Comments on: Ecological credit crunch as human footprint expands

By: Susan Burns

Susan Burns — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:50:10 +0000

This is Susan Burns from Global Footprint Network, the organization that recently published the Living Planet Report 2008. I wanted to respond to Deborah’s question about whether our work is scientific. For those who want to learn more about our methods, there is an abundance of documentation on our website at http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/reading_and_references/ .

Also, for academics who are interested in the methods and results behind the numbers in our recent Living Planet Report, you can refer to the Ecological Footprint Atlas 2008 at: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2008/

Thanks for the interesting dialogue!

Susan

By: deborahbyrd

deborahbyrd — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:14:12 +0000

Larry, thank you! We hope you’ll visit often and present your views freely.

Many thanks for visiting,

Deborah

By: Larry

Larry — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:19:08 +0000

Deborahbyrd- I didn’t present Sen. Inhofe’s article to persuade you to renounce anthropogenic GW but to show you that there is indeed substantial ‘controversy’ about it and it is a part of real science. He didn’t just state his opinion, but gave facts, figures, sources, and links on the growing number of AGW sceptics. I just believe that healthy scepticism drives healthy science. Supressing debates diminishes science.

As far as the “asteroid” analogy…I would research all sides before deciding what I would consider the best and most practical course of action.

BTW-Nice website!

By: deborahbyrd

deborahbyrd — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 16:38:40 +0000

Larry, you pass on the oilman, Presidential contenders and government agency when it comes to believing or disbelieving in climate change. But the link you provided is to the website run by Jim Inhofe, a U.S. Senator from Oklahoma, and a well-known and very vocal critic of climate change. Why do you believe the Senator from Oklahoma before the others? Just curious. And yes science does invite controversy. But if the majority of the world’s scientists agreed that an asteroid were headed our way – and a few scientists disagreed, saying their calculations showed it would just miss us – would you really put your faith in the few? Personally, I’d vote for trying to cause that asteroid to veer off course! Would we do that by sending nuclear weapons to space, to explode near the asteroid? In that case – as in the case of climate change – there wouldn’t be a clear answer. Still, if the best minds on the planet say it is happening and say that – if we act – we can ameliorate its effects, I personally would vote to try.

Stephanie, you’ll be happy to hear that birth control and proper sex education are being provided to more women now than ever before. And that’s why – although Earth’s human population is still increasing – our population numbers are expected to peak around the middle of this century and afterwards begin to fall again. Will there be fewer people on Earth in 2100 than today? It’s possible. I could not agree with you more that population is at the root of many problems on Earth today. Decreasing population will bring a different kind of problems, but with fewer people we might be able to create a world that’s more in balance with what Earth has to provide in terms of air, water and other resources. See the Population Reference Bureau website for more about population issues.

Thank you both for commenting!

Deborah

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:43:06 +0000

I think one thing that would help is for birth control and proper sex education to be readily available to all women/men/young people throughout the world. The notion that some people base worth on how many kids you can produce (and that “God” is against birth control) is absurd. It would help the overpopulation problem:) However warming and cooling is a cycle..i think since it happens over a period of time that can’t begin to compare to our lifespans, we take it a little harder. I think if it ever came down to it, we’d wipe ourselves out before we’d destroy the Earth beyond it’s own reparation.

By: Larry

Larry — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 04:57:58 +0000

"There is no controversy in science about climate change. Anyone who says there is a controversy is not a part of real science. There is no controversy among scientists about this. Never has been." deborahbird, I always thought good science provoked and invited controversy, especially on something as complex as climate change. Yet this particular subject is so enormously politically charged that dissenters are aggressively being silenced and disenfranchised from the “in-crowd”. But their ranks are growing, nevertheless: “…a Canadian survey of scientists released on March 6, 2008 offered even more evidence that the alleged ‘consensus’ is non-existent. A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.'" According to the survey, only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."” As far as taking an oilman, two Presidential contenders, or a govt.agency as the final word on a scientific puzzle…Sorry, but I pass. And sorry for 'beating the drum'.[;)]

By: deborahbyrd

deborahbyrd — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:57:28 +0000

Larry, it's not possible to conduct a conclusive scientific test that shows climate change is happening. Climate is complicated. The only test will be time. Will scientists' theories about climate change come to pass? We have to wait and see. All I can say is that most of the scientists we talk to - virtually all of the scientists we talk to, unless we search for one who disagrees - take it for granted that climate change is real and caused by humans. That's true now. It was true 10 years ago. And I suspect it will be true throughout this century. There is no controversy in science about climate change. Anyone who says there is a controversy is not a part of real science. There is no controversy among scientists about this. Never has been. Frankly, I'm amazed you guys are still beating this drum. You don't believe even an oil company when it says global warming is real? You don't believe both U.S. presidential candidates (see question #2)? You don't believe U.S. agencies like the EPA? Then I'm sure I can't convince you. Deborah

By: Larry

Larry — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:47:29 +0000

From the ‘three hard truths’: “ And the third hard truth relates to rising CO2 in our atmosphere, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, which is leading to a warmer world.” From what conclusive scientific test did this “third hard truth” reveal itself? Really,…if we’re talking science then how did this become a “hard truth”? “…they’ve come to a consensus which policymakers and a majority of the general public accept.” Do we just take a poll of scientists (many who have a vested interest in anthropogenic GW) and a majority of clueless citizens to decide scientific truths? Doug put two links in his post that gave extensive data about greenhouse gases and man’s contribution to it. Did anybody check them out? Shouldn’t we wonder why global warming has paused for the last eight years despite increased fossil fuel burning?

By: lindsay

lindsay — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:59:44 +0000

Hi Doug,

I’m not about to get into a philosophical argument about morality. I believe we have to make the best decisions we can based on the information we have. As Deborah just pointed out, the information tells us that fossil fuel burning is causing global warming. The information we have (via scientific efforts) also tells us that there will be huge impacts on Earth, and in some places, it’s already happening. Scientists have studied this from many angles, it’s been a worldwide effort, it’s not a small collective, and they’ve come to a consensus which policymakers and a majority of the general public accept.

No one can tell you what you can or cannot do. That’s our freedom. But there are better decisions and there are worse decisions. Generally speaking, people like to choose better decisions. I think our experience of the current economic crisis would show that when people take the opportunity to make decisions they know are risky, not the best possible decision, there is eventually a fallout for everyone. The Global Footprint Network has been drawing an economic parallel to the ecological crisis, and they’re saying that the same thing is happening to our resources.

The way I see it, it’s not about who has authority. It’s about taking responsibility for what we know is happening to the planet, and doing what we know can help.

By: deborahbyrd

deborahbyrd — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:59:09 +0000

Doug, I don’t know why your last comment didn’t post automatically. I had to go in and ‘approve’ it. Anyway, thank you for continuing to comment!

You are, quite simply, wrong that it’s only a small group of scientists who are somehow ‘invested’ in the idea of global warming resulting from fossil fuel burning. Both U.S. candidates for President acknowledge that truth! Even some oil industry execs acknowledge it. As a case in point, please listen to EarthSky’s interview with a Shell exec, who talked to us about what Shell calls the three hard truths.

Deborah