It's a shame really - I think it makes sense to reduce the use of fossil fuels just to be more efficient and save money.

I remember when I was a kid during the first "Oil Crisis" and my Uncle Dan said that he didn't need anybody to tell him to turn the lights off - he did it anyway to reduce his bill. Makes sense, right?

Do we really need Al Gore (remember him?) to scare us into radical action?

Edited by davidlutz on 10/20/2010 07:45:26 MDT.

"This one, because of the bulge of its abdomen and short wings, is probably a female, though i'm not sure because I can't see the egg prong."

Egg prong = ovipositor. ;0)

It doesn't matter either way.

If global warming were conclusively proven a hoax today, I suppose it would simply mean that governments have wasted a whole lot of money. What else is new?

And if anthropogenic global warming were proven true, I believe it's probably too late to change the tide anyway. It appears we'd have to alter, oh, only just the entire structure of industrial civilization. Getting better gas mileage doesn't fix this.

So now what?
Buy a Hummer and slap a giant "F-U" bumper sticker on it or start building a bunker and stockpiling food and ammo?

This debate seems so focused on either proving or disproving something that we're unlikely to be able to change either way. Which is why I tend to be far more interested in talking about society, economics, politics. For better or worse, it is foreseeable that we can change those things.

This isn't to say you give up on the environment- far from it. In fact, I think global warming has almost become a distraction. It's so HUGE, I think it creates a sense of paralysis. Better to focus on what one CAN do, right here, right now.

I've bought the better light bulb. I bike-commute in one of the most cycling unfriendly (not to mention polluted) cities in the USA. I keep involved in a variety of environmental and social justice movements, be it through teaching, direct action, donating money, or simply writing letters.
I live in a tiny house and grow a good deal of my own food, all with water-efficient techniques. My front front lawn is the only one on the block that was ripped out and replaced with food. Same for the backyard. We get a lot of complements. Big deal...I want to see more people rip out their lawns. I'm in the process of expanding my graywater system (the knucklehead politicians of California, which has major water issues, have just barely decided graywater systems can be used legally).
I can go on and on. One thing's for sure: I could give a $hit about Al Gore and have never seen his movie.

Global warming doesn't matter either way.

Sustainability does.

For those that see no looming environmental factor to justify lessening one's impact, or perhaps those that need a good scare/crisis in order to think about their lives, how about forgetting about all that and just doing it on principal, to not be a wasteful fool? I don't want to get mired in debating graphs and charts. I know what needs to be done.
Do it to save money. Do it to be healthier. Do it to learn to value living a more simplified life. Why not apply that good 'ol UL backpacking philosophy of simplicity, minimization, and dual use to your LIFE?

There are a million OTHER reasons to take environmental and social action. And if you're looking for a reason not to, look no further. Just be honest and say you don't give a crap.

I'll be darned if the global warming debate isn't tiring. At this point, I'm not sure which side bugs me more.

Edited by xnomanx on 10/19/2010 21:33:12 MDT.

...nd nothing against environmentalism...but how Al Gore became one of its faces...Al Gore???

The Dervaes family carries a hell of a lot more credibility in my book.
http://urbanhomestead.org/

Egg prong = ovipositor. ;0)

Aha! That's the word I was trying to remember while I was on a sardine can packed train going to work here in Tokyo this morning while typing one-handed on my iPhone. Ovipositor it is!

I may have to take back my statement that it was not a grasshopper... I don't know much about European insects, but from what my googling has produced so far it might be a grasshopper from the Alps.

Grasshopper in the Alps

Edited by butuki on 10/19/2010 22:13:47 MDT.

Craig says:

For those that see no looming environmental factor to justify lessening one's impact, or perhaps those that need a good scare/crisis in order to think about their lives, how about forgetting about all that and just doing it on principal, to not be a wasteful fool? I don't want to get mired in debating graphs and charts. I know what needs to be done.

Hi Craig,
I too have been growing food in my garden, planting trees, riding to work on efficient transport, fitting solar collection equipment, campaigning for the preservation of wild habitats, and doing other practical things to set an example of sustainable permaculture to my neighbours.

The reason I don't tire of debating graphs is that the scientific method is worth defending too. What other objective measure of our relationship with reality do we have? Religion is pretty much all washed up here in the UK, and has been replaced by the cult of TV personality. If we allow science to be prostituted to expedient political policy, you can be sure that other more insidious and freedom limiting theories will soon be pushed on us in its name.

Today, Earth and its climates, tomorrow, your reproductive rights, the day after, the inside of your head.

The nuttier end of the environmental fruitcake is already calling for sterilisation of drug addicts and the jailing and forcible psychological 'treatment' of "skeptic deniers". In fact, one American charity is already offering cash inducements to UK drug addicts to allow themselves to be sterilised. The thin end of an ugly wedge in my opinion.

Edited by tallbloke on 10/20/2010 00:58:42 MDT.

Miguel says:
I may have to take back my statement that it was not a grasshopper... I don't know much about European insects, but from what my googling has produced so far it might be a grasshopper from the Alps.

Hi Miguel, I'm no entomologist. I took the photo last week in the Pyrenees, which are quite Alpine in terms of altitude and climatology. I was surprised how numerous and visible they were in mid October at 7000 feet. We had frost and ice on the ground in the mornings. I had a vanguard of thirty or more leading me down some of the grassy slopes. This one was about 1 1/2" in length, sat sunning itself on a tarmac road in a hanging valley above Soldeu in Andorra.

Oh, and thanks for the gracious retraction, at least some people round here realise it's ok to be wrong and admit it.

Edited by tallbloke on 10/20/2010 00:53:12 MDT.

Lynn says:

Well, I don't get it, mainly the reference to tumbleweeds and crickets.

It's a euphemism for "It's all gone quiet over there".

Yeah, there's been some dodgey science on both sides of the fence. Neither side has *proven* their position. Doesn't mean anthropogenic climate warming is, or is not, happening.

The way science proceeds is not by 'proving' anything. Nothing can ever be 'proved'. Science proceeds by positing a hypothesis with falsifiable content, and testing its predictions against reality, and comparing the results with the NULL hypothesis.

To flesh this out, let's look at climate, since that's the topic under debate here (mostly :-).

The hypothesis is that human emissions of carbon dioxide are likely to cause catastrophic or at least significant and adverse global warming. The models predict this will manifest itself in a 'tropospheric hotspot' visible to our measuring devices.

This has been falsified. Our satellite measurements show no tropospheric hotspot of any magnitude which could indicate serious or even measurable global warming.

The NULL hypothesis is that changes in global temperature are completely natural events which have happened periodically ever since Earth was formed 4.5. billion years ago.

This still holds good. Solid peer reviewed science shows periodic warmings and coolings during recorded history prior to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of a magnitude equal or greater than the recent warming, which seems to have subsided since around 2003. It also shows periodic changes in proxy indicators which tell us of warmings of much bigger magnitudes in the more distant past which didn't have particularly adverse affects on life on Earth. It's the coolings you have to watch out for. Plants don't grow under or on top of thick ice.

All the evidence is pointing to carbon dioxide being a beneficient and important trace gas which has been in short supply for the last couple of million years due to sequestration through erosion and capture and burial. Satellite measurements show a 6% increase in the green plant growth on Earth over the last 25 years. This is cause for celebration, since it enables us to feed a growing human population better than before.

Edited by tallbloke on 10/20/2010 01:52:16 MDT.

George says:

Let's see... a cricket connection to liar.

If Rog's nose is getting longer then he is a liar.

Let's use science... Rog please post your nose for all to see.

"Who are you calling bignose? Call me bignose one more time I'll take you to the %@*£ing cleaners"

Identify that quote in one.
:-)

"That was the Inquiry which was chaired by the man (Lord Oxburgh) who has a paid position on the climate advisory panel of Deutsche Bank which stood to lose $billions in carbon scrip if an adverse result was given."

Really? Must say that I've never heard of "carbon scrip" and I worked as a senior finance lawyer in a Magic Circle firm in London.

Exactly how would Deutsche lose billions if it was decided that a group of climate scientists were telling lies?

"The UK domestic energy bill is now about 15% higher because of this crap."

Your source for that claim?

Perhaps the same source as your claim about LNG prices you eventually conceded was completely wrong?

Rog, I keep telling you: the blogs at Whatsupwiththat are not a legitimate source.

"Well, I don't get it, mainly the reference to tumbleweeds and crickets.

It's a euphemism for "It's all gone quiet over there"."

Well, let's see: would that be because I live on the entirely opposite side of the world to you?

"Oh, and thanks for the gracious retraction, at least some people round here realise it's ok to be wrong and admit it."

For example, in relation to LNG prices?

Arapiles says:
Exactly how would Deutsche lose billions if it was decided that a group of climate scientists were telling lies?

Not just "a group of climate scientists" Arapiles. This particular group are central to the whole alarmist enterprise. But you knew that, you are just trying to deflect the gravity of the issue.

A politicians trick.

As I quoted to you 2 pages ago:
"The bank has a $60+ billion Green portfolio, which it wishes to assure investors is safe…not to mention their income from carbon trading. Other members of this board include current IPCC chief Pachauri and Lord Oxburgh, of Climategate exoneration fame. The viability of these banks activities depends on continued concern over CO2 emissions."

So do you seriously think a credible "independent Inquiry" into the climategate affair should be chaired by a man who sits on Deutsche Banks climate advisory panel along with the head of the IPCC Arapiles? Please do reply.

Arapiles says:
"Oh, and thanks for the gracious retraction, at least some people round here realise it's ok to be wrong and admit it."
For example, in relation to LNG prices?

Yes, I did admit I got that wrong at the time. So your attempted insinuation of hypocrisy on top of your attempted insinuation of crankiness fails.

Arapiles says:
"Well, I don't get it, mainly the reference to tumbleweeds and crickets.

It's a euphemism for "It's all gone quiet over there"."

Well, let's see: would that be because I live on the entirely opposite side of the world to you?

The person you are quoting lives over on that side of the world too doesn't she?

Arapiles says:
"The UK domestic energy bill is now about 15% higher because of this crap."

Your source for that claim?

The BBC.
==================================================
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/
Cost of electricity set to soar

Paul Hudson | 15:09 UK time, Friday, 15 October 2010

Comments (45)

The UK is the only country in the world that has legally binding targets to cut carbon emissions. By 2020, 30% of all our electricity will have to come from renewable sources. It is a well known fact that generating electricity using, for example, wind power, is much more expensive than from a coal fired power station. So to plug this gap, and make it attractive to investors to put money into building wind farms and other renewable projects, the government makes subsidies available.

The current subsidies available to build wind farms and other renewable come to £1 billion, or £13 on our annual electricity bills. Subsidies for smaller wind turbines and solar panels comes to £610 million - or £8 annually on electricity bills. So at the moment each year we already pay £21 to subsidise these projects in the form of a 'hidden' charge on our bills.

The proposed subsidies, or green taxes, by 2020, are much higher.

£1.8 billion for ground source heat pumps - £23 on our annual bills.

£1 billion towards carbon capture coal power stations (Like Richard Budge's Hatfield project in South Yorkshire) - £15 on consumer bills.

£2.6 billion to artificially increase the price of carbon - £40 on bills. This is a measure designed to make generating nuclear power more attractive, by raising the price of carbon allowances under the European emission trading scheme. This makes generating zero carbon nuclear power more attractive relative to high carbon gas or coal power plants.

So in total, proposed green taxes will equal £78 on our annual fuel bills. Added to the existing subsidy we are already paying, a total charge of around £100 will be applied to our fuel bills annually in order to meet our legally binding targets on renewable energy by 2020.

This takes no account of a new subsidy regime which the government have been considering to support burning more biomass at power stations such as Drax.
===============================================

I'll add that it also doesn't take account of the opportunistic price increases on fuel already made by the energy companies, or the additional levy on aircraft fuel already in place.

Edited by tallbloke on 10/20/2010 04:47:54 MDT.

The quote? For the life of Brian I can't think of its source.

Back on topic...

"Arapiles says:
Exactly how would Deutsche lose billions if it was decided that a group of climate scientists were telling lies?

Not just "a group of climate scientists" Arapiles. This particular group are central to the whole alarmist enterprise. But you knew that, you are just trying to deflect the gravity of the issue."

I'll repeat the question: EXACTLY how would Deutsche lose money?

Hi Rog, I may have to take back even more words than I originally thought! I've been researching what the species is that you photographed, and there is a good chance it might be a genus I'd never heard of: bushcrickets... sort of a cross between crickets and grasshoppers and which appear to be quite common in the alpine regions of southern Europe. I haven't been able to find enough images to compare your photograph to so I can't positively identify it.

It still wouldn't make the more ringing-quality, true cricket sounds, though.

It's a bit of an embarrassment having to admit this second mistake. I was well on my way to becoming either an entomologist or ornithologist in my first years in college, but I decided I wanted nothing professionally to do with the data collecting and numbers that working in science requires. I simply love nature for its own sake without wanting to spend all my time classifying it or measuring it. But I do pride myself, in my mind, on my quite extensive knowledge of insects and birds, especially insects. A lot of my knowledge is firsthand, in-the-field experience. I once sat in on a lecture by a Harvard gecko specialist who claimed that no one knew where geckos went during the day. I was astounded! I used to find them all the time during my wandering the woods here in Japan as a kid. I showed him exactly where he could find them.

I'll keep looking to identify this species. Just knowing what it is is exciting!

Oh, and thanks for the gracious retraction, at least some people round here realise it's ok to be wrong and admit it.

I really have no real need to be right. When I'm wrong, what's the harm in admitting it? The truth is so much nicer to know than hanging on to your ego. That's why I stay away from getting too mixed up with the scientific discussion here in this thread. There's a funny kind of pattern in the posts: almost all the huffing and puffing to be "right" is between males... almost no females join in, and even when Lynn does, her posts never insist on being right about anything. She just states facts as she sees them and lets them stand on their own, and she never joins in the mudslinging. Interesting phenomenon.

"So do you seriously think a credible "independent Inquiry" into the climategate affair should be chaired by a man who sits on Deutsche Banks climate advisory panel along with the head of the IPCC Arapiles? Please do reply."

Who would you have chosen - someone who knew nothing about climate change? A climate sceptic?

"The UK is the only country in the world that has legally binding targets to cut carbon emissions."

I don't think that is correct. Is he ignoring the Kyoto Protocol countries? What counts as "legally binding"?

George, it must be lonely sometimes attempting to inject humor into a brawl! I, for one, want to thank you for your tireless efforts to make us laugh and forget how serious we are getting!

I think I might have to get a larger monitor... this thread's page numbers are beginning to trail off into the sunset!

Edited by butuki on 10/20/2010 05:30:52 MDT.