Global Warming: As Machiavelli May Have Seen It

author image

October 11, 2008

By Bob Difley

As we writers, bloggers, pundits, and blowviators do, we would like to think our words carry such pithy weight as to enthral our readers with our wisdom and to emulate our actions. Failing that, as we most often do, I would like to quote a passage from The Prince by Machiavelli (Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli [1469 – 1527], Italian political philosopher and diplomat of the Rennaisance Period) that seems to address just the situation we are now in regarding alternative energy and global warming. Think about it.

“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in introducing a new order of things, because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents–who have the laws on their side–and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.”

Tom Friedman used that quote in his book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded to explain today’s political difficulties in moving our society off fossil fuels and into a new age of clean energy. He also defines the three stages of denial, adapted to global warming (GM):(1) Those who deny that GM exists, and that man could not possibly change Mother Nature, (2) Those who say that global climate change is natural and normal, and it is no big deal and we will adapt to it, and (3) Those that agree that man-made GW is occuring but there is nothing we can do about it.
Attention deniers of all levels: There is still hope–and time–for you to take a second look at the facts and studies and opinions of the world’s climate scientists and consider the possibility that there might, in fact, be some substance to the global warming concept. For instance, that carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has been 280 ppm for the last 10,000 years, except that the level has been climbing since the Industrial Age and now stands at about 384 ppm–where it has never been for 20 million years. And we are on track to add another 100 ppm in the next 50 years. Just ask the question: Is that level safe for our grandchildren? No one knows, but scientists can make some educated guesses. But think about this: Humans have never before lived in a world with that level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Last, consider this strong statement that Friedman quotes from John Holdren, professor of environmental policy at Harvard, director of the Woods Hole Research Center, and former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science: “The most important conclusions about global climatic disruption–that it’s real, that it’s accelerating, that it’s already doing significant harm, that human activities are responsible for most of it, that tipping points into really catastrophic disruption likely lurk along the ‘business as usual’ trajectory, and that there is much that could be done to reduce the danger at affordable cost if only we would get started–have not been concocted by the Sierra Club or the enemies of capitalism. They are based on an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.”

Leave a Reply

42 comments

  1. Fred

    Hi Bob. Me again. This is also for Andrew Kanellis.

    How coincidental, last night (Oct 14th) I was reading a column, “Sustainable Developments”, in the February 2007 Scientific American (page 30) titled “Moving Beyond Kyoto” by Jeffery D. Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

    Copy and paste this link;
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=moving-beyond-kyoto

    He makes reference to The Stern Review’s report from the U.K. Treasury statement that “makes clear that the consequences (of not stabilizing greenhouse gases) could be catastrophic: melting of ice sheets, with a huge rise of ocean levels; massive crop failures; increased transmission of diseases; and potentially calamitous effects on ecosystem services.”

    http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm

    He goes on to say, “The Stern Review makes it clear that the costs of such (GHG) control will be far lower than the costs of inaction.

    It is time, therefore, to aim for a sensible long-term framework (by 2050) in which all countries will participate. The U.S. Congress is set to back such a course. The White House will as well, soon after 2008 and, with some luck, even before.”

    One more thing; This is unbelievable – check out today’s Discovery.com News brief; “Climate Change Can Grind Down Plate Tectonics.” Copy and paste.

    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/10/15/plate-tectonics-climate.html?dcitc=w01-101-ae-0003

    Fred

  2. Andrew – First of all, global warming is not a hoax. No climate scientist thinks so. the earth goes through cycles from ice ages to warming and back again, all natural phenomena. The question is how much of the current warming trend is due to man-made activities and whether we should be doing something about it.
    There is nothing in the Kyoto Protocol that requires closing of American factories. What is in there is that we need to start regulating the CO2 emissions from our most polluting factories, either through scrubbers (for coal factories) or a cap and trade or similar system, so that the polluting factories pay for the pollution and the non-polluting factories can sell their credits to the polluters. The incentive is for the polluters to clean up their emissions. The reason that the developing nations are not required to adhere to the Kyoto accord, according to them, is that we have gone through our industrial age, our growth, and have achieved a high standard of living for our citizens. The developing nations, most notably China and India, say that they want the same opportunity to go through their industrial age and achieve the same standard of living for their citizens before having to be concerned with their air quality. What enables them to grow, is the availability of cheap–though polluting–energy such as oil and coal. How this helps the global environment is that the developed nations, y signing the protocol, are forced to continue to develop clean energy. These developments over time will become as cheap to use as oil, coal, and natural gas is now without the polluting factor. When this happens China and India will also adopt those new technologies because they are not against clean air,k they are for cheap price. And if as cheap, the cleaner energy solutions will be adopted without slowing down their economies.

  3. Andrew Kanellis

    Bob, I am force to assume that yourself, and others who have fallen for the global warming hoax, have never read any of the Kyoto accord.

    I work in a factory here in the USA, and we must be in compliance with very strict EPA regulations. We monitor our emissions several times a day to ensure that we are not polluting.

    According to Kyoto, we should shut down factories in the United States (where emissions are strictly regulated by the EPA), and then relocate those factories in third world countries (and China), where they are free to pollute as much as they want, with NO restrictions what so ever.

    This is purely political, and yet has been endorsed by the so-called scientists who are on the global warming band wagon. The great God Al Gore also thinks Kyoto is the solution.

    Please explain from a scientific standpoint how the Kyoto proposals could possibly help the GLOBAL environment.

  4. Bob Difley

    Mgt – I forgot to add this part to my above response. RV.net highlights my blog and everybody else’s blog that writes for RV.net in emails to subscribers on the day the blog is published. My blog is published on Saturdays along with a few others. Other bloggers publish on different days and their blogs are highlighted on those days. I lam not given top billing, just my equal share along with all the others.
    Regarding the industry, it is not dependent on gasoline prices, but rather on a combination of fuel (of whatever type) prices, pollution and emissions (why the industry promotes cleaner engines, better mileage, etc.), among other interests such as conservation of natural resources, preservation of wildlife habitat, etc. Eliminating gasoline as a fuel source over the next decade or two is something that the entire industry is behind.

    No I am not forced to read your blog or any other but when RV.net highlights your blog in their emails to me, it boggles my mind that an industry that is dependent on gasoline prices to survive would give you top billing. I can give you countless opinions of other scientist that can debunk the global warming myth but I doubt that Rv.net would highlight them.

  5. Bob Difley

    Mgt – I don’t know what any of what you say has to do with socialism. You say that we should be making a 20 to 30 year transition to alternate fuels, that is exactly what is happening, but it can be ramped up even faster with stronger support from the government, such as subsidies that are now granted to oil companies granted instead to developers of alternative fuel and energy sources.

  6. Bob Difley

    Kent Ramsey comments that when one hears that “there is consensus on global warming, alarm bells should start sounding for anyone with a thought process. Science doesn’t require consensus. All it requires is for one person to be right with the documentation to prove it.” Absolutely right, and what science does is continue to study opinions, theories, etc. in attempts to verify or disprove.
    He then asks, “Why don’t we hear a lot about the fact that global temperatures have been going down for almost ten years?” (My research shows that ten of the last eleven years have been the warmest on record.) “What is the ideal global temperature anyway?” (There is no ideal temperature, rather an ideal range, outside of which life as we know it would be difficult, and in the worst cases, impossible.) “Ask yourself where the money goes for things like carbon offsets, cap and trade, and ethanol subsidies.” (That is easier, carbon offsets and cap and trade are bought and sold on the open market, just as any other commodity, and the ethanol subsidies go to, at this point, to corn growers and ethanol processors.) “How much more government regulation do we want in our lives?” (You can answer that with political reasons, like would the meltdown have happened if the government hadn’t disbanded regulations and oversight on the financial markets allowing them to enter into the shaky deals that brought down the financial markets.) He also says “with the Technology will eventually come up with practical ways to replace our dependence on petroleum. Until then, hare-brained schemes, self-serving politicians, and ineffective government regulations will rob us of even more of our freedom without doing a damn thing for the planet.” Mostly in agreement, except that we may disagree on what are “hare-brained schemes” and “ineffective government regulations.” Without government regulations would come more chaos, the argument is with how much do we need, a level that will never have a precise answer.

  7. Bob Difley

    Regarding George Miller’s question on water vapor as a major component of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, National Geographic says, “Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth’s surface.”
    You may have picked up the 95% figure from the Web site: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html that states, “Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect.” and “Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small– perhaps undetectable– effect on global climate.” This is, as you know, in opposition to much of what I have been writing. This site is the product of Monte Hieb, a Virginia mining engineer–not a climatologist. In my opinion, his opinions are not true science until they have been published and verified by his peers (the basis for bone fide science is peer review).
    On the other hand, check out the Web site: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 which is titled: “RealClimate: Climate Science by Climate Scientists” and the discussion of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. It is much too long and scientific to quote here, but the crux of it seemed to be, “While water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas, the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days). What I think that means is that it is a result of global warming, not a cause. Also, CO2, unlike water vapor, stays in the atmosphere for extremely long periods of time. Though I have difficulty following the science of the article, the conclusions–including admitting that the subject requires more study–does not negate the theory that the rapid increase in global warming is to some degree, and an important element, man-made. One of the key differences between these two sites is that the RealClimate site is open to peer reviews and also includes a list of “Other Opinions,” a much more scientific approach to a difficult question.

  8. Fred

    Bob,
    Thanks for the nice private comments. I want to follow up below about a part of your comment referring to “balancing nature”. You public comment about “handsome devil” is gladly accepted, but Bonnie wants you to think of her as a charming princess. 🙂

    You are blogging blind. Right now you have no accurate way to know who your audience is. As much as I have been participating in these blogs, I have been unable to have a good demographic or cross-sectional feel for who’s out there.

    You may have already thought of this, but it might benefit the blog if you had a way to canvass us for what we think our experiences and standards are. You could create some type of poll that allowed us to “vote” by answering Yes, No or Indifferent.

    Although “Thanks for the balancing nature of your comments” had your special meaning, it popped out at me like a flash bulb to immediately see it differently – “Nature’s Balance”. Not new, but maybe forgotten.

    Some have questioned the purpose of this blog being on an RV site, and you have commented on that, but I would like to stress that a prime reason we all go “camping” is to be out there next to Nature. It doesn’t matter whether we drive a million-dollar bus or hike with a back-pack.

    If we go “out there” and find scenes that don’t meet our expectations anymore, what’s the point? Just stay home and watch Nature shows on TV.

    I pull a nice size 5er, but I’m not afraid to rough it. My most recent camping dissappointment had nothing to do with Global Warming – maybe. I found a four-site, remote, but accessible Forest Service spot on the Gila National Forest map.

    I thought I might spend a few quiet days there (camped adjacent to a Wilderness Area) with Mother Nature, After an arduous mountainous drive, I arrived to see a sizeable collection of human detritous. That debris had been there for quite a while. The appeal of Nature just evaporated.

    I will combine human indifference to nature’s beauty AND to global warming, and state emphatically; INSUFFICIENT FUNDING.

    Are wars more important? Could we use war money to fund our Parks and Forests? $10Bn a month would go a long way to help clean up the planet.

    Fred

  9. Bob Difley

    For those of you that mention sunspots as the reason for global warming, National Geographic says, “Sunspots alter the amount of energy Earth gets from the sun, but not enough to impact global climate change, a new study suggests.” You can read the entire article at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html.

  10. Greg

    Mgt & some others,

    calm down. Why can we all have a peaceful discussion while talking about points that support our views. Why do people have to get so upset because we are discussing something that does affect us and can affect our RVing lives. Its a discussion.

    Both sides make some great points. I’d like to see some hard scientific evidence that support both sides. Unsubscribing from the rv.net blog because of “one” expert bloggers “OPINIONS” seems very childish and exaggerated. seriously…calm down.

    Has anyone seen “Who Killed the Electric Car”? a great documentary that supports the idea that we will continue to be independent on big oil while they continue to cash in and places like Dubai get richer and richer with their man made islands.

    We have to be open to these discussions and not bash and get angry at each other because we have different views. Discuss peacefully.

    Thanks all!

  11. Bob Difley

    Robert Mahon says, “Lastly, you alluded to the more recent, better, collection of data points and I agree. There is better information involved with today’s hypotheses and iterations will abound. However, the best information points to a change of .8 degrees F over the last 50 years. And, at least part of that is due to natural influence, which means that man is responsible for only part of the increase.”
    The October issue of Wired Magazine reports “tens of thousands of scientists are zipping up theri parkas for the latest International Polar Year Initiative. The research endeavor, the third of its kind since 1882, is sending teams from 63 countries to the Antarctic and the Arctic in an unprecedented, billion-dollar exhibition of cold-weather geekery.” These efforts will probably come up with the most accurate data yet on climate change over the last gazillion years, which may or may not support or disprove all the global warming theories that now abound. It will be interesting to see what comes of it. I agree with the last part of your comment, that global warming is part natural and part man-made, which is also the position of an most climatoligists. Studies have shown that in the period from ice ages through warming and back to ice ages again–a period of roughly 100,000 years–the data has remained consistent. Now, however, CO2 in the atmosphere is much higher than at any other time in history, of which the increase can only be attributed to man made causes. How much and to what effect remains to be seen. Thanks for your comments.

  12. Mgt

    No I am not forced to read your blog or any other but when RV.net highlights your blog in their emails to me, it boggles my mind that an industry that is dependent on gasoline prices to survive would give you top billing. I can give you countless opinions of other scientist that can debunk the global warming myth but I doubt that Rv.net would highlight them. No, I don’t read newspapers exactly for the same reason I stopped my subscription to rv.net emails. They are filled with socialist dogma. What Al Gore and the global warming alarmist are attempting to do is to raise the price of gasoline so that people won’t drive. Is there any common sense left in this country. Our economy is dependent on affordable transportation. If we want to switch to alternate forms of energy we need a gradual 20-30 year transition. We should let American ingenuity develop the resources and and in the interim let’s drill for oil in the USA, use clean coal, nuclear energy, wind, etc. We don’t need to sell our soul to socialism to do it! Do some research folks, global warming alarmist are using global warming hysteria as a Trojan horse to usher in global socialism.

  13. Dennis Benson

    Some good points by all.

    I tend to be skeptical of all ‘doom and gloom’ scenarios if they profit the messengers and financially punish others.

    It seems that right now the world’s economy can’t really handle any more hits so GW may have to take a back burner anyway…

    JMO

    BTW, what happened to saving the rainforests (CO2 and all)?

  14. Kent Ramsey

    Yes, we need to be good stewards of the evrionment and use our resources wisely. However….The “Global Warming” movement as it exists now is a lot more about controling our lives than it is about saving the planet. When the Gore-ilcal says there is consensus on global warming, alarm bells should start sounding fo anyone with a thought process. Science doesn’t require consensus. All it requires is for one person to be right with the documentation to prove it. Why don’t we hear a lot about the fact that global temperatures have been going down for almost ten years? What is the ideal global temperature anyway? Ask yourself where the money goes for things like carbon offsets, cap and trade, and ethanol subsidies. How much more government regulation do we want in our lives? Technology will eventually come up with practical ways to replace our dependence on petroleum. Until then, hare-brained schemes, self-serving politicians, and ineffective government regulations will rob us of even more of our freedom without doing a damn thing for the planet.

  15. Dan Rambow

    Is global warming happening, yes!
    Is man partially to blame, yes! (we drive rv’s don’t we?)
    Is global warming a cycle that repeats from time to time, yes! (the Vikings called Greenland green for a reason, it was green in 900ad – Didn’t they really call it Vineland though in Norse?)

    Dating myself, I did a paper on the melting ice caps in high school in 1967. At that time, all the data I could gather, predicted that the north polar cap would be pretty much gone by 2050. Melting floating ice doesn’t raise sea level, but the added fresh water changes density, altering flows, diverting the gulf stream into the Arctic, causing even warmer water. The Arctic lands surounding the Acrtic Ocean now, are pretty much a desert in winter, no moisture in the air. But add warmer ‘open’ water to the mix, and you get snow, lots of snow. Over the years, glaciers form again, lowering the sea level, stopping the flow of warm water into the Arctic, causing it to freeze over again. And the cycle repeats.

    The only difference with this particular cycle, is that is is happening at a faster rate than the more recent warming cycles in the past. Even if there wasn’t global warming, it only makes sense to be more efficent with the resources we have. Solar, wind, tides, rivers, bio-energy should be maximized. I personally want a hydrogen powered RV, but it will probably be a while.

    Just my two cents.

  16. George Miller

    Bob, Do you and your sources agree or not that 95% of global warming is caused by water vapor?? George Miller

  17. Robert Mahon

    A personal comment:

    Negative, condemning remarks about a single commentary on this site is absolutely ridiculous and clearly demonstrates small-mindedness.

    Simply put; if you don’t like a discussion, stay out of it and keep your thoughts, or lack thereof, to yourself.

  18. Robert Mahon

    BD,

    I don’t agree with some that this is a media for RV’ing only. A little mind-stretching is good excercise.

    Of course I stretched a little and it is true that scientisits thrive on comparisons and debate. It’s what they do.

    Lastly, you alluded to the more recent, better, collection of data points and I agree. There is better information involved with today’s hypotheses and iterations will abound. However, the best information points to a change of .8 degrees F over the last 50 years. And, at least part of that is due to natural influence, which means that man is responsible for only part of the increase.

    The ice cap is shrinking in area BUT it is also getting thicker, increasing it’s volume. I guess we’ll have to wait another 1 to 2,000 years to see what this all really means.

    To my mind, this is not a cause for alarmism.

  19. Bob Difley

    Mgt and Tex – It’s OK to call my posts hogwash. That’s your right. But do you stop buying a newspaper if everything in it does not agree with your opinions? The same is with RV.net. You don’t have to read every post. Select those that interest you, and leave the debate of posts such as mine to those who enjoy and learn from discussing subjects that they may or may not agree with. But to reject RV.net, with the myriad subjects of value to RVers, is short-sighted at best. I find it difficult to fathom what causes so much anger to erupt against another person’s opinion. No one forces you to read my blogs, though I welcome you to do so and post your comments, but to think that RV.net will fail because I blog on subjects that I feel affect the RV Lifestyle–they certainly affect my lifestyle–makes me wonder who is forcing you to read them in the first place. There are wonderful, and very knowledgeable, bloggers with years of experience on their subjects offering their expertise on RV.net for free–none of us is paid one cent for the efforts we put in to the blog–that to reject the whole site because of one person’s opinion you disagree with is hard to understand.

  20. Bob Difley

    Robert Mahon – I think you are stretching some points. However, bottom line is that the scientists publish their hypotheses and theories in peer-reviewed journals, where those who disagree challenge, debate, and put forth their own versions. This constant struggle to arrive at the truth is what scientists live with every day. Some theories prove out, others change as time and studies go on. What was evidence 35 years ago has certainly gone through several iterations and challenges since then and I wouldn’t be surprised that the increased data has had some influence on today’s opinions. And these positions will continue to change, revise, and get updated. But again, you will seldom get all scientists to agree–or reach consensus–on anything. That is just not what scientists do.

  21. Bob Difley

    Drew Muller, I haven’t a clue.

  22. Bob Difley

    Fred – I recognized you from your picture even before I read your name on the comments. Handsome, devil, aren’t you.
    The main problem with man-made global warming is that it is so hard to prove, and to predict absolutely how it will affect the world because the levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere has never been reached before. The prognostications of what will follow are the best guesses of the world’s brightest and most educated climate scientists. Regardless of one’s own personal beliefs, I find it unbelievable that more people aren’t keeping a more open mind on these studies, and deciding that it my be more prudent to try to do something now–head off the inevitable if we do nothing–rather than wait until something drastic happens. I will still go along with the scientists, but hope that I am wrong at the same time. Thanks again for your comments.

  23. Bob Difley

    Carson says, “I really don’t enjoy these politics that have nothing to do with RVing.” I disagree that global warming and energy have nothing to do with RVing. I feel that they have a daily impact on RVers lives and ability to live the RV lifestyle, and will even more so in the future. The purpose of RV.net is to create a forum that covers all aspects of RVing, not just how to take care of your RV. This was a policy decision of the people who run the blog, and they are continually increasing the number of “expert bloggers” as they call them, and the subjects they write about , to make RV.net the leading forum on all aspects of the RV Lifefstyle. However, you are free to not read those blogs that are of no interest to you and concentrate on those that do, just as I do. I don’t care to read a blog about a campground that sponsors square dancing, but I certainly wouldn’t want to discourage you from doing so. I welcome your comments and encourage you to return as often as you like.

  24. Bob Difley

    Larry J. Guthrie challenges the quote from Tom Friedman’s book, “They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.” I don’t know if that is true, but the part about the “largest, longest,” etc. refers to the “formal review,” not the amount spent on studies of global warming, which Larry compares to the amount spent on cancer research. Whether it proves out in the superlatives or not however, the fact that it was an extensive study is the point of the statement. And Larry can say what he wants about the credibility of the UN, but the fact is that the IPCC study involved scientists from every developed country in the world, not employees of the UN. You can only go so far in trying to discredit everyone and every institution that you disagree and still try to present yourself as open-minded.

  25. Tex

    I agree with the hogwash aspect. I read RV blogs to read about RV stuff. This must be a novel idea for Bob Difley. He should post his crap on Mother Earth not RV.net. He is entitled to his opinion, but I don’t want to read it in an RV blog. Mgt is right but RV.net will become a dinosaur because people will get tired of reading this continual dribble from Bob that has very little if anything to do with RVs.

  26. Mgt

    Mark my words, the whole RV industry and Rv.net will go the way of the dinosaur when the global warming idiots have their way and gas is $6-7 a gallon! I hope your happy with that!

  27. Mgt

    What a load of hogwash! Global warming is a scheme to implement world wide socialism. Nothing more, nothing less. I just unsubscribed to this mindless drivel from rv.net please do not send me anymore emails. Ridiculous!

  28. Robert Mahon

    I am in the “This is questionable” crowd.

    As stated before, it was just a relatively short time ago (35 years or so) Time had an article about global cooling. I suspect many of these same “Scientists” offered their opinions on that too.

    At best, this is a controversial topic within the scientific community. In fact, just a short time ago it was considered that temperature changes on Pluto (where no anthropogenic influence is present) offer comparable results to what we see on Earth.

    It has more recently been declared that Pluto is not a Planet and, consequently, happenstance there does not reflect similar Solar influenced climate changes on Earth.

    Could this be a case of history being declared wrong to suit present day alarmism and selected empirical data?

    If so, what will they do about Mars? A place where temperature has also increased without anthropogenic influence. Will it be said that the ‘civilization’ suspected to have once been there became extinct due to global warming?

    I find it interesting, if not hypocritical, that many proponents of anthropogenically caused global warming are the very same people that oppose nucelar power. Is not that somewhat akin to blessing abortion while condemning capital punishment?

  29. Drew Mueller

    Will my digital tv get cable channels without a box?

  30. Fred

    Hi Bob Difley,

    Wow. What a variety of comments. There are some really intelligent and concerned readers out there. You have your hands full.

    To quote Machiavelli in part, “and partly from the incredulity of men”, out of context I might alter the word “incredulity” and replace it with “apathy.”

    On a generalized macro scale, a great number of Americans might best be described as apathetic. A large remainder might fall into the catagory of “resistant to change.”

    What’s left believes only what they detect with their own senses. At room temperature CO2 is invisible and odorless. It has no taste, you can’t pick it up – except in a Coke – and it’s neat to listen to or feel the effects up in your nose.

    But, that CO2 is on a miniscule scale. What’s in the atmosphere, in the oceans and trapped in rocks is on a grand scale. That’s the gas we can’t sense at all.

    To have people become aware of “too much” CO2, is has to have an effect on the body’s senses.

    Forget all the data collected – accurate or not. That is not having an effect. We are children – we think literally.

    My questions are; What am I supposed to feel? What in my past can I compare it to, to detect a difference? If there are no good answers, how can I best be convinced that collateral “damage” is indeed damaging?

    Like you, I’m trying to instill some interest into the generally uninformed. But, the resistance is currently stronger than the acceptance.

    As I’ve said before you will get through to some.

    I still can’t seem to figure out how to get a picture to embed with my comments.

    Take care, Fred

  31. Carson

    I really enjoy reading RV.net to learn about RVing, taking care of an RV etc. however, I really don’t enjoy these politics that have nothing to do with RVing. It would be great if we got back on the subject of RVing and quit the politics. I hear enough of it without reading about it on RV.net. thanks

  32. Larry J. Guthrie

    The quote you refer to, ““They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.” is straight out of Tom Friedman’s book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded

    And I expect the venerable Tom Friedman can’t prove that statement either. One contradictory situation disproves it. Cancer research has far and away spent more money on a scientific topic that the Global warming people have.

    The United Nations is a political body, nothing scientific about them. I can’t see where they have any creditability in any situation. They just barely do in political situations.

    Can I prove it? No. But would you rather that I believe what you say or an internationally respected columnist for the New York Times, a winner of three Pulitzer Prizes, and the writer of several New York Times best-selling books

    Actually I would rather have you believe neither the New York Times writer or me. Believe the New York Times report only if he states and proves HIS sources. Any statement such as ““They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.” is almost certainly false simple because it is so broad a statement and because nothing is likely to be “largest, longes, costliest, most international…” Rather naive to say it, even more naive to repeat it, even more so to believe it.

    But this is typical of the Global warmers. Just throw out a bunch of words and if anyone doesn’t go along, then say they don’t know. Maybe the world is getting warmer, maybe humans caused it. But nothing coming from the current crop of proponents is convincing.

  33. Bob Difley

    Len Grad says “I have heard other Experts that report, that the earth temp. has been cooling for the last 8 years.” That is contrary to the very accurate records of temperatures that have been kept for the last hundred years. What is your source?

  34. Bob Difley

    Charles Jenkins says “You do not know of what you speak.” Would you care to write a thoughtful rebuttal instead of just making a blanket statement?

  35. Bob Difley

    Larry – The quote you refer to, ““They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.” is straight out of Tom Friedman’s book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded. Can I prove it? No. But would you rather that I believe what you say or an internationally respected columnist for the New York Times, a winner of three Pulitzer Prizes, and the writer of several New York Times best-selling books?
    I would hope that my posts do not reflect what I pick up as random grabs off questionable internet sites. My research comes from respected sources that I am glad to state. Where do your statements come from, like the one “The earth may be getting warmer, but the cause is unknown.” That is completely contradictory to sources such as the United Nations, The Union of Concerned Scientists, most universities, most think tanks, and Pulitzer prize winners. Who can you mention, other than Sean Hannidy and Rush Limbaugh, that support your position?

  36. Bob Difley

    Ron H – You might want to mention also that Al Gore pays a premium on his electric bill to purchase his electricity from “green” sources, that he and Tipper both use the house as an office, thereby using more than a standard house, he purchases carbon offsets on the energy he uses reducing his carbon footprint to zero, and is installing solar panels to tap into a renewable energy source.
    Also, try not to interpret what you read as what you want to believe. Yes, CO2 does go up as the earth warms, much of it from the results of the original warming. But as far as it being “pure bunk” you are way off. Core samples are very accurate for reading CO2 in soil samples that go back 20 million years.

  37. Len Grad

    I have heard other Experts that report, that the earth temp. has been cooling for the last 8 years. I do not subscribe to the Gobal Warming relgion.
    I live in northern Canada I would welcome Global Warming, but alas it is not going to happen in my lifetime.

  38. Charles E Jenkins

    You do not know of what you speak.

  39. robin p

    Your quote is timely and appropriate to not only our global warming crises, but to our present financial and political turmoil.
    Well done.

  40. Larry J. Guthrie

    You state:

    “They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.”

    These same people and organizations said in the 1970’s that the world was going to freeze. Time magazine cover had something to the effect “GLOBAL FREEZE”

    Of course the world didn’t freeze, and the global warming hysterical hype won’t turn out to be much either. Their view is extremely short sighted and is certainly self serving. If the world doesn’t get warmer then they have no life, unless they jump on another bandwagon.

    Many scientists’ quit and don’t speak up against global warming because when they did they are immediately vilified and characterized as stupid. So much venon is spit upon them that they just quit. Most global warming advocates are much like religious zealots. And religious zealots have caused more wars and deaths than any other cause. I said religious zealots, don’t separate the two. I like religious folks, I’m one. But religious zealots and global warming zealots are an anathema and scourge upon the earth.

    The earth may be getting warmer, but the cause is unknown. Many believe it to be a natural cycle, but most would rather just shut than be screamed at.

    By the way your quote that I placed at the beginning of this is made up. I challenge you to provide citations that prove any of those statements. Largest, longest, most costly review of a scientific topic ever…not even close. For 1 instance the scientific community has been studying cancer and how to cure it for more than 50 years…and spent billions. Global warming is a relatively new fashion trend.

    Interdisciplinary, some of the organizations touting global warming are not disciplines.

    If you really want to be an advocate for global warming then study the situation instead of just repeating blindly what someone else has said. People will say anything. The internet is sort of like people sitting around a campfire, shooting the breeze. A favorite comment goes like ” I know it’s true because I had a friend that knows a person who had it happen to him” But they never have any personal knowledge of the subject.

    Larry

  41. Ron H

    It’s been a long, long time since I read ‘The Prince’, and not having the book handy, I am going from memory. As I recall, Machiavelli also states that, and I paraphrase, ‘the RULERS need not obey the same laws as the RULED’. The living example of this is Al Gore, who consumes 20 times the energy of the average home in America. Some leader! Practice what you preach.

    Your statement that CO2 levels haven’t been this high in 20 million years is pure bunk. There are many resources available that show the relationship between an increase in CO2 and earth’s warming is excactly the opposite of what Al Gore and his blind followers believe……CO2 increases FOLLOW increases in the earth’s temperature, usually caused by increased activity of sunspots. We are currently in a sunspot ‘lull’, which will produce lower temperatures over the next few decades.

  42. Jim Burnett

    Bob –

    Another good, thought-provoking post.

    Many of those who discount concerns about global warning like to say that such cycles are natural and have occurred before. I don’t quarrel with that, but also agree with your data that man’s activities on top of natural cycles are the reason for concern today.

    I suspect that at the root of “denial” that human activity is a factor is a key point – if we admit that humans are a factor, then to deal with the problem, we have to be willing to change our lifestyle in ways that might be inconvenient, uncomfortable, or perhaps even expensive. Horrors!