I like nature- I am a dirty, crunchy, organic-eating, bike-riding hippie.

[James Ennis]

I am sick of hearing about scientific consensus regarding global warming. Science is not based on consensus. The earth has experienced a net heat gain of 1 degree in the last 100 years, and none since 1998. There is even talk among scientists that this net gain may be negated due to the presense of heat islands. These heat islands are basically urban centers that absorb much more heat due to the amount of concrete and asphalt subjected to sunlight. And the sun itself has been experiencing much more solar activity in recent years. What the global warmers would like you to believe is that by reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, this will help to restore the earth's temperature to normal. But they don't tell you what that temperature is. Climatologists have examined the Greenland Ice Sheet and, through ice core samples, have determined that the CO2 levels today are less than what the earth has experienced in the past. Here it is in a nutshell. The earth's climate changes. It's CYCLICAL. There is nothing that we can do to change this cyclical pattern. Should we do our part to reduce the amount of junk that winds up in our landfills, YOU BET. Should we reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil, YOU BET. Should we encourage industries to develop cleaner methods of producing our goods and services, YOU BET. But don't try to push us back into the dark ages. I could go on about some of the other false statements made by the global warmers, such as the drowning polar bears. Their numbers have actually increased over the past 20 years, BTW. Just my rant for the day.

[Miguel Arboleda]

Scott, wasn't trying to pick a fight, honest. I was mainly trying to make exactly the same point that you just made, albeit in cruder and less considered words, that these discussions ought not to be following a simplistic approach to all this, that everywhere you go in the world, including the States, reality is a lot more complex than the politics show. It's just a little humorous to constantly see discussions like this referring to the policies of the Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, blacks and whites, nature and man, rich and poor… as if there really is always a marked and quantified difference in all these things, and as if having such polarized views of the real world really makes much difference to anything except maybe contention. I tend to see most people in the world as pretty much in the middle, with views mixed and matched from their exeperience, from the rigors of being alive, from the complicated nature of all environments. And that of course includes the States.

[kevin davidson]

As any good practitioner of black and white printing knows, there's an awful lot of territory between Black and White. I think this perspective worthy to apply to life, the universe and everything—and especially to all the nuances to be found in political and social issues. I welcome Miguel's comments on this thread as most Americans are almost completely unexposed to non-American world-views. Besides, they are delivered with intelligence and charm.

I'll end with the observation that polarization is far more rewarding as a tool in photography than as an attribute of human behavior.

cheers.

[Ernie Elkins]

Especially since the Bush administration took the helm, it’s been very trendy to refer to the US as a landscape divided between red and blue, right and left, republicans and democrats. Red states, blue states…before you know it, we all buy into this worldview (or, perhaps, nationview) that’s been sold to us, and we Americans turn issues of global importance into boxing matches between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. It’s easy to swallow, and it sells well in the media. The problem is that, as you point out Miguel, the issue is a lot bigger than partisan politics in the US. Even here, the act of reducing global warming to partisan politics is a gross oversimplification. I don’t doubt that there are more global warming proponents on the left than on the right, but all you have to do is take a look at Gov. Schwarzenegger in California or at the growing environmentalist block within the evangelical movement to see that this goes beyond simple left/right divisions. And just as there are global warming proponents on the right, there are skeptics on the left. Paglia is a good case in point. She may be liberal and may be a democrat, but to tag her with the "liberal dem" stereotype is much too easy — like all of us, she's more complex than that.

[Scott Peterson]

Miguel,

I agree with you. The "rigors of being alive" as you thoughtfully state, generally make most of the common folks more the same than different.

I would also add, that "Global Warmers" (sounds like a Rush Limbaugh, et al. phrase), or those that believe manmade carbon emissions are enhancing earth's own natural processes are in a lot of cases reasonable folks. I don't think anyone is denying that the earth warms and cools on time cycles beyond comprehension, but the amount of man-made carbon and other pollution period is growing exponentially. The "concensus" that is sneered at comes from a whole lot of the people that represent the smartest of our kind, who have spent their lives studying these issues…saying, YES…we are impacting the natural cycle.

The thing I cannot understand is how ANYONE can sit back and say…what has happened on the planet in the last 100 to 150 years is anywhere near what happened the previous 4.5 BILLION!!! What would make you think all that previous warming and cooling history was a place anywhere near what it is like now???

Furthermore, what positive benefit is derived from saying, "Well, the earth heats up sometimes"…so let's keep creating more people, drive Ford F350 Long beds 25 miles to work and back by ourselves, and throw 90% of the solid objects we purchased at Costco into a landfill within 2 weeks of buying it? We have gone down the wrong path for too long. If it means I have to go back to the stone age so my kids kids can live in a reasonably respected environment, and their kids kids can look back and not say "what did those people do?"…then so be it.

To write that reducing our dependance on "Foreign" oil is some kind of answer is a frightfully miopic view and plays right into Miguel's earlier statement about Americans.

[Anonymous]

Scott,
Right on! To which I might add that the consensus was reached by thousands of scientists from dozens of nations with widely varying cultures, histories, levels of economic development, etc. Yet they all ended up on the same page, as reflected by the recently released IPCC report, as well as an earlier report done under the auspices of the Swedish Royal Academy, not to mention the Kyoto agreement. To me, this kind of consensus is far beyond "belief". These people are the best we've got and the majority of them are saying we need to change our ways. So, listen up, folks, or at least stop sneering at them and calling them swindlers
or global warmers, or other derogatory appellations.

[Ernie Elkins]

James:

In addition to the good points that Scott and Tom have already made about your claims regarding the scientific consensus, you make some pretty sweeping assertions in "your rant for the day" about a number of issues, including your claim that urban heat islands might account for the net temperature gain in the last century. Based on my own reading, such claims don't stand up to scrutiny. I started putting together sources, but then I stumbled across this very thorough Wikipedia treatment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

Scroll to the bottom to the section titled "Relation to global warming."

[Wayne Kraft]

Global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide variation are caused by cyclical variations in solar activity. Increased levels of "greenhouse gases" are caused by increases in global temperature, not the reverse. Human activity has not and will not affect global climate change by a gnat's eyelash.

It may be we will fry and/or drown or it may be we will freeze. The pattern established thus far in the grand Holocene Epoch makes a future cooling cycle more likely than an unprecedented warming spiral that goes on forever. That's why I consider it such a privilege to be born a Holocenian. Either way, we don't get to choose.

Tyrants, politicians and various kelptocrats are betting the bank on this. They will impose draconian regulations to control our production of greenhouse gases (to the extent possible without decreasing tax revenue). We will observe these mandates with all the devotion with which we now honor traffic regulations and immigration laws, but pay the higher taxes demanded to fund fecund and muscular bureaucracies full of lawyers filing briefs and Secretaries and Ministers testifying solemnly before investigative bodies that couldn't find a trail junction with a GPS and a klieg light. Solar activity will cycle downward. The globe will cool. Our betters will declare themselves saviors of the entire human race and award themselves Nobel prizes, tax increases and the like.

Perhaps (oh, wouldn't it be so blessedly ironic?), the globe will cool just a bit too enthusiastically this time (as it did, say, in 1650, 1770 and 1880) and in a generation or so our Nobel prize winning global climate change arrestors' names will be spat out with the same disdain we now reserve for Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Paris Hilton. It is unlikely I'll live long enough to find out, but I would surely like to. Rather than cook or freeze to death, I'd perfer to die laughing.

OK, this issue has been taken care of and we needn't place it on the agenda again. Now, can anyone tell me if titanium wheels would improve the gas mileage on my SUV and, if so, where I might find some?

[s k]

James,

There may be some disagreement about warmer years subsequent to 1998. This article, http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html published in January 06 indicates that 2005 may be the warmest in the last century. I think I’ve read elsewhere that 2005 is the new champion, but compared to 1998, the difference is indeed small.

This article makes an additional point about 1998 and its strong El Nino. The article finds significance in the return to 1998 temperatures without the aid of an El Nino.

Also, I think, and perhaps mistakenly, that annual global mean temperatures are typically averaged into a five-year period when showing long term trends. I wouldn’t doubt that statistical warming may continue past 1998 given that the warmest years are listed as:

1. 2005
2. 1998
3. 2002
4. 2003
5. 2004

Do you have numbers in mind regarding the effect of recent solar activity?

I do think that we humans have managed to add to atmospheric CO2, so even if CO2 levels were higher in the past, I regard the thirty-six per-cent increase since pre industry as outside the normal planet cycle and as our/my responsibility. This article http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/infodata/faq_cat-3.html provides a perspective on the possibility of human complicity.

And by the way, I’ll second all your bets.

[George Matthews]

we need a hero…

Now I'm being serious.

[Brian UL]

I have watched this debate on many forums, now my veiw:
Global warming is irrelevent, yes I said it.
I would think it would be far,FAR more productive if we all stopped pretending we are going to "save the world" (literally!)and put our efforts into things like reducing/eliminating pollution, habitat loss, genetic food tampering, waste of all kinds, and cleaner energy in our own respective communities. You should worry more about the mercury in the water down the street getting into your childs system and less about scientific journals on controversal theories, that if true are out of your hands anyway. In fact, if global warming is true and it is caused by man -it got that way because we didnt do our part in our own neigborhoods!Some people are overly fanatical about global warming because they are under the false impression that "if it where only true -we can finally get some real progress in the enviromental front!" Nah!, We KNOW for sure -no controversy here- that the things we buy, consume, patterns of behavior and so on- do cause tremendous harm to the local enviroment, us, and our own CHILDREN. Yet we did/do little. Why? a seprate issue, but I suspect its not as glamorous as socalizing at a rally in D.C or the U.N.
We see a constant flow of scientific sounding posts thick with "references","statistics", and "professors"-some credible some not- I dont know? Do you? Debating scientific matters to laymen by a laymen who knows this guy , who read this here, who has a freind whos counsin saw glabal warming…..It just isnt productive IMYO.

[Mike Barney]

Now, can anyone tell me if titanium wheels would improve the gas mileage on my SUV and, if so, where I might find some?

Yes they will, they have a significantly lower moment of inertia than your basic Michelin LTX. You can find 4 used ones on the lunar rover, yours for the taking. (OK, they're actually steel / aluminum / titanium hybrids)

[Wayne Kraft]

Now we're getting somewhere. Wasn't there a used Saturn rocket for sale in the Gear Swap forum?

[George Matthews]

we don't need no stinkin titanium wheels

:)

[Ali e]

This was a great post. I would love to learn more. I only have one of everything I use (exept for knifes)and these days I use very little. For the most part I live my life out of my pack or I will again once my sailboat defrosts and I can get back in. Teach me more please. A

[Jesse Corrington]

I have only read the first page of responses, but there were some very good things to think about. Hopefully I have time to read the rest, as I think about these issues often.

Over the past 6 months I have been in the process of rediscovering myself and downsizing every aspect of my life. I have been donating and selling a lot of what I own in an attempt to completely minimize my life and find peace and happiness in simple living. I thought I was finally free of the pull of consumerism, until a month ago I started researching gear for my first UL backpacking set. I found myself obsessing over gear and wanting material possessions like I used to in the past. I realize I have to acquire a certain amount of stuff to be able to backpack, but once I have that gear, I don't even want to think about gear. I want to be able to just grab my bag, not worry about if it is 7 oz too heavy, and hit the trails. A previous poster noted how the gear forum is so full, and the trip forum so empty. This mirrors many of ours lives, and even mine in the past.

So, I want to not just go ultra light on the trail, but in life in general. This means i'll have to make some sacrifices, to keep my backpacking gear small, but I think it's worth it. I don't want 5 sleeping bags, I just want one, even if it is 10 oz heavy in the heat of summer.

[Jim MacDiarmid]

One of the rationalizations I use to make it okay with myself when buying a new UL piece of gear (and right now, I only have, for the most part, one each of each piece of UL gear, it only gets into duplicates when accounting for the non-UL stuff I bought before I found BPL) is that it's made by small business-people. My money isn't going to stockholders or executives at The North Face, they're going to people just like you or me who happen to have a talent for making gear. Read this profile of ULA's Brian Frankle or this article that talks about GG Glen Van Peski, just to name a couple. People can talk about putting together a super cheap gear kit at Walmart, and you can, but why not just spend more(if you can) and support fellow backpacking addicts?

When you really start to look at their gear, it becomes less about materialism, and more about appreciating great workmanship. I want to own (if I could afford it) multiple pieces because they're each so excellent. It's like eating cheaply at McDonalds vs a nice restaurant. Both fulfill your need to eat, but one is (for most people, I think) a much more pleasurable experience, living to eat vs merely eating to live.

There's also nothing wrong with having the right piece of gear for the right situation. Sure, it'd be nice to have one bag. I tried that last summer, and I roasted. To have one warm enough for winter made sleeping in summer a miserable experience. A pack big enough for winter gear is going to be way too big for summer gear.

In the end, it's not about having the gear but why you want it, and that's what one needs to ask oneself when contemplating a new purchase. Why? Because it's a rush buying something, retail therapy; because it's something trendy, it'll make you part of the in-crowd; because you want to keep up with the Jones's; or because it's something that will genuinely improve your experience of life. If it's the last case, and you can afford it, go for it.

[Roger Caffin]

> It's like eating cheaply at McDonalds vs a nice restaurant.

Ah, but which one is better?
Which one gives you the greatest food value for money?
Which one lists the detailed nutritional value of their foods on the wall?
Which one gets you service in 5 minutes, as opposed to waiting half an hour?
Which one will serve you cheerfully even if you are wet and muddy?
Which one will refill your coffee cup if you ask?

Tricky stuff.

Cheers

[Rog Tallbloke]

> Some people are overly fanatical about global warming because they are under the false impression that "if it where only true -we can finally get some real progress in the enviromental front!" Nah!

A good post Brian. The way the deal is shaping up is that we will all pay the co2 emission bills for the big emitters in higher energy prices, and they will carry on business as usual.

The phrase which comes to mind is

"Think globally – act locally."

[Tony Beasley]

After reading how much CO2 is generated everytime a Google search is done

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10141432-54.html

I started wondering how much CO2 has been generated by the thread debate on BPL about global warming.

Tony

[Rog Tallbloke]

NM. I'll stick to the other thread.

[Author]

Posts