Osgood Wonders
Evidencing the emerging understanding that not all is right with the theories of global warming doomsayers, the completely mainstream Charles Osgood offers this in support of skeptics backing the sola
Evidencing the emerging understanding that not all is right with the theories of global warming doomsayers, the completely mainstream Charles Osgood offers this in support of skeptics backing the sola
"At an upcoming meeting of astronomers in the United Kingdom, they’ll be studying new pictures of the Sun taken from space, looking for any hint that the Sun will start heating up again and acting up again, the way it’s supposed to. But there is no sign of that, so far.
In the mid-17th Century, there was a quiet spell on the Sun — known as the Maunder Minimum — which lasted 70 years, and led to a mini-Ice Age here on Earth.
Right now, global warming is a given to so many, it raises the question: Could another minimum activity period on the Sun counteract, in any way, the effects of global warming?
Hush, child! You’re not even supposed to suggest that. The only thing that can change global warming is if we human beings — we Americans, especially — completely change our ways and our way of life."
See his complete comment HERE .
To comment, please log in.
To comment, Log In or Register
Comments by Readers
Tip Johnson
Apr 22, 2009Rant. Article too short, provocative. Grunt.
What we humans can change is the amount of toxins we dump into the atmosphere to poison ourselves and all other living beings, etc.
CO2 emissions are a principle vector for toxic emissions because of the products of incomplete combustion. For instance, 2-cycle gas engines emit CO2, but may use 30% of the fuel just to cool the cylinders. That’s one reason we are trying to change our ways and way of boating on Lake Whatcom.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could change our ways in such a way as to eliminate all toxic releases? If not regulating CO2, then would cap and trade be acceptable on toxic releases? After all, we incur direct and indirect cost in health, the environment, quality of life, etc.
If not a tax, then how about just plain business? What if “We the People” sent a bill to polluters to cover those costs, like health care, environmental clean-ups, etc?
Why should the atmosphere be a free dump? It’s used as a dump to keep polluting products artificially cheap. Artificially low prices prevent market entry for alternatives, stifle creative enterprise, impede progress and generally inhibit the free market. That’s supposedly what “Free Trade” is all about, in theory, etc.
So when we start up the jingoism on the American Way of Life, shouldn’t we at least pause, examine and try to be honest about what is healthy for humans and other living things, etc.
The economy may feel some pain, but much good may also come. The most serious challenge with the economy is not displacement through innovation but its general condition at present. The prospect of wage parity with China, inevitable in the long run, seems frightening in shorter terms. But much of that was written when we decided to finance a decade of consumption with bogus paper.
Americans, even those suffering from their trust in a failed model of financial security, can take solace. The money siphoned out of our real estate, business and retirement, pension and mutual funds is chump change compared to what we sucked out of developing countries that traded cash for bad paper in hopes we would continue buying their exports. And that money went to the benefit of all Americans’ way of life!
Well, maybe not all Americans.
Doug Karlberg
Apr 22, 2009Hey Tip,
I looked up the word, provocative, which you used to describe Mr. Kirsch’s article.
provocative—serving or tending to provoke, excite, or stimulate; stimulating discussion or exciting controversy;
I agree his writings are provocative, but isn’t that the goal of writing these articles?
I would call your articles provocative, but this would be a compliment.
Here is my question for you; If we tax the evil polluters, won’t they pass these costs on to us, so for the most part, are we not simply taxing ourselves?
I don’t disagree with your desire to keep our earth as clean as possible, but don’t we as individual consumers play a role in pollution that we should address?
Yes there are irresponsible polluters, but are we also not part of the problem?
All too often when we buy overseas products, are we not simply buying products that are cheaper, because there are lax pollution controls in countries such as China?
How do we tax a polluter in China?
It’s Earth Day and you are passionate; write away my friend.
No ranting or grunting, and by all means be provocative.
~
g.h. kirsch
Apr 22, 2009Tip
My intention is simply to bring attention to the effort underway to install a system that would cap & trade the right to emit CO2.
I’m loathe to be the defender of the “American Way of Life,” and certainly am opposed to real pollution, excess and waste.
I would point out that cap & trade was reasonably successful in reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide polluting the great lakes.
But that was a national, measurable approach based on simple science.
And of course there was the millions and millions realized by Enron trading in that program. Just think of all the good they did with the money.
With regard CO2, as I previously wrote, cap if the science demonstrates it’s necessary, but why trade?
The notion, given recent experience, that a private market based system should replace direct regulation of polluters, just makes no sense to me.
I got a message just this morning from my wife, who’s in India, telling of myriad carbon credit schemes afoot there.
Just imagine who will end up with such credits and how the trading of derivatives, and new financial gimmicks we’ve yet to see, will affect life.
But enough about the lauded “American Way of Life,” what’s in store for the undeveloped world if we stop them from emitting CO2 unnecessarily or unreasonably.
As a conservationist who as a young man deeply believed in Leopold and Carson, I have been very moved by the comparison of carbon capping to the ban on DDT.
The so called “precautionary principle,” better to ban it and find out later it wasn’t necessary, should be looked at more closely.
The ban was good for the environment. But its universal application as an article of faith should be considered in light of all the deaths from malaria in the third world where targeted use of the poison would have saved lives.
It is sad when we Americans sit back in our relatively comfortable world and ignore the impacts, unintended consequences, of our wonderful ideas on others.
Tip Johnson
Apr 22, 2009Doug,
Yes, provocative is good! Consumers are a problem because polluting products with artificially low prices are available in the market. If the true costs were reflected in the price, alternatives might be able to compete and we might choose them. Polluters and consumers in China are outside our jurisdiction. We can only lead by example.
Greg,
I’m not saying cap and trade is good. Just that pollution is bad - even DDT. There are ample, if unfunded, public health measures that help just as much with malaria. It’s just a matter of where we spend our money.