Global Warming Could Kill 4.5 Billion by 2012—Does That Have Your Attention?

"Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012" reads the actual headline in The Canadian, self-described as "Canada's new socially progressive and cross-cultural national newspaper." Basically, the article is an amped up version of the so-called methane hydrate hypothesis in which rising global temperatures lead to massive releases of methane trapped in permafrost and ocean bottoms. Each molecule of methane has 20 times the global warming potential of a molecule of carbon dioxide.

Should you prepare to kiss your ass good-bye in five years? David Archer, a professor of geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago writing at Realclimate thinks not. His formal review of the current scientific understanding of the role that methane hydrates might play in future climate change is here .

Leftwingers would never exaggerate the risks of climate change--would they?

Addendum disclosure: Since all good people just know that righwing and libertarian journalists underplayed the risks of climate change for filthy lucre, I need to link to my confession to being an alleged global warming whore to industry.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    It not so much that they exagerate Ronald. It is politics and every side exagerates. What is disturbing is that I am sure a lot of the readers of The Canadian probably consider a reduction of the world population by 4.5 billion people to be a good thing. That is the scary part.

  • ||

    Why stop at 4.5 billion?
    Why not make it the extinction of humanity.
    I think John is right in suggesting that many believe it is a good thing so long as they are part of the 1.5 billion that survive.

  • ||

    Take anything you read in something billed as "a socially progressive and cross-cultural national newspaper" with a massive grain of salt.

  • ||

    "I think John is right in suggesting that many believe it is a good thing so long as they are part of the 1.5 billion that survive."

    And your evidence for this belief is...? Oh, right. The lefty in your head told you so.

    There may be some people who wish the population of the Earth were lower, but mostly they want to acheive this by lowering the birth rate not by the sudden deaths of 4.5 billion people.

    Nice try, though.

  • ||

    Leftwingers would never exaggerate the risks of climate change--would they?

    And right-wingers would never downplay the risks either, right Ron? Nor would they fund junk science in order to keep people misinformed, right?

    Why even have this line in there other than to attack the credibility of those silly "lefties"??

    Maybe those who have have already printed their mea culpas should be a little more humble and a little slower to attack the credibility of others, no?

  • ||

    If 4.5 billion are killed by 2012 (coincidentally enough, the last year of the current Grand Cycle of the Mayan calendar -- thought by many to mark the end of time, or at least of the world), wouldn't that solve the global warming problem right there?

    Global warming alarmists seem to present us with no good alternatives, only bad (we must reduce our economic activity to pre-industrial subsistence levels and suffer in that situation) or worse (billions of us die outright). It sometimes seems as if the only positive motivation they offer us is to be one of the 1.5 billion survivors. Why listen to them? More importantly, why "buy" a bleak future from them when, according to them, it will come to us anyway, unavoidably, and for free? THAT is the confusing aspect of global warming politics for me. What benefit is derived from their draconian prescriptions, and who derives it?

  • ||

    not by the sudden deaths of 4.5 billion people

    LOL, that alarmist exageration doesnt stop eh. So now its a sudden death? Is there a magic methane hydroxide concetration that will drop 4.5 billion like nerve gas?

  • ||

    ChicagoTom: So I take it that you find these particular lefties credible? Why?

  • ||

    Nothing ChicagoTom wrote indicates that at all, Mr. Bailey.

    Keep trying, though. There are plenty of suckers eager to swallow your shtick.

    Lookit here, I found me some crazies! That means they're all crazy. Here, let me write a disclaimer about how awful it is to compare me with other people who write exactly the same things as me.

  • ||

    "Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape."
    John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club5
    "Given the total, absolute disappearance of Homo sapiens, then not only would the Earth's community of Life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed."
    Paul Taylor, author of Respect for Nature, A Theory of Environmental Ethics6
    "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
    Paul Watson, Founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepard7
    "[W]e have no problem in principle with the humans reducing their numbers by killing one another. It's an excellent way of making the humans extinct."
    Geophilus, spokesman for Gaia Liberation Front8
    "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."
    John Davis, editor of the journal Earth First!9


    Yeah, those guys are nutcases, but nutcases exist. There is a real disturbing anti-humanist element to the environmental movement.

  • dhex||

    "(coincidentally enough, the last year of the current Grand Cycle of the Mayan calendar -- thought by many to mark the end of time, or at least of the world)"

    fun fact: that's not true. the daniel pinchbecks of the world may tell you so, and i blame mckenna bros. myself for this delightful meme (as they set it up, after failing to be able to pinpoint the end of the novelty wave to terrence's birthday, at least as doug rushkoff tells it), but the actual "long count" flip is in 4770 something, give or take a few years. dec 2012 sees the end of a baktun cycle, and it was never fixed upon as being anything major.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baktun

    but still 2012 might be a hell of a year, if only because so many people believe it has magical properties.

  • Guy Montag||

    Seems that I need to ramp up the 'hybrid' projects toot sweet!

    Let's see, a six-pack on the 1972 Charger and a super charger for the 1996 Cherokee should do the trick.

    Um, wait, if I add a six-pack to the Charger I need to add an electric fuel boost pump and a larger fuel line so the carbs can get C8H18 quicker. The Cherokee should be fine on that.

    Humm, might need to replace that 904 tranny with a 727 and a new rear-end.

    Wow, this global warming stuff is really hard to keep up with on my budget and work schedule.

    Ron, as soon as I get some mmore parts on these things feel free to feature them for the mag and send a free copy to joe :)

    (if this is confusing you should follow the link in my handle)

  • ||

    http://www.heartland.org/pdf/19854.pdf

  • ||

    Joe,

    If you didn't spend half of your posts on here denying that anyone anywhere who agrees with you could ever be crazy, you might have a point. For you only the other side is capable of hyperbole or falshood. That is until of course someone like Bailey points out the hyperbole and falshoods of people who agree with you and then you come on here and whine about how how unfair it is for him to point out crazies. Yeah right.

  • ||

    val,

    4.5 billion deaths in 5 years is relatively sudden.

    Ron Bailey,

    It seems your comment smears all lefties for the excesses of a few.

  • ||

    andy, I was try to point how more and more alarming the language of such predections becomes as it is regurgitated from more and more mouths, including yours

  • ||

    John, here is one more for you:

    "I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. The speech was given by Dr. Eric R. Pianka"

    http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html

  • ||

    I forgot to add:

    "just for shits and giggles"

  • ||

    I had forgotten about that one Cab. Thanks. The important thing is that these people are not cranks posting on the web somewhere, they are scientists and activists who are more than welcome in polite society.

  • ||

    John,

    I'll treat your notes on my style of argumentation with all the respect they deserve.

    BTW, I don't declare everyone who disagrees with me to be crazy, although I could see how YOU, in particular, could get that impression.

    You are a kook. A take a rifle to the bell tower kook. But rest assured, I don't assume that everyone who agrees with you about this are that issue is as plainly delusion and immune to facts as you are.

  • ||

    You don't think it's possible that TCS would run an article distorting the beliefs of other poeple, do you?

    Naaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.........

  • ||

    I need to link to my confession to being an alleged global warming whore to industry.

    Nothing 'alleged' about it, Ron. You took money in exchange for casting doubt on climate science. You defended your actions by saying that you would have held the same positions without being paid; effectively saying, "I'm not really a hooker. Sure, he paid me, but I would have done that guy for free."

    I'm just amazed you still write about the subject at all. A sense of decency should prevent you.

  • ||

    It is The Citizen Scientist, not Tech Central Station.

    It doesn't matter anyway, it was just for "shits and giggles."

  • Graphite||

    They're obviously lowballing the casualty count at the behest of their evil corporate paymasters. In reality, global warming will kill one HUNDRED billion by 2012!

  • ||

    p.s. Based on some quick calculations, 57million people die per year currently.And the death rate trends have actually been descreasing. And we havent seen much in the way of predicted catastrophies from Global warming yet. In order to reach our target of 4.5 billion the death rate would have to grow exponentially in the last 1-2 years before 2012. That means at that point the death caused by global warming will be akin to nerve gas. LOL

  • ||

    If we're all going to die in 2012, isn't that an argument for NOT doing anything? We can't possibly impact the climate in 6 years.

    So, screw it.

  • ||

    "You are a kook. A take a rifle to the bell tower kook. But rest assured, I don't assume that everyone who agrees with you about this are that issue is as plainly delusion and immune to facts as you are."

    Yeah whatever Joe. I am sorry I have cut your beleifs down so much. I will tell you the same thing I told Cab, why are people who have such obviously anti-humanist views still part of polite society and not renounced and kicked out by the environmental movement? If you lie with dogs you get fleas and environmentalists lie with a lot of dogs.

  • :-||

    Leftwingers would never exaggerate the risks of climate change--would they?

    Ron drops the bait and joe swallows it hook, line and sinker.

  • Guy Montag||

    val,

    Wasn't the idea that it would happen really quick and be a big surprise to the non-believers who do not heed the warnings of Science?

    You know, kind of like The Flood with Noah and that swamp gas event from New Jersey yesterday.

    I am not taking any chances. I am getting the Hydrogen Powered Jeep revved up right away!

  • ||

    If we're all going to die in 2012, isn't that an argument for NOT doing anything? We can't possibly impact the climate in 6 years.

    Since the article clearly states 'By 2012', you clearly only have 5 years not 6. HAHA!!! You are even more fucked now!

  • Guy Montag||

    val,

    All of us are not supposed to die by 2012, just the non-believers who don't eat brown rice and drive hybrids.

  • LifeStrategies||

    "Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012." What happened to all these projected deaths? No sign of them although it's now 2014.

    But the cost of living has risen massively as governments react to all the global warming hype with yet more regulations and sand in the economic works. Maybe those 4.5 billion deaths will be from starvation when citizens can't afford the cost of food any longer...

  • ||

    If Ron can be embarrassed about Virgil Goode, I can be embarrassed about these idiots. Please don't think all Canadians are like them.

    On a more serious note: One thing that continues to disturb me is the tendency of mainstream news media to report these stories as straight facts. About 2 weeks ago, the Sierra Club of Canada made a claim that rising sea levels due to global warming could inundate our city, refering to a calculated 75 metre rise if the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps were to melt completely, The Times-Colonist [or Times-Communist, as it is affectionately known] printed the story as straight news with an alarmist headline.

    The paper did publish an editorial lecturing the Sierra Club about alarmist claims and pointing out the maximum rise predicted by 2100 was only 1.5 metres, but there was no self-admonishment for their own reporting.

  • ||

    val,

    Wasn't the idea that it would happen really quick and be a big surprise to the non-believers who do not heed the warnings of Science?

    You know, kind of like The Flood with Noah and that swamp gas event from New Jersey yesterday.

    I am not taking any chances. I am getting the Hydrogen Powered Jeep revved up right away!


    I ride a motorcyle alot, which is clearly more moral for two reasons.

    1. Its lighter and more efficient on gas.
    2. In case of an accident I will be doing my part in easing Gaia's burden by dying.

    Clearly for those 2 reasons my motorcycle is superior to your hydrogen jeep and thus I am more worthy and will be spared.

  • ||

    also my motorcyle is just flat out cooler.....so thats 3 reasons

  • ||

    "Ron Bailey,

    It seems your comment smears all lefties for the excesses of a few."

    What? Use of hyperbole in a blog?

    You are DARNED to HECK!

    You must sit in the secretary's chair for 15 minutes and endure the lame jokes of your coworkers.

  • Blee||

    I'm not generally a spelling nazi, but I'm not impressed that this article was created with the help of "Brad Arnold who has an extensive resrarch background"

  • Guy Montag||

    val,

    The Hydrogen Powered Jeep and the Hybrid Charger* both create much moore plant food, and at a faster rate, than your motorcycle.

    If you study the reactions from C8H18 with oxygen, as well as the reactions from C7H16 I am clearly the more Earth Friendly person.

    Plus, the Charger weighs 3200 LBS and is 6.5' wide, so I can mow down a lot more people on a busy sidewalk than you :)

    BTW, motorbikes are cool, but a 1972 Rallye Charger is way cooler.

    *As proclaimed by The New Republic on Post date 06.23.06 | Issue date 07.03.06

  • ||

    "Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape."
    John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club5


    I wouldn't say always and everywhere, but usually and in most places

    "Given the total, absolute disappearance of Homo sapiens, then not only would the Earth's community of Life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed."
    Paul Taylor, author of Respect for Nature, A Theory of Environmental Ethics6


    What is unfactual about this statement?

    "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
    Paul Watson, Founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepard7


    I'd like to join him. People who abuse other living creatures should not live.


    "[W]e have no problem in principle with the humans reducing their numbers by killing one another. It's an excellent way of making the humans extinct."
    Geophilus, spokesman for Gaia Liberation Front8


    OK, this guy's a fucking nutjob. But why would you choose a guy called "Geophilus" to represent all environmentalists?


    "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."
    John Davis, editor of the journal Earth First!9


    He may be exagerating, but he's onto something- as a species we think way too highly of ourselves. Also note that he did not advocate the killing of slugs, let alone people.

  • Guy Montag||

    andy,

    I'd like to join him. People who abuse other living creatures should not live.

    So I don't need to save a spot for you when I go wild boar hunting during the 3 weeks I am being forced to work in Florida for a Super Bowl project?

  • ||

    Guy

    "All of us are not supposed to die by 2012, just the non-believers who don't eat brown rice and drive hybrids."

    Damn. I thought if I got to do the choosing, it might not be a bad thing. ;)

  • VM||

    "Please don't think all Canadians are like them."

    you mean the country where female impersonators are played by women?

    ha ha (i keed! i keed!). If you don't think we're all like John Tesh, you got a deal! You from the east or west? Tofino is still one of my favorite places on the planet!

    For example, here

    Has anybody else heard the radio spots where a woman narrates various predicted outcomes of climate change ("polar ice caps was a dirty look", etc), getting more and more emotional?

    But a while ago we had an argument here that sorta focused on the fact that there are freaks on both sides of this issue, and therefore, critical thinking was important when discussing this issue (e.g., the TCS people vs this article). It wasn't denying climate change, as since the climate and language change are two things we can take for granted.

    Rather, there are opportunities for various courses of action to deal with this situation. It doesn't have to be gloom and doom, nor does it have to be a treasure trove for banana plantation futures in Yellowknife, CA.

    There are changes, and since people live in proximity to the coast, any changes will be more apparent (changes in weather patterns, sea levels, maybe storms (dunno - just throwing out stuff here)).

    And, why not build a portfolio to "hedge" against changes (you could come up with a risk/result schedule and diversify)? Dammit, the CAPM has to be useful somewhere!

    Let's say that the climate is getting warmer. Let's say that it's not due to humans. There is still an opportunity to take advantage of what's happening. Let's say it is human caused, or at least there's an identifiable human component - there's an opportunity there, too.

    Where are some market based ideas to deal with these situations?
    This is rather outdated, but it might prime the pump for those who seem to kneejerk against any planning whatsoever.

    When you invest, you diversify for the lean times - why not simply creating a portfolio that can deal with different magnitudes of climate change?

  • ||

    There are idiots on the left no less than there are idiots on the right. Personally, I'm getting a little tired of blogs pointing them out as if they're interesting. They're not, and frankly it's a waste of time for me to read something like this post. Life is short and I want to know the real news, not every extreme version of it.

  • ||

    Wait, no one has made this point yet.
    "Should you prepare to kiss your ass good-bye in five years?" I believe kissing my ass good-bye might expose me to a form of methane gas that the 20x figure understates.

  • ||

    solution:

    figure out how to harvest and store the methane before it is released into the atmosphere. burn methane for fuel, which would convert it into carbon dioxide, which is only 1/20th as global-warming-causing as methane. no more need for oil, so pull the troops out of the middle east and near asia. stop funding regimes who fund terrorism through oil profits. soak up excess carbon dioxide through bio-engineered plants that fix carbon dioxide at a much higher rate.

  • ||

    VM,

    If you plan on starting a business like you describe, drop us a business plan, maybe if its good enough even some of us sceptics will invest. I highly doubt anyone would object to evenhanded, rational, economic analysis. What most us do have a problem with, is when agencies such as the UN, politcize the issue, create a plan that would ensure never ending funds and never ending careers and then become the ones to determine how and where those funds are spent.

  • ||

    Biologist suggests using the methane for fuel. Hmm... have to think about that. To date I've only used it for punctuation.

  • Ellie||

    People who abuse other living creatures should not live.

    I assume you're a vegan who avoids all animal-tested products, then?

  • ||

    Andy,

    Let me get this straight. A guy that advocates going out and shooting hunters has a good point, but some other guy is a nutjob because of his given name? Your input has been so valuable, thank you.

  • ||

    bubba,
    Very good point!

    Actually, even according to some of the more mainstream global warming models, there's nothing we can do but slow the inevitable earthburn. The CO2 levels are already 100 ppm higher (~380 ppm) than pre-industrial levels (~280 ppm). Even if the entire earth population were to magically convert to 100% solar energy tomorrow, the earth would continue to heat up for the next 50 years. (There is an inertial delay due mainly, but not entirely, to the time required to melt all the polar ice).

  • Guy Montag||

    Has anybody else heard the radio spots where a woman narrates various predicted outcomes of climate change ("polar ice caps was a dirty look", etc), getting more and more emotional?

    Took a while, but I believe that was the first Althousian event mentioned in relation to the topic.

  • ||

    Of course, a giant asteroid collision could kill 5 billion people by 2011, making this "prediction" irrelevant.

  • ||

    Life is short and I want to know the real news, not every extreme version of it.

    This wouldn't be the Kevin that has written on this very forum that anthropogenic global warming was factually verified 100 years ago? I suppose extreme is relative.

  • ||

    ChicagoTom: So I take it that you find these particular lefties credible? Why?

    I don't know enough about "these particular lefties" to make an informed decision, but your comment wasn't about "these particular lefties" it was a broad stroke comment about "leftists" in general.

    Now if you want to show me how I wrongly interpreted Leftwingers would never exaggerate the risks of climate change--would they? as a general comment rather than a comment about this specific publication please feel free to show me my error.

    My problem is with the general tone towards "lefties" who have been shown to be no worse than the right wing and corporate shills. I don't mind the scorn, I just like to see the scorn distributed even handedly. Something you don't seem to like to do when it comes to climatological posts.

  • ||

    If you didn't spend half of your posts on here denying that anyone anywhere who agrees with you could ever be crazy, you might have a point.

    Does anyone else find this statement ironic?

  • Guy Montag||

    Of course, a giant asteroid collision could kill 5 billion people by 2011, making this "prediction" irrelevant.

    All the more reason to get more speed out of the hybrids: out run the shock wave.

  • ||

    Actually, even according to some of the more mainstream global warming models, there's nothing we can do but slow the inevitable earthburn.

    Well, that's just not true. There are plenty of schemes for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, even the stuff we are generating now. Not to mention those schemes which rely on emission of gasses that mitigate the greenhouse effect. Lots can be done.

  • NAL||

    I'd like to join him. People who abuse other living creatures should not live.

    How about ants and other bugs? Every time you walk you're probably stepping on at least a few ants. Every time you drive your car in the summer, many flying insects are killed on your windshield. Are they not being abused in the name of your convenience? Are insects somehow less important than birds? Be careful, an affirmative answer will be admitting that there is a heirarchy of lifeforms. An answer in the negative would require YOU to change YOUR lifestyle by not walking or driving. Lefties only want other people to change their lifestyles.

  • Guy Montag||

    My problem is with the general tone towards "lefties" who have been shown to be no worse than the right wing and corporate shills.

    Can you help me out on that shilling business? I have been running Mobil 1 synthetic hydrogen lubricants and Exxon/Mobil hydrogen fuel for over a decade and have not gotten a nickle tossed my way yet. Also, I use Goodyear tires exclusively and Bosch Platinum Quad spark plugs.

    Thank you for your assistance in my efforts to profit from, er, be a better global citizen.

  • Guy Montag||

    There are plenty of schemes for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, even the stuff we are generating now.

    For some reason, all of those schemes involve nations with Free Markets to send money to Leftist regimes.

    A strange coincidence indeed.

  • ||

    "Actually, even according to some of the more mainstream global warming models, there's nothing we can do but slow the inevitable earthburn"

    There is another model from cosmology that says in a few billion years the earth will go through the big warmup and be engulfed by the sun. The carbon age will end before too long and even if the earth is warmer, humans will adapt and thrive. They always do.

  • ||

    I think the 4.5 billion sudden deaths is a mirepresentation of what would likely happen. Unless the catastrophe is over night such as in The Day After Tomorrow, coastal residents in the several billion will all head inland (those that don't die). The inland spread of people will cause many things, among them all the violent acts that occur when masses of people try to do something all at once in desparation. The other main problem will be for all those inland dwellers that are being inundated with newcomers that won't have a place to live, food to eat, diapers, medicine, hygene, fuel, soap, common sense, respect for their new town or city or their present residents, concern for public safety, trade worthy goods or money, etc etc etc.

    Happy Times!

  • VM||

    Val:

    That is indeed a major problem. I did get to sit in on a lecture once where the Danish EU commissioner for the Environment (Ritt Bjerregaard, IIRC), where she and Bertel Haarder (MEP at the time) talked about how an extra benefit of Kyoto is that it would level the playing field with the US. That was one of his biggest selling points about Kyoto!

    However, your skepticism seems to go beyond the UN and the politicization of climate change to actually doubt that the climate is changing. Is that correct? (you've just identified the densest substance in the known universe: bureaucratium; just imagine dismantling the agencies dealing with the WoD, WoT, etc). This citizen takes the proposition that UN action = probably sucky, too.

    Are you also thinking of Hicks's Induced Innovation Hypothesis? (IIRC)

    The economist from Yale, William Nordhaus, a proponent of proactive steps (including government) in this debate.

    Richard Schmalensee (MIT) takes a different view, "popular treatments of this issue [of climate change] commonly ignore economics and assume that if society learns that any warming is likely as a result of human activity, we should do whatever is necessary to stop it. This seems to reflect the widespread view that environmental issues involve rights and wrongs, not costs and benefits, and that environmental policy should eliminate contamination, not replace missing markets"

    Both of them use rational, economic analysis to differing end goals. It is a welcome change from the TCS/Greenpeace arguments.

    Do you have a problem with the concept that the climate is changing and that there may or may not be significant anthropogenic causes?

    (I don't have, nor do I wish to propose, a "solution" - I'd just like to see what opportunities that people see here)

  • ||

    "I assume you're a vegan who avoids all animal-tested products, then?"

    There's a difference between use and abuse. Killing something out of necessity to be able to survive may be alright, killing something just for shits and giggles (like the kids to which the guy was referring) is sadistically evil.

    Hunting for food when not absolutely necessary (like Guy is going to do) is not cool in my book, but it's not categorically evil either.

    JLM,

    If you think "Geophilus" is his given name I've got an oceanfront cabin in Idaho to sell you.

  • ||

    Well, that's just not true. There are plenty of schemes for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, even the stuff we are generating now. Not to mention those schemes which rely on emission of gasses that mitigate the greenhouse effect. Lots can be done.

    If you're talking about carbon sequestration, it won't work on any scale grand enough to do anything but slow down the heating. There simply aren't enough structurally sound places to put the CO2.

    Emitting particulate matter to reflect the sunlight might work on some scale, but how much do you want to put into the atmosphere before that solution becomes the problem?

  • ||

    "How about ants and other bugs? Every time you walk you're probably stepping on at least a few ants. Every time you drive your car in the summer, many flying insects are killed on your windshield. Are they not being abused in the name of your convenience? Are insects somehow less important than birds? Be careful, an affirmative answer will be admitting that there is a heirarchy of lifeforms. An answer in the negative would require YOU to change YOUR lifestyle by not walking or driving. Lefties only want other people to change their lifestyles."

    I never said there wasn't a hierarchy of life forms. I don't really give a fuck about many non-vertabrates. That's not to say that we should be intentionally abusing them either, let alone vertabrates.

  • Guy Montag||

    Hunting for food when not absolutely necessary (like Guy is going to do) is not cool in my book, but it's not categorically evil either.

    Actually, those critters hunt people and having a good slug gun and being a good shooter cuts down on hospital time.

    The proper clothign for wild boar hunting is 'something you can run fast in'.

    Perhaps you missed a memo? Sam Franklin declared me 'Evil' in another thread and I take offense to being downgraded to anything less :)

  • Guy Montag||

    Oh, and who said the trip was not for food? I already have more 'bed and breakfast' operators wanting meat off of a hog I have not even seen yet than there is meat on a herd. Granted, I just want the mount, but still!

  • ||

    VM,

    I would have to be beyond dense to deny that climate is changing. It has been changing for the last few billion years, with periods of relative stability and period of rapid changes.
    But I do have a problem with 'significant anthropogenic causes'. I have not seen convincing evidence that human activity is indeed causing the disaster that so many take as fact.

    Are humans releasing C02 into the air? Yes. Is that CO2 what's causing the climate change? Of that I still havent seen clear evidence.

  • ||

    VM

    I live on Vancouver Island, in Victoria.

    Long Beach I like, Tofino I can leave alone. Tofino residents are either aging 60's & 70's hippies or country club environmentalists.

  • ||

    News flash Andy: people hunt birds to eat too. Is hunting them "categorically evil" in your book because you happen to think they are more astetically pleasing than boars?

    I love PETA freaks.......

  • ||

    That's "aesthetically".....

  • ||

    I can't find the source but I beleive that about 15% of all the world's greenhouse gases come from US coal power plants. Why can't we just replace all of those with nuclear plants? I mean a 15% reduction sounds pretty good to me and we could do it for a few hundred billion dollars and get cheap power to boot and also avoid the environmental degredation associated with coal mining. If we did that and made a serious effort towards electric cars, we could go a long way to solving the problem without much pain.

    My question is why environementalists are not pushing these quick fixes right now? We can cut CO2 emissions without cutting consumption if we are willing to go nuclear.

  • ||

    Let them be now. Every religion has their version of the apocalypse.

  • ||

    These same environmentalists spent a lot of time in the past protesting nuclear power. For them to now advocate this would ironic, wouldn't it?

  • ||

    Actually, a number of environmentalists have come out for nuclear power. I don't have a link handy, but I recall seeing a longtime writer for The Nation come out with such a piece.

  • ||

    ajay is right, Ron: there is nothing "alleged" about your whoredom to industry. Real journalists, regardless of whether they are writing in accord with their own personal beliefs, do not do things like accept CEI money, (or, via Reason, ExxonMobil's money) because they know it compromises their integrity. You choose to take the filthy lucre, and your reputation has seriously suffered, to the point where now it must be asked of everything you write, who's position is paying for this opinion? The stink will haunt you forever.

  • VM||

    Victoria = the most British city outside of GB :)

    As you could imagine, my impression of the area is an off-season stay at the Wickannish :)

    Val:

    fair enough. But given the climate is changing, do you think you have any opportunities to take advantage of the change?

    Thinking that the change will be positive, negative, or neutral (I think that covers the possibilities quite nicely. grin), your choices would then depend on the likelihood of change in one of those directions, and the magnitude of the change.

    At this point, let's leave the human component out of it, then.

    Is there any strategy you can take that will make for an improved position as the change manifests itself (e.g., invest in coastal construction companies; invest in hybrid technology; divest coal holdings gradually; banana plantation futures in Yellowknife (sorry, I really liked that one)...etc)?

    Or what sorts of information would you need to consider diversifying to take advantage of the upside? (Again - assuming negligible or zero anthropogenic effect; and taking as a given that UN = poopie)

    To those scientifically inclined:

    are greenhouse gasses the cause? Water vapor, CO2, methane, N2O are the big four? Which ones do humans make the biggest contribution? What is the proportion of human to "natural" contribution?

    For environmentalists:

    Let's say that we have achieved better-than-Kyoto reductions of human spewed greenhouse gasses across the board, including China, Russia, India, and other developing areas, so we're at or less than 1990 levels. How long would it be until the greenhouse gasses we put in the environment dissipate?

    And, which economies/regions have the most sensitivity (in terms of GDP) to climate change?

    What are the different costs involved based on the above-mentioned time horizons for reduction and dissipation plans? Is there room for market-based solutions (including trade liberalization, exploring use of nuclear power, etc), or do you feel that those solutions aren't appropriate?

    I'd like to see this not as a zero sum situation, but cooperative and non-cooperative solutions would be interesting to look at.

    (Not sure about carbon taxing or trading, as what % is carbon as a contributing greenhouse as compared with the others, and what is the human share, so is it even addressing the biggest part of the issue?)

    As for "global action", since each nation and each region (Greenland vs. Maui vs Japan vs Wisconsin vs Bohemia) will have to cope with different changes that will happen over different time horizons, I don't see how a global initiative could hit the mark. Or would you advocate many global initiatives?

    (Is this where the DICE and RICE models come into play?)

    grrr. will look more into this. HA!

    JSTOR is my friend:

    A Regional Dynamic General-Equilibrium Model of Alternative Climate-Change
    Strategies
    William D. Nordhaus; Zili Yang
    The American Economic Review, Vol. 86, No. 4. (Sep., 1996), pp. 741-765.

    stay tuned! (or is this out of date thinking?)

  • ||

    "Actually, a number of environmentalists have come out for nuclear power. I don't have a link handy, but I recall seeing a longtime writer for The Nation come out with such a piece."

    Some have Joe. Unfortuneatly, they have caught a lot of flack for it. If you really believe that global warming is serious threat, I can't see how you can't be for nuclear power.

  • ||

    pigwiggle, yet again you misunderstand the science. I did not say that anthropogenic global warming was factually verified 100 years ago? I said that the greenhouse effect has been known for 100 years. Big difference--learn to read.

  • ||

    Kevin,

    If industry paid Ronald to say the puppies are cute and the son rises in the east would be doubt it because he is a "whore to industry"? Further, how is working for the nature conservancy or the Sierra Club not just being a whore to the environmentalists? If you think what Bailey is saying is wrong, then please enlighten us. But the mere fact that he took money from people you don't like doesn't mean jack shit.

  • ||

    If you're talking about carbon sequestration, it won't work on any scale grand enough to do anything but slow down the heating. There simply aren't enough structurally sound places to put the CO2.

    We could make carbonate salts and put them back in the places were we dug the oil. And we certainly could do it on a grand scale, but it would be expensive. If we had enough energy we could just turn it into carbon and oxygen. The point is, that it isn't a lost cause. There will always be something that can be done to reduce atmospheric CO2, and methane for that matter. Storing methane would be even easier. There are vast deposits of methane clatherates sitting all over the ocean floor. Just pump it down there.

  • ||

    Kevin-

    You wrote "a quite basic calculation shows that the pre-industrial level of greenhouse gases (280 ppm for CO2) raises the temperature of the atmosphere by 15 C. (This has been known for over 100 years.)"

    This unequivocally claims that a specific increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations has raised the temperature of the atmosphere by a certain quantifiable amount. This isn't a general, broad, or otherwise qualitative statement about the greenhouse effect. It is a specific claim of certainty regarding a quantifiable, causal relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and mean atmospheric temperature, and further, that it has been known for 100 years. I can read fine, I'm just not letting you off the hook for your unsupported wild-ass claim.

  • ||

    So I don't need to save a spot for you when I go wild boar hunting during the 3 weeks I am being forced to work in Florida for a Super Bowl project?

    Oooh! Oooh! Pick me! Pick me!

  • Guy Montag||

    Oooh! Oooh! Pick me! Pick me!

    Well, my second choice was Weigel, but it might be embarassing to hunt with a guy who closes both eyes to shoot.

    You are moving up on the list.

  • ||

    Hunting for food when not absolutely necessary (like Guy is going to do) is not cool in my book, but it's not categorically evil either.

    How do you know Guy doesn't need the food? What difference is there if he buys 300 pounds of fresh meat at the supermarket, or if he goes out and shoots it himself? Some animal, somewhere, has died in order to supply him with BBQ material.

    There is a key difference, though. Hunting feral pigs is not just a fun way to get a year's supply of pork, it's also quite environmentally friendly. IIRC, hog populations tend to get out of control and wreak all sorts of havoc on native wildlife. Guy is just helping Mother Nature maintain the natural balance.

    In other words, shoot a pig for Gaia!

  • ||

    WE MUST BAN ALL CLOCKS!!!

  • ||

    "during the 3 weeks I am being forced to work in Florida for a Super Bowl project?"

    You mean when the big men play?

  • ||

    Holly,

    Pigs are evil. They are a nasty ferrel species unleashed on an unsuspecting environment by man. They are terrible for the native species. The best thing you can do for nature is kill a wild pig. Guy does more good for the native wildlife by killing a wild bore than any 100 dirty hippies standing around singing kumbyya at the local anti-nuke protest. Good for you Guy. I wish I could go with you.

  • ||

    BTW Holly,

    YOu are exactly right.

  • ||

    John, no legitimate journalist should be working for the Sierra Club either, or be in any way compensated by them, even if the journalist's views align with the Sierra Club. I'd never trust such a journalist. Neither would I trust one who's income, like Bailey's, comes from the CEI or ExxonMobil.

    > But the mere fact that he took money from
    > people you don't like doesn't mean jack shit.

    This is the favorite line of reasoning of people who agree with person in question. When they disagree with the point being made, though, they allege that that person is under the influence of money. Both the left and the right do this, and of course there's no way to prove or disprove it. That's why a legitimate journalist does not accept money from *any* source except his employer (who also should not be accepting money from special interests).

  • ||

    Kevin,

    Just because someone works for the Sierra club doesn't mean they are wrong either. Further, you will never convince me that a lot of publications don't have agendas. What do you not think Reason has an agenda? Or the New York Times for that matter? Of course they do. Lets see how long you keep your job at the Times if you start slaming on Castro or runing stories on how affirmative action is a bad thing. Not long. Everyone has some agenda. As long as you are honest about it, I don't see why that matters.

  • ||

    What if I write the article first, then go to either the Sierra Club or ExxonMobil (depending on which side the article supports) and say, "I'll publish this if you pay me; otherwise, I'll just delete it"? I've taken money for an article that otherwise will never see the light of day, but I came to my conclusions before money ever entered the picture. Is that kosher?

    Side note: World population is nearly 6.6 billion. [World PopClock]

  • Jennifer||

    I write for a local newspaper with a much smaller subscriber base (obviously) than a national magazine like Reason. When I do little local-color pieces, like on the nearby maple-sugar makers or the combination apple orchard and cider mill, I don't even accept their offer of a free jug of cider or bottle of maple syrup, because I feel it would be unethical. I certainly would not accept money.

  • ||

    pigwiggle, the statement I made is a statement about the greenhouse effect (which, yes, has been known for 100 years), not the anthropogenic causes of global warming (as you implied up in your 12:48pm comment). The basic greenhouse effect has nothing to do with anything anthropogenic. Yes, it is a quantative statement, but yet it can be considered separately from the causes of anthropogenic causes of global warming, which include increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and land use changes, and which must include other factors such as orbital and solar influences. No where have I ever implied that the anthropogenic changes are linear or in any way set by calculating the basic greenhouse effect. Of course the two calculations rely on some of the same physics. That does not make them identical calculations.

  • ||

    I find it highly unlikely that we can sufficiently modify human behavior so has to impact Earth's temperature.

    Assuming that global warming is real, what matters is:

    1) Is it something we should stop, if we can?

    2) Can we?

    We seem to have skipped straight to "The US is bad!"

  • ||

    It is certainly questionable to accept money from a motivated party while claiming impartiality. Makes me think of dueling expert witnesses in trial court.

    But ultimately it doesn't matter. Either the man is right or wrong; attacking his motives in place of his argument is just ad hominem.

  • ||

    I write for a local newspaper with a much smaller subscriber base (obviously) than a national magazine like Reason. When I do little local-color pieces, like on the nearby maple-sugar makers or the combination apple orchard and cider mill, I don't even accept their offer of a free jug of cider or bottle of maple syrup, because I feel it would be unethical.

    I've got a solution to your problem, Jennifer. Accept a jug of Grade A amber Vermont maple syrup and send it as a gift to me instead.

    That way, you'll make the farmer happy by accepting his gift, and you'll still be able to say you didn't accept any gifts for yourself. Win-Win.

    And don't thank me, I'm just happy to help out.

  • Jennifer||

    I know you're joking, Holly, but other than the pay I get from my publishers there is no way in hell I would ever accept anything of value from anyone who has anything to do with a story I write. I didn't even accept little low-value gifts like sugar or cider, and on the one occasion (so far) when I was offered actual money I sure as hell said NO.

  • ||

    It is said the only real way to hunt a pig is with a knife. Unfortunately, I have not had the chance yet though I have used rifle, muzzleloader, pistol, bow and crossbow to convert feral hogs into a meal. Pity the same weapons cannot be used on wild bores.

  • ||

    "I write for a local newspaper with a much smaller subscriber base"

    Gotta link?

  • Jennifer||

    Gotta link?

    My most popular recent story was about a local woman who raises kangaroos in her house. I'm also the author of a series about local war veterans telling their horrifyingly sad stories. The sad truth is, even when I AM offered bribes they're not nearly as impressive as what Ron was paid for saying that global warming is a lie.

    But I did blow the lid off the muthafizzuckin' maple-industrial complex, though.

  • ||

    I *WILL* accept bribes to shill for either side in any debate.

  • Guy Montag||

    Jennifer,

    Where in this article or any other is Ronald proven or admitted to accepting money for saying global warming is a lie?

    Says he was an editor for various organizations, some of them got donations from corporations, etc. He wrote what he wanted to and his publishers liked it.

    Seems that someone is making a glacier out of an ice cube.

  • Jennifer||

    Seems that someone is making a glacier out of an ice cube.

    And now thanks to global warming, we're making an ice cube out of a glacier.

    Ba-da-bump!

  • Jennifer||

    In all seriousness, Guy, there's nothing wrong with taking money from organizations whose cause you espouse in writing, so long as you call yourself an "advertising writer" or a "public-relations writer." It's when you call yourself a "journalist" for doing this that such behavior moves you into the realms of whoredom.

  • Guy Montag||

    Jennifer,

    Just make sure none of it gets into my martini glass after shaking.

    On a more scientific note, I mentioned in my journal a few weeks ago another scientific concensus and I was not paid anything to write it.

  • Guy Montag||

    Let's see, so far from this board I am now an Evil Goon Journalist and per TNR I drive a hybrid.

    Yours truly,

    Guy Montag
    Evil Goon Journalist Hybrid Driving Time Person of the Year.

    This title is getting too long for comfort.

  • Guy Montag||

    Correction:

    Guy Montag
    Evil Goon Journalist Hybrid Driving Slut* Time Person of the Year.

    *I do not get paid for my writing.

  • ||

    So if I write a column for the Nation magazine in support of a new regulatory scheme for the environment that would make me a whore? What if I genuinely believed this new regulatory scheme made a lot of sense?

    I think being a whore would be writing a piece about something for a magazine or interest group and taking a position that you didn't really believe just for the money. Clearly it seems that Bailey genuinely didn't think GW was a problem. You can fault him for being wrong but I fail to see how 'whore' applies, unless you are redefining the word.

    On the other hand, I'm finding these constant tongue in cheek disclosure comments tiresome and embarrassing. Once or twice was fine, but 10, 15, 20 times....just let it go Ron or you'll only be asking for more of these kicks to the groin.

  • sir erick||

    Georgia Guidestones

  • ||

    Earth Changes ----->

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7I_eFoIk64

  • ||

    Could someone credible tell me how much coal, oil, i.e. hydrocarbons we have burned since the 1900's and possibly compare with the impact of volcano eruptions impacts? A true picture of the impact is not playing god, playing politics, or any such human endeavor except to be morally responsible for the decisions we make on a daily basis. When I see films like "CRUDE", I am appalled by the callous disregard oil companies have for the environment. The attitude is also reflected in the apparent "dumbness" of consumers who live in a corporate mindset of "as long as it's not in my backyard". Lo and behold, your backyard is closer than you think.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement