Trollking:

i see what you're getting at, but it seems a bit misguided. thugs don't dominate because "no law prevents their doing so"-- there are plenty of laws against their thuggishness. rather, thugs dominate because the entire industry is outlawed, and who in that industry is going to report that they've been wronged by another?

It amounts to the same thing. By trying to outlaw drugs altogether, the state has abrogated any authority to regulate the industry short of outlawing it. Since enforcing the ban on drugs has proven impossible, the net result is that the industry exists and is not regulated, even by basic criminal law.

i would change the phrase "usually extremes are...." to "extremes are always...."

I was being slightly more cautious. Somebody's bound to mention an extreme that is actually justified. 8)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Trollking:

i see what you're getting at, but it seems a bit misguided. thugs don't dominate because "no law prevents their doing so"-- there are plenty of laws against their thuggishness. rather, thugs dominate because the entire industry is outlawed, and who in that industry is going to report that they've been wronged by another?

It amounts to the same thing. By trying to outlaw drugs altogether, the state has abrogated any authority to regulate the industry short of outlawing it. Since enforcing the ban on drugs has proven impossible, the net result is that the industry exists and is not regulated, even by basic criminal law.

And beyond that, the outlawing of the drug industry has forced the more ethical and responsible businessmen (with whom most of us tend to prefer trading in the first place) completely out of the industry. To a significant degree, only the scum remains to fill the demand; and except in very rare (and fairly recently occuring) circumstances, those on the demand side of the drug industry are stuck doing business with what the laws leave them -- criminals. This makes a nontrivial contribution to the state of the drug market as it exists today.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Trollking:

i see what you're getting at, but it seems a bit misguided. thugs don't dominate because "no law prevents their doing so"-- there are plenty of laws against their thuggishness. rather, thugs dominate because the entire industry is outlawed, and who in that industry is going to report that they've been wronged by another?

It amounts to the same thing. By trying to outlaw drugs altogether, the state has abrogated any authority to regulate the industry short of outlawing it. Since enforcing the ban on drugs has proven impossible, the net result is that the industry exists and is not regulated, even by basic criminal law.

And beyond that, the outlawing of the drug industry has forced the more ethical and responsible businessmen (with whom most of us tend to prefer trading in the first place) completely out of the industry. To a significant degree, only the scum remains to fill the demand; and except in very rare (and fairly recently occuring) circumstances, those on the demand side of the drug industry are stuck doing business with what the laws leave them -- criminals. This makes a nontrivial contribution to the state of the drug market as it exists today.

Justin:

And beyond that, the outlawing of the drug industry has forced the more ethical and responsible businessmen (with whom most of us tend to prefer trading in the first place) completely out of the industry.

The only businessmen that the ban, separate from the state's abdication of responsibility, has forced out are those who are not only ethical and responsible but also law abiding -- a distinct category. One can be ethical and responsible but also willing to break laws, when the laws seem foolish and when one can get away with it.

The reason people like that aren't in the illegal drug trade (except marijuana, and even there not on a large scale) is not because the drugs are illegal but because the trade isn't governed by law, and they cannot compete with the scumbags.

Justin:

And beyond that, the outlawing of the drug industry has forced the more ethical and responsible businessmen (with whom most of us tend to prefer trading in the first place) completely out of the industry.

The only businessmen that the ban, separate from the state's abdication of responsibility, has forced out are those who are not only ethical and responsible but also law abiding -- a distinct category. One can be ethical and responsible but also willing to break laws, when the laws seem foolish and when one can get away with it.

The reason people like that aren't in the illegal drug trade (except marijuana, and even there not on a large scale) is not because the drugs are illegal but because the trade isn't governed by law, and they cannot compete with the scumbags.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The reason people like that aren't in the illegal drug trade (except marijuana, and even there not on a large scale) is not because the drugs are illegal but because the trade isn't governed by law, and they cannot compete with the scumbags.

It's not that they can't compete with the scumbags; just that a rational risk/payoff analysis where one of the risks is a lifetime of torture and sexual abuse (aka imprisonemnt in the US) -- and the financial crushing of your family to boot -- likely leads one to pursue other venues. Let us also not forget that the massive profits which stand to be made in the illegal drug trade exist as a direct result of legal action -- to wit, the prohibition of certain substances. You can not reasonably hold up the drug trade as a paradigm of "pure" laissez faire because it is most assuredly not operating outside the influence of laws.

The residential landscaping industry -- operating on the west side of the Portland Metro area generally under the table, by undocumented immigrants -- is a better model of lawless enterprise. Lots of violence associated with that, now isn't there?

OTOH, I'm sure if we think hard enough, someone can come up with an industry that actually exists completely outside of laws. Let me know what it is when you find it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The reason people like that aren't in the illegal drug trade (except marijuana, and even there not on a large scale) is not because the drugs are illegal but because the trade isn't governed by law, and they cannot compete with the scumbags.

It's not that they can't compete with the scumbags; just that a rational risk/payoff analysis where one of the risks is a lifetime of torture and sexual abuse (aka imprisonemnt in the US) -- and the financial crushing of your family to boot -- likely leads one to pursue other venues. Let us also not forget that the massive profits which stand to be made in the illegal drug trade exist as a direct result of legal action -- to wit, the prohibition of certain substances. You can not reasonably hold up the drug trade as a paradigm of "pure" laissez faire because it is most assuredly not operating outside the influence of laws.

The residential landscaping industry -- operating on the west side of the Portland Metro area generally under the table, by undocumented immigrants -- is a better model of lawless enterprise. Lots of violence associated with that, now isn't there?

OTOH, I'm sure if we think hard enough, someone can come up with an industry that actually exists completely outside of laws. Let me know what it is when you find it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The reason people like that aren't in the illegal drug trade (except marijuana, and even there not on a large scale) is not because the drugs are illegal but because the trade isn't governed by law, and they cannot compete with the scumbags.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I'm sure if we think hard enough, someone can come up with an industry that actually exists completely outside of laws. Let me know what it is when you find it.

It would appear that Marx's maxim is alive and well, circa 2003: Opium, er, scratch that, Opiate is the religion of the masses.

Yuck, yuck, folks. Ain't life, in America, er, burp, puke, grand? :wink:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The reason people like that aren't in the illegal drug trade (except marijuana, and even there not on a large scale) is not because the drugs are illegal but because the trade isn't governed by law, and they cannot compete with the scumbags.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I'm sure if we think hard enough, someone can come up with an industry that actually exists completely outside of laws. Let me know what it is when you find it.

It would appear that Marx's maxim is alive and well, circa 2003: Opium, er, scratch that, Opiate is the religion of the masses.

Yuck, yuck, folks. Ain't life, in America, er, burp, puke, grand? :wink:

I'm feeling just a little bit condescended to when everyone seems to think I don't even understand the concept of peer review. I said I don't know a whole lot about ecology; I never said I don't understand scientific methodology!
I do, and I will use my also not inconsiderable levels of basic intelligence and common sense to decipher what I read in the context of what I have already studied and learned. I am not without contextual references of previous origin and comprehensive understanding of complex systems as they exist in our world. In other words, talking down to me is not neccessary. I am fully cognizant of each of your respective points of view by simple inference, and I am intellectually able to classify them according to more complex systems of hierarchies in my own mind. So stop all this prattle about howI should think. I'm not going to think in any way you can influence. I do not like being the default "ignorant person" in your collective view of how perhaps other "ignorant people" can better educate themselves about anything, be it ecology or genetics or physics or philosophy. You collectively show such a strong penchant towards the notion of an "intellectual elite" you might as well all supply each other with special library cards. I wonder how much of environmental affairs are disrupted and stymied by people such as you who assume you know so much more than the people who actually earn a living by exploiting the "biosphere" and provide you with the food you eat in your tax-subsidized cafeterias everyday, whatever that really means in real terms.

Right now I am much more attracted to Marc Lamb's input than any other source, just because he doesn't require that I hate myself. I don't think the causes of the various previous species-culling eras operated in nature with any self-awareness, and are therefore considered "natural." What is unnatural now? Is the proliferation of humans unnatural? Who can say, and what difference does such a pronouncement make? Just wondering.

I'm feeling just a little bit condescended to when everyone seems to think I don't even understand the concept of peer review. I said I don't know a whole lot about ecology; I never said I don't understand scientific methodology!
I do, and I will use my also not inconsiderable levels of basic intelligence and common sense to decipher what I read in the context of what I have already studied and learned. I am not without contextual references of previous origin and comprehensive understanding of complex systems as they exist in our world. In other words, talking down to me is not neccessary. I am fully cognizant of each of your respective points of view by simple inference, and I am intellectually able to classify them according to more complex systems of hierarchies in my own mind. So stop all this prattle about howI should think. I'm not going to think in any way you can influence. I do not like being the default "ignorant person" in your collective view of how perhaps other "ignorant people" can better educate themselves about anything, be it ecology or genetics or physics or philosophy. You collectively show such a strong penchant towards the notion of an "intellectual elite" you might as well all supply each other with special library cards. I wonder how much of environmental affairs are disrupted and stymied by people such as you who assume you know so much more than the people who actually earn a living by exploiting the "biosphere" and provide you with the food you eat in your tax-subsidized cafeterias everyday, whatever that really means in real terms.

Right now I am much more attracted to Marc Lamb's input than any other source, just because he doesn't require that I hate myself. I don't think the causes of the various previous species-culling eras operated in nature with any self-awareness, and are therefore considered "natural." What is unnatural now? Is the proliferation of humans unnatural? Who can say, and what difference does such a pronouncement make? Just wondering.

Originally Posted by Suz X

I'm feeling just a little bit condescended to when everyone seems to think I don't even understand the concept of peer review. I said I don't know a whole lot about ecology; I never said I don't understand scientific methodology!

....You collectively show such a strong penchant towards the notion of an "intellectual elite" you might as well all supply each other with special library cards. I wonder how much of environmental affairs are disrupted and stymied by people such as you who assume you know so much more than the people who actually earn a living by exploiting the "biosphere" and provide you with the food you eat in your tax-subsidized cafeterias everyday, whatever that really means in real terms.

Many who post here, write for each other and a general audience of lurkers in response to a particular question. From one of "the people who actually earn a living by exploiting the "biosphere" and provide you with the food you eat ", I would allow you and everyone else to be offended as often as you wish and if drives you to Mr. Lamb, the more power to him. 8) As to the charge of "intellectual elite", I am both bemused and honored that such a notion is about in these levelling times.

Originally Posted by Suz X

I'm feeling just a little bit condescended to when everyone seems to think I don't even understand the concept of peer review. I said I don't know a whole lot about ecology; I never said I don't understand scientific methodology!

....You collectively show such a strong penchant towards the notion of an "intellectual elite" you might as well all supply each other with special library cards. I wonder how much of environmental affairs are disrupted and stymied by people such as you who assume you know so much more than the people who actually earn a living by exploiting the "biosphere" and provide you with the food you eat in your tax-subsidized cafeterias everyday, whatever that really means in real terms.

Many who post here, write for each other and a general audience of lurkers in response to a particular question. From one of "the people who actually earn a living by exploiting the "biosphere" and provide you with the food you eat ", I would allow you and everyone else to be offended as often as you wish and if drives you to Mr. Lamb, the more power to him. 8) As to the charge of "intellectual elite", I am both bemused and honored that such a notion is about in these levelling times.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Suz X

...You collectively show such a strong penchant towards the notion of an "intellectual elite" you might as well all supply each other with special library cards.

Many who post here, write for each other and a general audience of lurkers in response to a particular question. From one of "the people who actually earn a living by exploiting the "biosphere" and provide you with the food you eat ", I would allow you and everyone else to be offended as often as you wish and if drives you to Mr. Lamb, the more power to him. 8) As to the charge of "intellectual elite", I am both bemused and honored that such a notion is about in these levelling times.

No power is sought, on my part, save the power found in the truth. "Peter Garrett's anger lost out to cool logic," writes Miranda Devine in Slaying the Green Monster.

Peter Garrett had burnt the Midnight Oil penning words like, "How can we dance when our earth is turning/How do we sleep while our beds are burning?" Such an emotional approach to world problems is common among the young. What follows, in this kind of "self hatred," is everlasting guilt and despair for having been concieved in the first place: A very nomadic trait.


Problems? Yes. A burning bed? No.

"Peter Garrett's anger lost out to cool logic," writes Miranda Devine. Here's some "cool logic" for ya:

 In 1900 we lived an average 30 years. Now we live to 67.

 In 1970, 35 per cent of people in developing countries were starving. By 1996 the figure was 18 per cent and the UN predicts it to fall to 6 per cent by 2030.

 We have reduced poverty more in the past 50 years than in the preceding 500, in almost every country, according to the UN.

 In 1970 only 30 per cent of the developing world had access to clean drinking water. Now the figure is about 80 per cent.


Now, let's talk about your soul. :wink:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Suz X

...You collectively show such a strong penchant towards the notion of an "intellectual elite" you might as well all supply each other with special library cards.

Many who post here, write for each other and a general audience of lurkers in response to a particular question. From one of "the people who actually earn a living by exploiting the "biosphere" and provide you with the food you eat ", I would allow you and everyone else to be offended as often as you wish and if drives you to Mr. Lamb, the more power to him. 8) As to the charge of "intellectual elite", I am both bemused and honored that such a notion is about in these levelling times.

No power is sought, on my part, save the power found in the truth. "Peter Garrett's anger lost out to cool logic," writes Miranda Devine in Slaying the Green Monster.

Peter Garrett had burnt the Midnight Oil penning words like, "How can we dance when our earth is turning/How do we sleep while our beds are burning?" Such an emotional approach to world problems is common among the young. What follows, in this kind of "self hatred," is everlasting guilt and despair for having been concieved in the first place: A very nomadic trait.


Problems? Yes. A burning bed? No.

"Peter Garrett's anger lost out to cool logic," writes Miranda Devine. Here's some "cool logic" for ya:

 In 1900 we lived an average 30 years. Now we live to 67.

 In 1970, 35 per cent of people in developing countries were starving. By 1996 the figure was 18 per cent and the UN predicts it to fall to 6 per cent by 2030.

 We have reduced poverty more in the past 50 years than in the preceding 500, in almost every country, according to the UN.

 In 1970 only 30 per cent of the developing world had access to clean drinking water. Now the figure is about 80 per cent.


Now, let's talk about your soul. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Peter Garrett had burnt the Midnight Oil penning words like, "How can we dance when our earth is turning/How do we sleep while our beds are burning?" Such an emotional approach to world problems is common among the young. What follows, in this kind of "self hatred," is everlasting guilt and despair for having been concieved in the first place: A very nomadic trait.


Problems? Yes. A burning bed? No.

Does the scientist, Mr. Peter Garrett, propose that dancing be banned not only on the Sabbath but on any day that the planet is in rotation in some sort of hyper-Puritan manner? Or does he mean that we must not dance while the mould-boards bring up the soil and bury the sod in in Neo-Pagan honor of our mother, the Earth? I should consider not dancing, if it so offends, but just when is it that my feet must be stilled?


This is not nearly as odd as the plaint about sleep while our beds are burning. Is this a call for the fire-free cigarette that has been called for in New York? If not...is it emotive, Mr. Lamb? Is silliness an emotion?

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Peter Garrett had burnt the Midnight Oil penning words like, "How can we dance when our earth is turning/How do we sleep while our beds are burning?" Such an emotional approach to world problems is common among the young. What follows, in this kind of "self hatred," is everlasting guilt and despair for having been concieved in the first place: A very nomadic trait.


Problems? Yes. A burning bed? No.

Does the scientist, Mr. Peter Garrett, propose that dancing be banned not only on the Sabbath but on any day that the planet is in rotation in some sort of hyper-Puritan manner? Or does he mean that we must not dance while the mould-boards bring up the soil and bury the sod in in Neo-Pagan honor of our mother, the Earth? I should consider not dancing, if it so offends, but just when is it that my feet must be stilled?


This is not nearly as odd as the plaint about sleep while our beds are burning. Is this a call for the fire-free cigarette that has been called for in New York? If not...is it emotive, Mr. Lamb? Is silliness an emotion?

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Peter Garrett had burnt the Midnight Oil penning words like, "How can we dance when our earth is turning/How do we sleep while our beds are burning?"

Is silliness an emotion?

Garrett's, and perhaps mine, too, silliness was quite evident in the "cool fact" that he had written such a great "dance song" when he penned Beds are Burning. Back in the eighties, I spent many a fine evening dancing, and doing great harm to my ear drums and my liver, while singing along, "How can we dance when our earth is turning/How do we sleep while our beds are burning?"

Life is full of wierd stuff like that. :wink:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Peter Garrett had burnt the Midnight Oil penning words like, "How can we dance when our earth is turning/How do we sleep while our beds are burning?"

Is silliness an emotion?

Garrett's, and perhaps mine, too, silliness was quite evident in the "cool fact" that he had written such a great "dance song" when he penned Beds are Burning. Back in the eighties, I spent many a fine evening dancing, and doing great harm to my ear drums and my liver, while singing along, "How can we dance when our earth is turning/How do we sleep while our beds are burning?"

Life is full of wierd stuff like that. :wink:

All you barnyard chickens remind me of a bunch of sleazy lawyers having a business brunch at 9:00 AM on 9/11/01 atop the World Trade Center to discuss tort reform. Wake up and smell the coffee. The silver planes have left their airports.

All you barnyard chickens remind me of a bunch of sleazy lawyers having a business brunch at 9:00 AM on 9/11/01 atop the World Trade Center to discuss tort reform. Wake up and smell the coffee. The silver planes have left their airports.

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

All you barnyard chickens remind me of a bunch of sleazy lawyers having a business brunch at 9:00 AM on 9/11/01 atop the World Trade Center to discuss tort reform. Wake up and smell the coffee. The silver planes have left their airports.

Ok, I'm smelling the coffee. Now what?

Do we pretend it's not happening, like the peaceniks marching, today?

Do we just up and run away?

Or do we standup and fight the damn bastards till every single one of 'em are dead?

Oh, that's right, you weren't talking about those "silver planes" at all. The coffee you smellin' is too many folks eatin' ice cream when they should be munchin' on sour grapes. Too many folks are drivin' SUVs when they should be crawling to the government run eco-friendly electric train station. Too many folks are payin' too little taxes and using too many trees to build too many things you elites think are useless.

Its funny how one frog's boogey man can be another's little Lamb in wolf's clothing, huh? :wink:

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

All you barnyard chickens remind me of a bunch of sleazy lawyers having a business brunch at 9:00 AM on 9/11/01 atop the World Trade Center to discuss tort reform. Wake up and smell the coffee. The silver planes have left their airports.

Ok, I'm smelling the coffee. Now what?

Do we pretend it's not happening, like the peaceniks marching, today?

Do we just up and run away?

Or do we standup and fight the damn bastards till every single one of 'em are dead?

Oh, that's right, you weren't talking about those "silver planes" at all. The coffee you smellin' is too many folks eatin' ice cream when they should be munchin' on sour grapes. Too many folks are drivin' SUVs when they should be crawling to the government run eco-friendly electric train station. Too many folks are payin' too little taxes and using too many trees to build too many things you elites think are useless.

Its funny how one frog's boogey man can be another's little Lamb in wolf's clothing, huh? :wink:

Originally Posted by Suz X

I'm feeling just a little bit condescended to when everyone seems to think I don't even understand the concept of peer review. I said I don't know a whole lot about ecology; I never said I don't understand scientific methodology!
I do, and I will use my also not inconsiderable levels of basic intelligence and common sense to decipher what I read in the context of what I have already studied and learned. I am not without contextual references of previous origin and comprehensive understanding of complex systems as they exist in our world. In other words, talking down to me is not neccessary. I am fully cognizant of each of your respective points of view by simple inference, and I am intellectually able to classify them according to more complex systems of hierarchies in my own mind. So stop all this prattle about howI should think. I'm not going to think in any way you can influence. I do not like being the default "ignorant person" in your collective view of how perhaps other "ignorant people" can better educate themselves about anything, be it ecology or genetics or physics or philosophy. You collectively show such a strong penchant towards the notion of an "intellectual elite" you might as well all supply each other with special library cards. I wonder how much of environmental affairs are disrupted and stymied by people such as you who assume you know so much more than the people who actually earn a living by exploiting the "biosphere" and provide you with the food you eat in your tax-subsidized cafeterias everyday, whatever that really means in real terms.

Right now I am much more attracted to Marc Lamb's input than any other source, just because he doesn't require that I hate myself. I don't think the causes of the various previous species-culling eras operated in nature with any self-awareness, and are therefore considered "natural." What is unnatural now? Is the proliferation of humans unnatural? Who can say, and what difference does such a pronouncement make? Just wondering.

I would suggest you start with the internet rather than a bookstore. When doing so it helps to have a specific question in mind. For example consider the issue of global warming. The basic idea is simple. Air is transparent to visible light, but translucent to infrared light. The transluence comes from "greenhouse gases" chiefly CO2. The more CO2 the less transparent the air is to infrared light. CO2 itself is transparent to visible light, as we know from watching dry ice evaporate.

Since the sun is a yellow (type G) star, the majority of the energy it emits comes as visible light. Some of this energy is reflected by clouds, the rest passes through the transparent air to the ground, which is opaque. A small amount of the light energy is reflected from the surface of the earth, the majority is absorbed. The earth, like all material objects, radiates energy (light) just like the sun. This radiation is much less intense than that from the sum because the earth is much cooler (radiation emission is proportional to temperature to the fourth power). Not only that, but the kind of radiation (light) emitted by cool bodies like the Earth is not visible light, but rather infrared light.

The temperature of the earth, like any other planet is determined by a balance between the light energy coming in from the sun and the infrared energy radiating out into space. If these two quantities are not equal the planet will heat up or cool down (affecting the amount of radiation from the planet according to the fourth-power relation). That is:

Radiation (light) absorbed = radiation emitted = A* T^4, where A is a parameter that depends on atmospheric absorption properties)

Now lets add CO2 to the atmosphere. Doing this has no effect on the light absorbed since CO2 is transparent to light. But it is not transparent to the infrared radiation being emitted from the earth. Some of this infrared light that would ordinarily be radiated out into space will instead be absorbed by the CO2 and radiated back to the surface. Thus the CO2 acts as a radiation trap, and serves to retard emissions (reducing A in the equation above). This means the temperature must rise to overcome this effect. The more CO2 in the atmosphere (up to a point at which the atmosphere becomes completely opaque to the infrared radiation) the higher the temperature.

An excellent example of this phenomenon, which shows its reality, is the planet Venus. Venus is about 2/3's of the distance from the sun as the earth and as a result, would receive about 2.25 times more solar radiation as the earth because of it grater proximity. But, Venus is covered by clouds, whcih means it reflects more sunlight than the earth. It turns out that the two factors roughly cancel each other out and that the surfaces of Venus and the Earth recieve abut the same about of the suns energy. If Venus was a watery oxygen-nitrogen planet like the the Earth this would mean that the surface temperature on Venus would be about the same as on Earth. The total cloud cover would suggest considerably more water than on Earth. This is why in the early part of the 20th century, sci-fi writers portrayed Venus was a watery, tropical world. This concept was completely consistent with the observational data of the time.

Space probes confirmed that Venus was not a watery world and that the surface temperature of the planet was some 800 F. The surface of Venus emitted some 40-50 times more energy than Earth, but most of this was trapped by the atmosphere. Venus's atmosphere contains some 70000 times more CO2 than Earth's atmosphere.

So the question is not whether or not the global warming effect is real. It is. The question is whether the amounts of CO2 added to the Earth's atmosphere by human activity will have a significant impact on climate in the near future. Obviously, if they go on long enough they will have an impact. For example, if CO2 emisions were to increase 5% annually, CO2 levels typical of Venus would be reached in about 300 years, and the Earth would a hell like Venus.

Of course, CO2 levels will not be able to increase like this because we will run out of fossil fuels long before it can happen.

The real question is whether or not climatic changes will become a real problem before we run out of fossil fuels.

Several things are already clear from the research. If we compare how much CO2 is in the atmosphere now with what was present 100 years ago we see that a goodly portion (IIRC about half) of the CO2 we added to the atmosphere isn't there now, it must have been removed by natural processes.

Another issue is if we calculate the impact of the measured increase of CO2 on the average temperature we find that the measured increase in temperature is less (IIRC correctly again about half) of the calculated value. Thus, there are factors that are partially countering the warming impact that addition of CO2 has.

Finally we also know that temperature increased quite a bit before 1930 due to factors other than human-generated CO2.

What all this tells me is the following:

1. CO2 levels is potentially the dominant factor affecting global temperature (Venus example). If we somehow manage to continue to increase human-generated CO2 at current rates, the earth will become like Venus in less than a millennium.

2. Human generated CO2 is not the only important factor affecting climate today. It probably is not the most important factor at the present time. it might not even be important right now.

3. It is not possible, at this juncture, to know for sure whether human generated greenhouse gases will be a problem in our grandchildren's times.

Originally Posted by Suz X

I'm feeling just a little bit condescended to when everyone seems to think I don't even understand the concept of peer review. I said I don't know a whole lot about ecology; I never said I don't understand scientific methodology!
I do, and I will use my also not inconsiderable levels of basic intelligence and common sense to decipher what I read in the context of what I have already studied and learned. I am not without contextual references of previous origin and comprehensive understanding of complex systems as they exist in our world. In other words, talking down to me is not neccessary. I am fully cognizant of each of your respective points of view by simple inference, and I am intellectually able to classify them according to more complex systems of hierarchies in my own mind. So stop all this prattle about howI should think. I'm not going to think in any way you can influence. I do not like being the default "ignorant person" in your collective view of how perhaps other "ignorant people" can better educate themselves about anything, be it ecology or genetics or physics or philosophy. You collectively show such a strong penchant towards the notion of an "intellectual elite" you might as well all supply each other with special library cards. I wonder how much of environmental affairs are disrupted and stymied by people such as you who assume you know so much more than the people who actually earn a living by exploiting the "biosphere" and provide you with the food you eat in your tax-subsidized cafeterias everyday, whatever that really means in real terms.

Right now I am much more attracted to Marc Lamb's input than any other source, just because he doesn't require that I hate myself. I don't think the causes of the various previous species-culling eras operated in nature with any self-awareness, and are therefore considered "natural." What is unnatural now? Is the proliferation of humans unnatural? Who can say, and what difference does such a pronouncement make? Just wondering.

I would suggest you start with the internet rather than a bookstore. When doing so it helps to have a specific question in mind. For example consider the issue of global warming. The basic idea is simple. Air is transparent to visible light, but translucent to infrared light. The transluence comes from "greenhouse gases" chiefly CO2. The more CO2 the less transparent the air is to infrared light. CO2 itself is transparent to visible light, as we know from watching dry ice evaporate.

Since the sun is a yellow (type G) star, the majority of the energy it emits comes as visible light. Some of this energy is reflected by clouds, the rest passes through the transparent air to the ground, which is opaque. A small amount of the light energy is reflected from the surface of the earth, the majority is absorbed. The earth, like all material objects, radiates energy (light) just like the sun. This radiation is much less intense than that from the sum because the earth is much cooler (radiation emission is proportional to temperature to the fourth power). Not only that, but the kind of radiation (light) emitted by cool bodies like the Earth is not visible light, but rather infrared light.

The temperature of the earth, like any other planet is determined by a balance between the light energy coming in from the sun and the infrared energy radiating out into space. If these two quantities are not equal the planet will heat up or cool down (affecting the amount of radiation from the planet according to the fourth-power relation). That is:

Radiation (light) absorbed = radiation emitted = A* T^4, where A is a parameter that depends on atmospheric absorption properties)

Now lets add CO2 to the atmosphere. Doing this has no effect on the light absorbed since CO2 is transparent to light. But it is not transparent to the infrared radiation being emitted from the earth. Some of this infrared light that would ordinarily be radiated out into space will instead be absorbed by the CO2 and radiated back to the surface. Thus the CO2 acts as a radiation trap, and serves to retard emissions (reducing A in the equation above). This means the temperature must rise to overcome this effect. The more CO2 in the atmosphere (up to a point at which the atmosphere becomes completely opaque to the infrared radiation) the higher the temperature.

An excellent example of this phenomenon, which shows its reality, is the planet Venus. Venus is about 2/3's of the distance from the sun as the earth and as a result, would receive about 2.25 times more solar radiation as the earth because of it grater proximity. But, Venus is covered by clouds, whcih means it reflects more sunlight than the earth. It turns out that the two factors roughly cancel each other out and that the surfaces of Venus and the Earth recieve abut the same about of the suns energy. If Venus was a watery oxygen-nitrogen planet like the the Earth this would mean that the surface temperature on Venus would be about the same as on Earth. The total cloud cover would suggest considerably more water than on Earth. This is why in the early part of the 20th century, sci-fi writers portrayed Venus was a watery, tropical world. This concept was completely consistent with the observational data of the time.

Space probes confirmed that Venus was not a watery world and that the surface temperature of the planet was some 800 F. The surface of Venus emitted some 40-50 times more energy than Earth, but most of this was trapped by the atmosphere. Venus's atmosphere contains some 70000 times more CO2 than Earth's atmosphere.

So the question is not whether or not the global warming effect is real. It is. The question is whether the amounts of CO2 added to the Earth's atmosphere by human activity will have a significant impact on climate in the near future. Obviously, if they go on long enough they will have an impact. For example, if CO2 emisions were to increase 5% annually, CO2 levels typical of Venus would be reached in about 300 years, and the Earth would a hell like Venus.

Of course, CO2 levels will not be able to increase like this because we will run out of fossil fuels long before it can happen.

The real question is whether or not climatic changes will become a real problem before we run out of fossil fuels.

Several things are already clear from the research. If we compare how much CO2 is in the atmosphere now with what was present 100 years ago we see that a goodly portion (IIRC about half) of the CO2 we added to the atmosphere isn't there now, it must have been removed by natural processes.

Another issue is if we calculate the impact of the measured increase of CO2 on the average temperature we find that the measured increase in temperature is less (IIRC correctly again about half) of the calculated value. Thus, there are factors that are partially countering the warming impact that addition of CO2 has.

Finally we also know that temperature increased quite a bit before 1930 due to factors other than human-generated CO2.

What all this tells me is the following:

1. CO2 levels is potentially the dominant factor affecting global temperature (Venus example). If we somehow manage to continue to increase human-generated CO2 at current rates, the earth will become like Venus in less than a millennium.

2. Human generated CO2 is not the only important factor affecting climate today. It probably is not the most important factor at the present time. it might not even be important right now.

3. It is not possible, at this juncture, to know for sure whether human generated greenhouse gases will be a problem in our grandchildren's times.