Monday, October 16, 2006

On Urban Sprawl and Global Warming

A couple interesting items in today's news digest from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

Here's a short article from Discover magazine on urban sprawl. I'm not quite sure what to make of it. I guess I find it interesting because I'm not quite sure what they're trying to say and so am surprised Discover published it.

And, from the Washington Times, a commentary on global warming that pretty much echoes my feelings on the issue.

I heartily recommend the NCPA's Daily Policy Digest. It comes out Monday through Friday and has a brief synopsis of five or six items of interest from the news.

Sure, some on the Left may not be happy with its general conservative take on issues, but, I always felt it's not a good idea to listen to the same ideas over and over again.

Think about giving their Daily Digest a try.

29 Comments:

At 11:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't need satellite images to understand how bad sprawl is in American Cities- Just drive through Phoenix. The Bay Area also has examples that are growing by the minute in the East Bay, notibly in Livermore, Dublin and San Ramon.

Developers sued for the right to develop the area, then cover it with crappy projects that they could bang out in record time. Plenty of big box malls for all to shop.

Might be heaven for some who choose to leave comments on these forums.

 
At 4:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred: before you belive anything the NCPA says you should look at Center for Media and Democracy website at:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis#Funding

and you will find it is funded mostly by oil money (and/or foundations made from oil money).

What a supprise!

 
At 5:30 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Which you've obviously been doing: reading something paid for by lefties. Try reading something different for a change.

 
At 6:19 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 6:22 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Climate change has definitely morphed into a religion. Warming's anthropgenic cause can neither be scientifically proved nor disproved. It must be accepted on faith. According to H. Sterling Burnett "No matter what the climate phenomenon, if it can in someway be presented as being unusual by global warmistas, it is argued to be "further evidence of global warming," even if it contradicts earlier phenomena that were pointed to by the same people as evidence of global warming."
In the realm of climate change research, different models looking at the same phenomenon applying the same laws of physics with the same inputs produce dramatically varied results. Thus, one model says we can expect the polar ice sheets to melt, while another predicts the coming of the next ice age, or one model will forecast long-term drought in the Southwest, whereas another model predicts increased precipitation. A person predisposed to believe that government action is the solution to any and all problems (a collectivist) will inevitably subscribe to the warmista religion.
Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA: " ... I wish all those global-warmistas would simply confess their faith -- and stop giving science a bad name."
The thermometer was not invented until 1714.

With regard to "sprawl", where is one to house the surfiet of illegal immigrants that our rulers are forcing us to accept?

 
At 6:32 PM, Blogger Pogo said...

anon 4:56pm: "Soros good Chevron (or is it Arkley?) bad!"
I like that "warmista" tag.

 
At 6:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Climate change has definitely morphed into a religion."

So has oil.

 
At 6:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

try fueling your car with true belief

 
At 10:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

try living under 30 feet of water

 
At 10:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

"Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA: " ... I wish all those global-warmistas would simply confess their faith -- and stop giving science a bad name.""

This is kinda funny since Roy Spencer is himself a devout born again Christian.

 
At 10:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A person predisposed to believe that government action is the solution to any and all problems (a collectivist) will inevitably subscribe to the warmista religion."

So a person who is predisposed to big trucks will inevitably subscribe to the oil religion.

 
At 6:55 AM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

"...Roy Spencer is himself a devout born again Christian."

Christian BAD! warmista GOOD! But is he a good guitar player?

oil: "1. Any of numerous mineral, vegetable, and synthetic substances...
used in a great variety of products, especially lubricants and fuels."

religion: "4 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion for which there is no conclusive and scientific verification."

10:31PM: Is that you Jeff?

 
At 4:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, I am not Jeff.

Christians are not bad. I just was pointing out that its ironic that a fundamentalist Christians would be giving a lecture on how faith might impact good science. Tell me you don’t see the irony here.

Also, we all know what is meant by oil and religion in the context of this conversation. Your definitions are irrelevant.

And why do you make up names for people that disagree with you? (i.e. warmista) It just shows that you have preconceived notion of who you are communicating with and that you have dismissed anything they have to say up front. What's the point in even having a conversation with someone like that?

 
At 8:35 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Hello anonymous non Jeff (whoever you are). Please cite your source that Dr. Spencer is a "fundamentalist" (and we will not accept as evidence that he plays a guitar in church).
No, "we all" do NOT know how you can categorize oil as a religion nor do we see any irony in a scientist's religion. Some are Jews, Muslims, Shinto, Atheist and Hindus. So What? Describing "oil" as a religion seems about as sensible as describing bicycle as a religion (except perhaps in Arcata). "Warmista" is pretty descriptive of those who declare as "fact" an assertion to which there is a mountain of contrary evidence. Like Pogo I think it's not only proper but "cool". I am happy to converse with any civil individual with whom I disagree. Thus far you qualify.

 
At 8:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure warmista is a religion. Their prophet is Al Gore.

 
At 9:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you would describe a religious people as:

"those who declare as "fact" an assertion to which there is a mountain of contrary evidence."

Maybe we agree on something here.

 
At 9:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember the sentence before the one you quoted from that article:

"If the response is simply benign, then about 2 deg. F warming is about all we'll have to contend with in the next 100 years or so."

"If" is the operative word. I think what many people are asking is that that:

"What if the response is not benign"

Its a big "if" not to take seriously.

Seems like everyone agrees on the inputs to the models. There is also agreement (from virtually all sides, including Dr. Spencer) on the fact that are CO2, temps and even ocean levels are rising. The debate centers on what impact if any will the "multiplier" effect have. So it seems like for many there are only two sides, and yes ideology then takes hold. If you think uncontrolled capitalism is best thing since it invented sliced bread then you will tend to think that effect will be benign. If you are of the mind that it is human industrial activity is negatively impacting the planet you will likely take a more conservative approach and think 2 degrees could possibly have more than benign impacts, and may feel there is a need to act on this uncertainty.

 
At 1:59 PM, Anonymous Pogo561 said...

Those of you who favor the "Precautionary Rule" under circumstances wherein computer models are all over the place wish to have those who disagree with you prove a negative which we all know is impossible. It reminds me of the position in which Gallileo found himself viz the "consensus" of scientists and the Pope. The current legal action of Calif Attorney General Lockyer against the warmista deniers at Cal Tech is reminiscent of Gallileo's arrest and imprisonment. See the text in the Pogo icon.

 
At 3:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with this stand is that impacts from global warming can not be proved until they happen and then it is too late. Some would say that is putting your head in the sand.

 
At 5:47 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

The conservationists of 1855 noted that the nation was about to suffer a shortage of whale oil for lamps due to over harvesting. Along comes Colonel Drake with a method of extracting petroleum from underground sources and the whale oil "crisis" is moot. You seem to assume that technology is static and unable to address emerging issues. This has NEVER been the case.
"Some would say" that crossing the street can cause death by vehicle impact which is true enough. The Precautionary Princilple adherents would therefore prohibit crossing streets. That logic is TRULY putting your head in the sand.

 
At 6:46 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

How long before Arcata is under 30 feet of water? About 1100 years!
"Jevrejeva et al. (2006) analyzed information contained in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level database using a method based on Monte Carlo Singular Spectrum Analysis, removing 2- to 30-year quasi-periodic oscillations and determining nonlinear long-term trends for 12 large ocean regions, which they combined to produce the mean global sea level (gsl) and mean global sea level rate-of-rise (gsl rate) curves. (2.4+/- 1 mm/year)
With respect to what Jevrejeva et al. describe as "the discussion on whether sea level rise is accelerating," their results pretty much answer the question in the negative; and in further support of this conclusion, they note that "Church et al. (2004) pointed out that with decadal variability in the computed global mean sea level, it is not possible to detect a significant increase in the rate of sea level rise over the period 1950-2000,"...
These observations make us wonder why late 20th-century global warming - which climate alarmists describe as having been unprecedented over the past two millennia - cannot be detected in global sea level data.
Clearly, either something is drastically wrong with climate-alarmist theory, or something is drastically wrong with the pertinent real-world data. Although many people choose to believe the theory over the data - or they promote the theory in spite of believing the data (or they simply ignore the data) for philosophical or political reasons."
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N42/EDIT.jsp

 
At 11:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As you show your source for information is www.co2science.org.

This is another oil company funded group trying to espouse the idea that climate change from more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. Hardly an unbiased opinion.

 
At 6:25 AM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Yep, that's right. Repeat after me: "Soros and Government Grants Good! Chevron Bad!

 
At 1:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who gets their information from Soros? Chevron isn’t bad, I just wouldn't assume they would provide unbiased information on the subject of the potential impacts of CO2 emissions.

 
At 7:16 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Gee, I thought you were referring to $$$ after reading: "...oil company funded..." No, I don't believe that real scientists get their data from Soros or Chevron. If the science is objectively varifiable (as opposed to a computer model) and can be replicated it is valid regardless of who funds it. The "rapidly accelerating" rise in sea level is simply not demonstrated by the data contained in the graph constructed by Jevrejeva et al. (2006).

 
At 8:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok let me rephrase that "I just wouldn't assume Cheveron would fund unbiased information on the subject of the potential impacts of CO2 emissions."

And so you point to a graph by Jevrejeva et al. (2006)., but there are many studies, and yes models, developed to predict what will happen as we add more CO2 to the atmosphere and most of them do not present the rosy picture you paint.

Its a matter of deciding what chance we are going to take. (yes, it is still a democracy) Potential economic impact (good and/or bad) from lowering our emissions of CO2 or what some predict could be environmental devastation (but it may not) by letting them rise. I'd rather take my chance on the economy. In the long run, I think that the economy has a better chance of rebounding than the climate. I don’t think that makes me a communist, or as you call it, a collectivist. Just conservative.

 
At 9:48 AM, Blogger Î›Î•ÎŸÎÎ™Î”ΑΣ said...

No one doubts that the planet's climate is dynamic rather than static. The period of industrialization is but a nanosecond in the total scheme. For that reason it is unwise to politically restrict human activity absent convincing data as to the extent of the anthropogenic contribution. I have seen no replicatable and/or objective studies that compare the "catastrophic" environmental results of industrialization (man made 1850-2005) to previous such periods of change. The ones usually cited by the warmistas in the media cherry pick time frames which exclude contrary data. Today's Atlanta Journal & Constitution shrieks of the current expansion of the "ozone hole" without noting that it has expanded and contracted repeatedly during the past 30 years.
It would appear that this thread is soon to fall off the edge of Fred's blog. Should you wish to continue I suggest you try the comments at: http://fightingintheshade.blogspot.com/2006/09/attack-of-global-warmistas.html

 
At 3:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's always about the last word with you. Are you really under the illusion that your opinion is objective. Just by belittling people with a different opinion than you (i.e. calling them warmistas), you show your bias quite clearly. Unfortunately, it helps to preserve the shield you have made so that even if evidence were made available that was able to convince you otherwise you couldn't change your mind or you would become one of "them".

 
At 5:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...even if evidence were made available that was able to convince you otherwise you couldn't change your mind or you would become one of "them".
Au contraire. I was formerly one of them/you.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home