Vincent Cocotti and Global Warming

We can go back and forth all day on the daily shenanigans of politics debating whether corporations are people my friend or whether you would ever want to live in a state where the standing governor refers to an entire group of job applicants as either on drugs or illiterate.  

We are merely repeating a process as ancient and as acrimonious as when Plato insulted Socrates by saying he looked like Charles Krauthammer. We will continue to have political discourse and debate until we crawl back into the oceans from whence we came or if you believe otherwise, until God un-Adam and Eves us.

 What we should be able to say without debate is whether Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) actually exists but unfortunately the debate appears to continue. 

Google “man made global warming” and see what comes up.

First link is http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/ - is from Dr Roy W. Spencer - “This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.”  

The next link http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/10/scientific-case-man-made-global-warming-fears-dead/41257  claims “a forthcoming Climate Depot A-Z Climate Reality Check report on the failure of the science behind man-made global warming theory will shatter any such illusions that the climate is "worse than we thought." 

It is not until the fifth link that we see concluded that the possibility the world is warming because of natural variations in climate (such as increased volcanic or solar activity) is "increasingly remote." Instead, they firmly pin the blame on man's burning of fossil fuels.”

So here is my problem – I am not a meteorologist nor an climatologist nor do I have a Dr. before my name.  I’ve read about AGW but no where near enough to be any kind of expert. But given the amount of information available and the stakes at hand you have to form an opinion. 

My belief are based on two things – 1. If you put enough stuff in the toilet it is going to overflow and  2. You want to avoid the worst thing that can happen.

Number 1 the “toilet” - according to the Union of Concerned Scientists burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:

• 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
• 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
• 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
• 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.
• 720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.
• 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
• 170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
• 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
• 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.

Now with scientists, funny group that they are, data should be data except when people take leave of their senses and try to push an agenda like the Climate Research Unit at England's University of East Anglia.

Like the character Vincent Cocotti said in the movie True Romance  “Woulda got away with it, but your son, fuckhead that he is, left his driver's license in a dead guy's hand.”. So would have the Climate Research Unit at England's University of East Anglia had they not left a bunch of emails in a dead guys’ hand. It resulted in a huge backlash on the position of AGW and cast doubt on the scientific research that supported it.  But support of AGW has since rebounded and the number of AGW voices have increased.

Number 2 - what is the worst thing that can happen – if we take action  to reduce AGW (if it is not to late) there will be a significant effect (some say dramatic) on the world’s economy. Now tanking the economy is bad – bad wrong for that matter but when compared to the effects of global warming; dangerous weather patterns, unstable agriculture and economy, effects on animals; a world we could potentially leave for our children.  Now that is just unacceptable.  No can do. 

I was motivated to write this blog by comments left during previous posts that referenced  global warming – I extend an offer to those more knowledgeable than me to use this as a forum.  The comment section is too restrictive – write a blog and I will post it here as a guest post. 

"I know one thing, that I know nothing" - Socrates