Comments for Wonderingmind42's Weblog

Comment on About by Justin Gudgeon

Justin Gudgeon — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:50:14 +0000

When the Black Death started in London in 1665, the authorities felt compelled to do something. They didn’t know how the disease was spreading but, like ‘Wonderingmind42’ decided the risk of doing nothing was greater than doing something even though it might turn out to be a waste of time and money. As I understand it, this is the position being advocated by ‘Wanderingmind42’ regarding Climate Change.

The action the Government decided to take in 1665, was to follow the advice of the ‘Established’ experts who advised that all the cats and dogs in London should to be put down. Over three million cats and dogs were destroyed in the space of a week. The result was that the rats multiplied and the Bubonic plague, carried as it was by rats, not cats, turned into a massive killer epidemic.

In the video, “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See” , Wanderingmind42 is advocating doing the same sort of thing with regards Global Warming. By advocating some sort of radical action, Mr Wanderingmind42 is assuming the ‘experts’ know what they are talking about and no serious harm could come out of following their suggestions. This is a serious mistake. Virtually all the correct scientific prognostications throughout history, have come from marginalised individuals or groups OUTSIDE the accepted scientific consensus while the established ‘experts’ always got it wrong, often with disastrous results.

In his video, Mr Wonderingmind42 makes an extraordinary statement:

“This is where we get to set aside this whole contentious debate……by acknowledging that no-one can know with absolute certainty what the physical world will do…”

Really? I think what he means is, “In the absence of any real facts…..no-one can know with absolute certainty what the physical world will do.” In that case, let’s have some facts, not opinions:

In order for there to be a year-on-year rise in atmospheric CO2, the rate at which CO2 is put into the atmosphere (through combustion, respiration and decomposition) has to be greater than the amount of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere, by whatever means. All agree? Absolute certainty?

Do we know with certainty that: 2C8H18 (typical fuel)+ 25O2 = 18H2O + 16CO2 + heat? Yes we do! We know for certain that fossil-fuel plus oxygen will burn and produce lots of carbon dioxide and heat. We can even find out for ourselves that burning fossil-fuel will produce about three tons of CO2 for every ton of fuel burned. These are facts we know for certain.

Do we know how plants grow? Yes we do! I feel certain that: 6CO2 + 6H2O + sunlight = C6-H12-O6(cellulose and sugars) + 6O2 or put more simply, a plant, in the presence of sunlight and water, will draw in carbon dioxide, produce more leaves and push out oxygen. I believe this is accepted as fact not just opinion.

I also know for certain that when I took a flower-pot with a growing plant in it and put it on a set of scales and put the scales on a flat rigid sheet and covered it with a bell-jar, then put the whole apparatus on another set of scales, I noticed the flower-pot getting heavier during the day while the weight of the whole apparatus stayed the same. I am certain that the plant used about three units of Carbon dioxide to produce one unit of dried biomass meaning that a farmer’s field yielding five tones of wheat and straw per acre must have used up fifteen tons of CO2.

Can everyone understand this? Does anyone disagree with this?

It is estimated the amount of organic matter produced world-wide by photo-autotrophic growth is about 150,000,000,000 tons per year. This means the amount of CO2 sequested from the atmosphere to produce this mass of organic matter must be in the order of 450,000,000,000 tons.

Yes, most of the carbon in this biomass is eventually returned to the atmosphere via various oxidizing processes but more than 7% doesn’t return to the biosphere and can be regarded as being permanently removed from the carbon cycle. This includes the creation of irreducible biomass including peat swamps, organic sediments, top-soils, carboniferous oceanic depositions and the 4 billion tons of carbon-based waste buried every year in landfill sites. Altogether, this represents about 31 billion tons of CO2 permanently removed from the atmosphere. For our part, (According to the US Energy Information Administration), we put back about 29 billion tons of CO2 through fossil-fuel burning and other manufacturing processes.

That looks like a net reduction of 2 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every year. I propose that this is an accurate picture of what is going on in our atmosphere. It fits with the known facts which are that there is only a trace of carbon dioxide left in the air and a great deal of oxygen. This thinning of the atmosphere would, in all probability, have a destabilising effect on the weather patters.

Comment on About by Eric

Eric — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:03:03 +0000

I don’t say this lightly, your videos are awesome. As a fellow science teacher, i envy your energy, articulation, and sheer determination to be so thorough. You have really done a great job and i often use your examples in my classroom when we speak about climate issues(which is quite often). Thank you. I really see you as an asset to those of us who are trying to fight the good fight.

Comment on About by Fiona Swingland

Fiona Swingland — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:00:11 +0000

Dear Greg,

I am the Production Manager at CeDEP, part of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. www. soas.uk/cedep

We offer distance learning Masters’ degree programmes, and are currently developing a new module entitled ‘Climate Change and Development’.

We would like to include the following 2 of your ‘You Tube’ videos on a CD that is distributed to the students (approximately 100 annually).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=video_response

This would be for educational, non-profit purposes.

I would be grateful to have your permission to use your material in this manner.

Because of the unreliablity of internet links, we would prefer to include the media file on the CD.

Many thanks

Fiona Swingland
Learning Resources Production Co-ordinator

Comment on About by SvenAERTS

SvenAERTS — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:10:23 +0000

Dear Greg, Einstein and many other that had to deal with “complex” situations went through the same pattern… eventually crashes. One of the things that you may find usefull is the Agenda21 blue-print to make it to beyond the next century. Your way to help people make-up their mind, recuperate many that are now lost in a jungle of over-information. You will soon feel you are not alone, have not been working alone in small or not so small rooms, alone or not so alone on complex issues. Agenda21 is a worldwide action as you know, many of the brightest and in powerfull places as well as completely on the other side of the spectrum: grassroots and individuals are using it as a plan of action for their day-to-day lives and strategical plans. I’m writing you from part of my life in Agenda21-Chapter IV, more specifically “How to bring part of the money circulating in the “Low Carbon Economy” to the citizen.” This brings me into Strategical Management exercices with some top-consulting companies, top companies, governments, educational institutions, media, finaniers, … Part of the money I make there, I will transfer to your account. Untill I get your account, I’ll contribute by buying your book. I also invite you to collaborate in integrating parts of your book in Agenda21 exercices.
From Brussels, Capital of the Largest Emission Trading System on the Planet and fully engaged in Agenda21,
Sven
Speaking 5 languages and holding 3 degrees minimum.

Comment on About by Howard Knudsen

Howard Knudsen — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:01:39 +0000

Thank you!

Thank you for investing so much effort in trying to change the world.

You are a complement to the whole human race.

Well played.

-Howard Knudsen

Comment on The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See by Nolan

Nolan — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:47:55 +0000

Also, how is it that you look to the government for help when they are the worst offenders. How environmentally friendly is the Iraq War or any war for that matter. Also, My lab is located in the EPA Human Studies building on the UNC campus. This is a Federal EPA building yet it is the most inefficient environmentally unfriendly building on campus. HMMM! Every year we have a meeting about how to make the building more efficient and nothing ever gets done about it. Government at its best!

Comment on The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See by Nolan

Nolan — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:27:12 +0000

I meant made the paper industry more environmentally unfriendly. Sorry for the typo.

Comment on The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See by Nolan

Nolan — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:25:25 +0000

Environmentalism is great, trying to get renewable energy as our main source of energy is awesome, and so on and so forth. However, your argument on how to solve it with policy changes is your major flaw! Spreading the word is great and spending your money with businesses that promote and practice environmentally safe production is even better. But to think government’s “Cap and Trade” will help the situation is NUTS. These are the same people that made the paper industry more environmentally friendly. They did this by passing a bill that gave tax incentives to companies that used biofuels. Sounds great doesn’t it. However, the paper industry (who produced paper in an environmentally friendly manner minus the cutting down of trees) decided to substitute one of its fuels for biodiesel. Now the paper industry pollutes more. Way to go on that policy change. My second problem with your argument is with the risk management approach. It sounds good and would make sense to somebody who was not thinking very hard about the topic. Your argument assumes that we are not doing anything at the moment to protect the environment. Yet, there is a huge green movement in industry trying to come up with better environmentally friendly technologies. Every commercial has something to say about how the company is becoming greener. GEE Why is that? Because consumers spending power is a great motivator. So instead of policy changes you should tell people to only spend their hard earned money with companies that fit in with their environmental ideals. That would be a lot better than passing a bunch of legislation that is not going to speed up technological advances and is instead going to hit families very hard by taking away their spending power. The American Clean Energy and Security Act that is now in the senate would cost each American family nearly $12,500. That is going to hurt a lot of people. On top of that the bill is 1400 pages long and passed the house without people even reading it. So vote by choosing where to spend your money. This leads me into my last comment which is for Bruce. Bruce it is not just multinational corporations that are worried about the economy. Normal hardworking people are worried about the economy. This bill is going to tax the consumer not the corporations because they are just going to pass the cost down to us. So I hope your business is highly successful because your living expenses will skyrocket if this legislation is passed. By the way I am a scientist that works for the UNC School of Medicine and more specifically the Center for Environmental Medicine, Asthma, and Lung Biology.

Comment on About by Gary

Gary — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:01:14 +0000

I enjoyed your presentations very much but I’m not convinced. The contrary evidence from other experts and the suppression of opposing views as well as the outright propaganda of some of the their claims leads me to conclude this is more of a political position rather than a heroic scientific endeavor. Question: Name one country anywhere that has met its Kyoto CO2 emissions goals? Just one! Second, why were the emerging nations left out of the requirement? Why was Russia exempted? Why was Russia allowed to sell its credits to countries not able to achieve its targeted CO2 emissions goals and still pollute as much as they desire while we are expected to bare the burden of reductions? Why was China and India exempted, both who are now significant and growing sources of CO2 emissions? In a global economy, how does it benefit the global environment if our jobs (industrial production) goes off shore to countries under no restrictions? Isn’t this a net zero sum game? How is the environment benefited? Why did Canada drop out, a NAFTA partner? I might agree if we all were in this together but we are not. Your argument breaks down on the politics of the situation. And those emerging nations, who do they want to emulate? Of coarse those filthy rich capitalistic Americans. And what of the third world nations? What happens to them? They are discouraged from developing their own natural resources which leads to deforestation and loss of habitat for other species, a continuing ecological disaster in many underveloped countries. No my friend, a very interesting and entertaining production but politically its truly unsolvable. I refuse to be stampeded off the cliff like a dim witted lemming. You want to go off the cliff, then be my guest. I’m not going!

On the science: I believe that the Earth’s climate is cyclical. We are now within the medium of the known temperature variations in recordable history, the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age. During the Medieval warm period the Norsemen colonized Greenland and raised sheep and planted vineyards until the climate changed and forced them to leave or starve. Since then Greenland has not been hospitable to human habitation. No, I believe the Sun is the driver of climate change and nothing we can do on the human level will ever correct that. Besides, even if you were correct, the political issues will never be resolved. The proposed Cap and Trade legislation is going to be an economic nighmare for the US. The promise that this is a “jobs bill” is absolute unmitigated nonsense by the Marxist we have masquerading as a president who feels that “whitey” has to pay..

Your presentation: “Mathematics, Population, and Energy” was very profound. I have been concerned for some time that our present economic system is not sustainable. This goes to prove my assumptions were correct and more frightening than I realized. BUT THIS HAS NO BEARING ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. It is a separate and more important issue. Perhaps instead of bankrupting ourselves on “Cap and Trade” we should put a lot more money into the existing fission technology, development of fusion technology (a new Manhattan project) , use of fuel cells, and the burning of hydrogen. I think this a better plan and more better use of our resources from which the whole wold could benefit than a zero sum game.

Comment on About by Zweibel

Zweibel — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:53:30 +0000

Hi Greg Thanks for the video. I enjoyed it. It is always nice to listen to somebody who can think clearly.
Nonetheless, I have some comments. Please note that I am German and that my English is therefore not perfect.
At the end of the video you seem to suggest that there is still time for us to change and that climate change is something we can deal with if we all join forces. I’m certainly not a pessimist, but I’m afraid I don’t see how this can work.
To combat climate change, we somehow have to find a way to ensure that the entire world population lives in a sustainable way. But how can this be archived? We all know that sustainability and growth are simply not compatible – for simple arithmetic reasons:

If the world population is growing, the size of our planet has to grow at the same rate to allow for sustainable living. Since this is not possible, we need zero per cent growth in population. But we all know that this is never going to happen. Everything mankind does is aimed at increasing the growth in population. We fight diseases, promote healthy living, increase safety and so on.

In short:

1. Climate change can only be slowed down or possibly even reversed (very unlikely) if we find a way to live on this planet in a sustainable way.

2. Sustainable living requires zero growth in population. As soon as you have growth, you have a predictable outcome. A lot of us have read Dr Bartlett’s about the misconception of the exponential function: if growth continues as it is now (which it will and must), there will be room for exactly one person per square meter on this planet in approx. 700 years.
3. The inability of mankind to DIRECTLY promote higher death figures means that the reduction in growth will have to be achieved INDIRECTLY. Climate change is exactly this indirect way: climate change and its effect on life will ensure that the true yet impossible outcome of one person per square meter in 700 years will never become reality.