bio-fuels, and work with major employers to increase car-sharing. A Green Building program will support conservation in residential and commercial construction and renovation.

The city also issued a challenge to local businesses to meet or surpass the same reduction levels: Six of the top fifty local employers have so far agreed for their local and in some cases national and international operations, including Starbucks, outdoor equipment coop REI, a major real estate development company, the Port of Seattle, and the international cement and building materials company LaFarge SA.
The University of Washington, the other major local employer to sign on, was already part of a campus-focused environmental network called the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (http://www.aashe.org/), and schools like Yale, Oberlin, Cornell, the University of California system, and the Universities of Iowa, Minnesota, and Oklahoma have similarly pledged to meet or exceed the same standards. Member schools have renovated campus heating, cooling, ventilating and lighting systems, super-insulated buildings, installed solar collectors, switched to renewable electricity energy sources, and strengthened recycling programs. They’ve bought more efficient cars and trucks or vehicles running on bio-diesel. Tufts even held an energy-saving competition for its dorms called "Do it in the Dark," where they encouraged students to turn off lights and computers when not using them. As with the local city projects, the success of each particular effort encourages others and opens up new possibilities.

It’s tempting to dismiss these initiatives as insignificant, given the magnitude of the challenge. Cuts in greenhouse emissions need to be far more drastic than Kyoto’s limited reach of reducing emissions to 7% below the 1990 levels by 2012.. But efforts like Seattle’s and some of the other cities and businesses offer a path forward, a way to act despite the Bush administration’s massive denial. Each city inspires the next. So does each business. The more concrete the solutions, the less credible the arguments that nothing can be done. If a city can buy efficient cars and trucks for its fleets, or weatherize houses, or offer incentives for alternative energy generation, then so can any state or the U.S. federal government. If a company the size of Starbucks can decrease their greenhouse gas emissions, then so can other corporations. If the University of Washington or University of Oklahoma can find ways to lighten their impact, so can other campuses. Each initiative provides a model for others to follow.

I spent this past Earth Day with the Sierra Club canvassing the suburban neighborhoods of Bellevue, Washington State’s fifth largest city. Going door to door in a swing Congressional district, we distributed coupons, supplied by the local utility, for discounted compact-fluorescent lightbulbs, handed out postcards urging Bellevue’s mayor to sign the national mayor’s agreement, and enlisted volunteers for future efforts. Most important, we talked with ordinary citizens about global warming and what they could do. Had Seattle not taken the initial step, our task would have been far harder.

The institutions and individuals taking these actions aren’t perfect. I dislike how Starbucks undermines the rich culture of local independent coffee houses. I’ve disagreed with Seattle Mayor Nickels on a key transportation initiative and what I consider excessive deference to downtown development interests. But on this issue, they’re taking risks to do what’s right, and we’re all the beneficiaries.

As Al Gore pointed out at the press conference announcing Seattle’s Green Ribbon report, setting and meeting even initially modest targets opens up new possibilities. This occurred when countries worldwide phased out the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that were destroying the stratospheric ozone layer that protects us from harmful ultraviolet radiation. At first political leaders and leaders of affected businesses said this was impossible, that alternatives were unavailable or prohibitively costly. But even though the scientific data was still in flux, and CFCs had wide uses in electronics, refrigeration, plastics, telecommunications, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture, 24 nations, including the U.S., committed to the specific reduction standards of the 1987 Montreal Protocol. Businesses responded with major innovation, soon surpassing the standards. Northern Telecom developed and licensed new ways to clean electronic circuit boards. Greenpeace and a former East German company developed CFC-free refrigerators, which were sold throughout Europe and which German and Swiss aid programs promoted in China and India. The US food packaging industry stopped using CFCs in creating Styrofoam packaging, and China replaced their Styrofoam with a biodegradable product made from grass and straw. By a few years later, a series of amendments raised the standards still further and the bulk of the world’s nations had signed on. With CFCs no longer accumulating in the atmosphere, the ozone layer is gradually beginning to recover.

These are hopeful signs. But how do we act if we don’t hold a position of visible power, if we’re not the mayor of a city or a corporate executive? We can take modest, or not so modest, individual steps, improving the insulation of our houses, installing solar water heaters, driving less, and buying energy-efficient cars, lighting and appliances. But voluntary efforts will never be enough, so we also have to compel large political and economic institutions to act. That means getting out from behind our computers and participating in efforts, like the Sierra Club’s, to educate and sway voters in swing districts, showing up at community meetings, registering voters, convincing local civic groups to speak out. It means joining efforts like the international environmental boycott of Exxon/Mobil for being the prime financial supporter of the denial of global warming. And pressuring political, economic, and religious leaders to take a stand, both those whose hearts are in the right place but who have so far lacked the courage, and those who are willfully blind or just haven’t come to grips with the facts. It means levying enough collective power so that these leaders have no choice but to respond.One way to bring the issue home would be to create a context where our neighbors and colleagues can really begin telling the local stories. Farmers could talk about how changing patterns are affecting local agriculture, hunters and hikers about shifts in the patterns of wild animals and birds, skiers about melting snowpacks, backyard gardeners about the changing cycles of local plants, physicians about changing disease vectors from insect and rodent migration. If droughts, floods, tornadoes, or forest fires have threatened a local city or town, citizens could talk about that as well, weaving in discussion of the larger global patterns and of the choices we can make to respond. If we coordinated these testimonies well enough, they’d go a long way toward making some of the invisible changes visible.

We need to take action to promote further alternatives, not only as ends in themselves, but also to fight denial, which remains a powerful force. As Al Gore points out in An Inconvenient Truth, Science magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject published between 1993 and 2003. Not one dissented from the international scientific consensus—that human activity is dramatically increasing the earth’s temperature, in ways that will bring severe consequences. But because of promotion by corporations like Exxon/Mobil of a handful of global warming deniers, over half the news stories during the same period presented the issue as if there were a serious scientific debate. In the wake of Katrina’s devastation of New Orleans and efforts like the local cities initiatives and Gore’s powerful film, citizens may finally be ready to acknowledge global warming and its consequences, though the Bush administration is proposing to cut $152 million from federal energy conversation programs. Everywhere I go, people acknowledge how strange their local weather has been in recent years. But they don’t always connect it to the larger patterns that threaten the habitability of the earth

Efforts like the city-by-city campaigns and Gore’s powerful film are helping to bring this critical issue to the public square. But they’ll only bear fruit with the massive participation of ordinary citizens. However we decide to participate, it’s not enough to follow the news, lament the parade of disasters, and long for someone else to solve the problem. If we don’t act, the potential of even the wisest and most visionary alternative plans will remain just that: potential. If we demand that our economic and political leaders make them a reality, we have a chance to solve what may be the most profound crisis we’ve faced while inhabiting this planet. Each time we can convince a major institution to change, this encourages others to follow.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, winner of the 2005 Nautilus Award for the best book on social change. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See http://www.paulloeb.org/. To get his articles directly, email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articlesedu  ¶ 8:53 PM 0 Comments

  Climate experts have a real look at global warming Those proclaiming the dangers of global warming would do well to study what real climate scientists have discovered for the last few thousand years.

Many climate scientists believe it is quite possible that the changing gulf stream indicates the likelihood of a return of conditions that brought on the “Little ice age” from mid 14th century ‘til the start of the twentieth century. Should the gulf stream stop flowing, as many scientists believe it did during the “Little ice age,” the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may actually temper the temperature drop and make another such climatic event far less damaging.

Most of the negative information about global warming comes from computer modeling which, in the past, has been consistently wrong. Temperature records of the last several thousand years indicate repeated run ups and declines in average global temperatures far greater than we are currently experiencing. The following article indicates global temperatures for numerous centuries from 800AD to 1300AD averaged far greater than those of the twentieth century.

The real problem is that politicians and some scientists, who are promoting self-serving agendas, concentrate solely on data supporting their chosen position and ignore data that disproves it. Most scientists preaching alarm about global warming are not in the field of long range world climate. As a matter of fact, most scientists working in that field believe many of the observed temperature fluctuations fall well within historical limits of fluctuations.

The truth is that attempts at computer modeling of worldwide climate changes and weather in either short or long range is far too inaccurate for dependable results. To have meaningful results they would have to be able to make accurate predictions about a future hurricane, before it ever started. Current modeling can hardly predict even a few day’s future movement and power of an existing hurricane with any degree of accuracy. The technical limits and variables facing such modeling is far far beyond our present technical capabilities.

20th century not warmest, researchers find

Coral reefs are sensitive to a variety of environmental changes. Smithsonian astronomers Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas reviewed more than 200 studies of coral, glacier ice cores, tree rings and other indicators to trace changes in the world's climate over the past millennium. They found that the 20th century is NOT the warmest of the past 1000 years. (Credit: David A. Aguilar, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)

11:30 a.m., April 15, 2003--A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century was neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years.

The review, which included work by David R. Legates, director of the University of Delaware’s Center for Climatic Research, also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents.

Legates said the paper argues against a recently espoused view formulated by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia and his colleagues that global air temperatures remained fairly constant from 1000-1900 A.D., then increased dramatically in the 20th century.

“Although [Mann’s work] is now widely used as proof of anthropogenic global warming, we’ve become concerned that such an analysis is in direct contradiction to most of the research and written histories available,” Legates said. “Our paper shows this contradiction and argues that the results of Mann…are out of step with the preponderance of the evidence.”

According to the paper, while 20th-century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.

Smithsonian astronomers Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, with co-authors Legates and Craig Idso and Sherwood Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, compiled and examined results from more than 240 research papers published by thousands of researchers over the past four decades. Their report, covering a multitude of geophysical and biological climate indicators, provides a detailed look at climate changes that occurred in different regions around the world over the last 1,000 years.

“Many true research advances in reconstructing ancient climates have occurred over the past two decades,” Soon said, “so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of recent studies from the last five to 10 years and look for patterns of variability and change. In fact, clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced the highs of the Medieval Warm Period and lows of the Little Ice Age, and that 20th-century temperatures are generally cooler than during the medieval warmth.”

Soon and his colleagues concluded that the 20th century is neither the warmest century over the last 1,000 years, nor is it the most extreme. Their findings about the pattern of historical climate variations will help make computer climate models simulate both natural and man-made changes more accurately, and lead to better climate forecasts especially on local and regional levels. This is especially true in simulations on timescales ranging from several decades to a century.

"Studies of stalagmites and tree rings can yield yearly records of temperature and precipitation trends. Researchers drill small cores to obtain samples. "

Historical cold, warm periods verified

Studying climate change is challenging for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the bewildering variety of climate indicators–all sensitive to different climatic variables, and each operating on slightly overlapping yet distinct scales of space and time. For example, tree ring studies can yield yearly records of temperature and precipitation trends, while glacier ice cores record those variables over longer time scales of several decades to a century.

Soon, Baliunas and colleagues analyzed numerous climate indicators including: borehole data; cultural data; glacier advances or retreats; geomorphology; isotopic analysis from lake sediments or ice cores, tree or peat celluloses (carbohydrates), corals, stalagmite or biological fossils; net ice accumulation rate, including dust or chemical counts; lake fossils and sediments; river sediments; melt layers in ice cores; phenological (recurring natural phenomena in relation to climate) and paleontological fossils; pollen; seafloor sediments; luminescent analysis; tree ring growth, including either ring width or maximum late-wood density; and shifting tree line positions plus tree stumps in lakes, marshes and streams.

“Like forensic detectives, we assembled these series of clues in order to answer a specific question about local and regional climate change: Is there evidence for notable climatic anomalies during particular time periods over the past 1,000 years?” Soon said. “The cumulative evidence showed that such anomalies did exist.”

The worldwide range of climate records confirmed two significant climate periods in the last thousand years, the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. The climatic notion of a Little Ice Age interval from 1300 to1900 A.D. and a Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 A.D. appears to be rather well-confirmed and wide-spread, despite some differences from one region to another as measured by other climatic variables like precipitation, drought cycles, or glacier advances and retreats.

“For a long time, researchers have possessed anecdotal evidence supporting the existence of these climate extremes,” Baliunas said. “For example, the Vikings established colonies in Greenland at the beginning of the second millennium that died out several hundred years later when the climate turned colder. And in England, vineyards had flourished during the medieval warmth. Now, we have an accumulation of objective data to back up these cultural indicators.”

Glacier ice cores record temperature and precipitation trends over longer time scales of several decades to a century. (Credit: Lonnie Thompson, Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University)

The different indicators provided clear evidence for a warm period in the Middle Ages. Tree ring summer temperatures showed a warm interval from 950 A.D. to 1100 A.D. in the northern high latitude zones, which corresponds to the “Medieval Warm Period.” Another database of tree growth from 14 different locations over 30-70 degrees north latitude showed a similar early warm period. Many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.

The study–funded by NASA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the American Petroleum Institute–will be published in the Energy and Environment journal. A shorter paper by Soon and Baliunas appeared in the Jan. 31 issue of the Climate Research journal.  ¶ 6:45 PM 0 Comments

  A reply from Jessica and my response Dear Uncle Mike,

I find your opinion unfortunate. I do think Gore is pushing a political agenda - an aganda to encourage more knowledge of and action on environmental issues. Many of the facts that you brought up he actually agrees with in the film. He also is more careful than you are to NOT play the democrat VS republican card. He appears to have an extremely open mind to all sides of the argument and to truly want to work towards an answer whether that is from a place of political power or his own back yard. If you only looked at the website, I do encourage you to see the film (with all political opinions aside). I appreciate your sending the blog and found much of it very informative.

I hope that just because I air on the democratic side, I don't fall into the category of little mental access to reason and reality!! That's just about as powerful as hatred. . .

hope you're well.

love, Jessica


Jessica:

I appreciate your very thoughtful response. I most certainly do not see you in any way as, "falling into the category of little mental access to reason and reality." There is no doubt in my mind that you are a deeply thinking and thoughtful person. That is, in fact, the reason I responded to your email. I value your opinion.

I do wonder about your expressions of some opinions, specifically, “I consider your opinion unfortunate.” Does any opinion that differs from your own become, “unfortunate” in your eyes? Do you see your own opinions, bolstered by a cadre of like-minded friends and family as the “best” opinions, or the only valid ones? I see opinions that differ from mine only as, “different.” But I was educated and trained in the very factual world of science and engineering where benefits and even lives depend on the factual accuracy of the written (and spoken) word. I was trained to examine carefully ALL factors and practical possibilities and as unemotionally as possible before making any judgements. Of course, engineers are subject to human error like everyone else - witness spectacular failures like the famous bridge over the Tacoma narrows - “Galloping Gertie.” Or even the sixty-year battle of differing scientific opinion over whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs and can even be considered to be, dinosaurs.

“He also is more careful than you are to NOT play the democrat VS republican card.” Al Gore is a highly partisan, liberal Democrat politician with continuing aspirations of high office who has vehemently opposed and condemned Republicans and the Bush administration with angry rhetoric and vile accusations for years. Do you really believe there is any thinking person who does not view this film and his words through the filter of his widely reported political position? Every word he utters, every action he takes is considered with an understanding of his political position. He can hardly utter a word that is not Democrat vs Republican. It is what and who he is. I am a political nobody. Regardless of what you know of my opinions, they certainly carry no weight in the political arena. I believe your words to be evidence you have applied your own "filter" to my words. I believe you may by assuming this is the case as you have no doubt been lead to believe me to be a right wing extremist. That is, of course, an extremely erroneous assumption. If you would really like to understand my opinions, read either of John Stossel's recent books. Stossel, of 20/20, expresses my political views more accurately than almost any other person, or writer, other than Eric Hoffer. I specifically avoided any reference to “Democrat” or “Republican” in my blog except for the factual reporting in the following from my blog:

“My very practical solution could be fully implemented in as little as ten years and with substantial benefits to both the environment and our economy. It would mean ALL our energy sources would be generated within the US with no need for foreign oil. I have sent letters and copies of my book to members of Congress, State officials, environmental groups and a few energy intensive corporations. I have been interviewed about my book on the radio in Florida. The book is completely non-political in its presentation. I have received no response from any environmental group. I had a very unresponsive and totally self serving response from one Hydrogen fuel cell organization. I received two favorable responses from Republican members of Congress and have since been following up and answering their questions. I received no response from any Democrat. I received responses and requests for further information from all but one of the energy corporations I contacted. I received a phone call and an inquiry from an official of the Chinese Communist government. What conclusions would you draw from this about who is truly concerned about global warming and is willing to do something about it?”

Does my question at the end make this a Democrat vs Republican piece? I certainly think not.

I do outline what I see as a significant difference between the left and right in our country. Is this the reason you see it as Dems vs Reps? Is the following not factually accurate?

“The only difference I have noted between left and right in America is that at this time the left has reached a level of expressions of hatred I have not seen in either side in my lifetime. Hatred is a powerful force and it is currently being ratcheted up to monumental proportions. I have even felt such hatred from members of my own family in responses to some of my writings. I credit a combination of that hatred with lack of communication skills and intolerance of differing opinions for these angry reactions. To the best of my abilities, I will not respond in kind.“

In fact, I specifically pointed out, with quite equal condemnation for all, those I see as driven by the lust for power as outlined in this quote from my blog:

“I see virtually no one - in politics on either side of the aisle, on college campuses, in churches, in corporations, in the media, in fact in any positions of power - who are not willing to sacrifice the earth and all that lives on it to satisfy their own greed and lust for power. Apparently, not only does power corrupt, but the mere lust for power brings about the same corruption.”

Finally, and this part struck such a very sensitive nerve that I responded specifically and apolitically: I quote from the website:

“More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.There is no doubt we can solve this problem. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do so. Small changes to your daily routine can add up to big differences in helping to stop global warming. The time to come together to solve this problem is now – (end of web page)”

My response: “Correct observation! Very wrong conclusion! Extinction of species is certainly a worldwide reality of monumental proportions and devastating effects. However, global warming will have virtually no effect on this tragedy. Expansion of human population and resultant destruction of wild habitat is totally responsible for all but a tiny fraction of a percentage of these unbelievably rapid extinctions. That is the real human crime against all nature - wild plants and animals. This is the true human crisis. How about addressing that?”

I have given lectures on this subject to numerous and varied groups. I have always received the same response summed up by a Chicago radio station that refused to discuss the subject with me on the air. Their reason? “No one wants to hear about these kinds of real, unsolvable problems, let alone talk about them,” a very destructive assumption. This problem and those like it will always be ignored by most. I have rarely met a person willing to discuss it rationally. I have a blog with the text of part that lecture if you care to read it. It has not been given or updated for several years so parts may need to be brought up to present knowledge, but basically it is dead on. Click on http://decimatenviro.blogspot.com to read the first section of my lecture. Should you want to read the entire text, let me know and I will mail it to you. I see this problem as infinitely more important than global warming and certainly more damaging for the earth and all of its life.

Affectionately,

Uncle Mike  ¶ 8:28 AM 0 Comments

  Al Gore film: "An Inconvenient Truth" From my niece, Jessica, quite obviously a concerned thinker.
Date:
Sun 06/04/06 09:33 AM

Last night I saw "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary about global warming. I encourage everyone to see it. I think it opens next week in smaller cities. It is extremely informative (there's more to know than I previously thought), and it's pretty well done. I'm impressed that he chose to make a movie to put forth his political platform! It's smart, and I hope it can begin to move mountains. . .

Website below.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

A RESPONSE FROM HJ

What follows is from the above website. I have added my comments in italics

WHAT IS GLOBAL WARMING?

Carbon dioxide and other gases warm the surface of the planet naturally by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere. This is a good thing because it keeps our planet habitable. However, by burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil and clearing forests we have dramatically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and temperatures are rising.
Quite true! I have addressed that fact and proposed a very workable solution in my book, “The SUPER Hydrogen Economy.” My very practical solution could be fully implemented in as little as ten years and with substantial benefits to both the environment and our economy. It would mean ALL our energy sources would be generated within the US with no need for foreign oil. I have sent letters and copies of my book to members of Congress, State officials, environmental groups and a few energy intensive corporations. I have been interviewed about my book on the radio in Florida. The book is completely non-political in its presentation. I have received no response from any environmental group. I had a very unresponsive and totally self serving response from one Hydrogen fuel cell organization. I received two favorable responses from Republican members of Congress and have since been following up and answering their questions. I received no response from any Democrat. I received responses and requests for further information from all but one of the energy corporations I contacted. I received a phone call and an inquiry from an official of the Chinese Communist government. What conclusions would you draw from this about who is truly concerned about global warming and is willing to do something about it?

The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable
Also quite true, but misleading! What is not mentioned is that thus far, the human contribution to global warming and climatic changes are infinitesimally small compared with those occurring due to natural forces including orbital changes of the earth, variation in the output of the sun, normal fluctuations in global air and water movements and other effects.

We’re already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitat, and the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing. (See “Facts” at the end of this article.)

The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
This is well within the range of variation of numbers of hurricanes already recorded. Many storms we now track were not recorded in the past because of great improvement in the technology of tracking and recording hurricanes.

Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.
Quite obviously, this has been going on continuously for at least the last ten thousand years as the earth has been emerging from the last ice age.

The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.
True, but only in southern Greenland. Many Northern Greenland glaciers have actually been growing in volume.

At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles. If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.
Quite obviously this has been going on continuously for at least the last ten thousand years as the earth has been emerging from the last ice age. These “catastrophic consequences” have been going on continuously for at least the same period of time with little or no help from humans. Ask the wooly mammoths.

Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.
A ridiculous statement on its face with absolutely no basis in fact.

Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
Melting of all shelf ice, that floating in the ocean, will not raise ocean levels one tiny bit. A simple law of physics demonstrates that.

Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Probably, so what?

Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. Certainly not provable!

The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.
So what? That too would not cause the oceans to rise at all due to the same law of physics mentioned earlier. It would certainly be a boon to northern hemisphere shipping.

More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.There is no doubt we can solve this problem. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do so. Small changes to your daily routine can add up to big differences in helping to stop global warming. The time to come together to solve this problem is now – (end of web page)
Correct observation! Very wrong conclusion! Extinction of species is certainly a worldwide reality of monumental proportions and devastating effects. However, global warming will have virtually no effect on this tragedy. Expansion of human population and resultant destruction of wild habitat is totally responsible for all but a tiny fraction of a percentage of these unbelievably rapid extinctions. That is the real human crime against all nature - wild plants and animals. This is the true human crisis. How about addressing that?

– 0 – – 0 – – 0 – – 0 – – 0 – – 0 – – 0 – – 0 – – 0 – – 0 – – 0 – – 0 – – 0 – – 0 – – 0 –

The following facts are supported by the immutable laws of physics. (laws even the most clever politicians cannot change. Controlled by a higher power?):

Marine records of sediment oxygen isotope compositions show that the Earth's climate has gone through a succession of glacial and interglacial periods during the past million years. Though these effects are highly speculative, the trends and implications are unmistakable. Here we use a coupled model of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets and ocean temperatures, forced to match an oxygen isotope record for the past million years compiled from 57 globally distributed sediment cores, to quantify both contributions simultaneously. We find that the ice-sheet contribution to the variability in oxygen isotope composition varied from ten per cent in the beginning of glacial periods to sixty per cent at glacial maxima, suggesting that strong ocean cooling preceded slow ice-sheet build-up. The model yields mutually consistent time series of continental mean surface temperatures between 40 and 80° N, ice volume and global sea level. We find that during extreme glacial stages, air temperatures were 17 °C ± 1.8 °C lower than present, with a 120 m ± 10 m sea level equivalent of continental ice present.

Were the earth to be void of all water ice, the net increase in the ocean levels would be no more than 8 meters. Compare this to the approximately 120 meters lower the ocean levels were just a few thousand years ago. A large part of the water from that ice would end up as water vapor in the atmosphere. Depending on the average atmospheric temperature, that water vapor could actually reduce the ocean levels by a large percentage of the increase brought about by the melting of ice now supported by land. Of course, it would also place a lot more energy into the atmosphere with many possible but very unpredictable consequences.

Opinion: It is my opinion that this film and the associated effort is merely one more political ploy aimed strictly at garnering support through the incitement of fear. It is so typical of politicians who, with great displays of concern, distort the truth, ignore facts that don't support their agenda and flat out lie, just to enhance their image, hoodwink their constituents and, hopefully, gain power. I see it as unrealistic and damaging to good positive human efforts strictly for political gain. It is jousting at windmills while the real enemies of the earth, and indeed of all life on this planet, including humans, continue in their relentless path of ignorant destruction. I see virtually no one - in politics on either side of the aisle, on college campuses, in churches, in corporations, in the media, in fact in any positions of power - who are not willing to sacrifice the earth and all that lives on it to satisfy their own greed and lust for power. Apparently, not only does power corrupt, but the mere lust for power brings about the same corruption.

Modern progressive humans may despise religions and see atheism as the only way of the future, but listening and thinking deeply about what one solitary man said and asked of us, “love one another!” - and the example he set two millennia past - is a path that could lead us to far better things than Godless self-service.  ¶ 11:01 AM 0 Comments