What the hell, it's only California. All this is going to mean is fewer games ending after midnight in the civilized part of the country.

Besides, since teams seem to be able to con cities into subsidizing a new ballpark every 20 or 30 years nowadays, there should probably be enough time to make a strategic retreat in case another Bush gets elected....

More accurate: global climate models or PECOTA? Discuss.

Isn't the San Andreas Fault a bigger problem than the rise of the sea level in this part of the world?

100 years ago, Babe Ruth was already 12, the American League had existed for six years, and the Cubs had won their last World Series. Time goes by faster than people think.

And 100 years ago, the following current major league stadiums were already in existence:

[crickets]

Baseball's usual short-sightedness really isn't much of a problem in this case. The shelf life of a stadium is 20-30 years. Why worry about the end, the end of the century?

The late Marc Reisner made the point in his book A Dangerous Place that major quakes on the San Andreas or Hayward faults could produce catastrophic flooding. So either warming or shaking could put the A's underwater.

“You are talking about a meter rise of the sea level by the end of the century (around the bay)’’

throws deck chair.

You are talking about a meter rise of the sea level by the end of the century (around the bay),'' said Will Travis, executive director of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which helps regulate shoreline construction.

I have tried to read most of the reputable information I can on global warming frankly because I don't know who or what to believe. I have worked in research fields before and most of the published reports, by time they have been edited for political view, leave out or add (depending on the political view) vital information. I have found it pretty frustrating to actually find things that are well done and based entirely on science including the variables that had to be "guesstamated". So in short...

More accurate: global climate models or PECOTA? Discuss.

PECOTA hands down.

And 100 years ago, the following current major league stadiums were already in existence:

[crickets]

That's why I didn't link this when I say it while scoping out SF Chron updates...

Forget any arguments about the enviromental issues; the writers obviously must not be big baseball fans, if they're worrying about a baseball stadium lasting a hundred years.

And 100 years ago, the following current major league stadiums were already in existence:

[crickets]

Maybe, but English soccer stadia were (e.g. White Hart Lane) -- of course they're also being replaced with new models.


More accurate: global climate models or PECOTA? Discuss.
PECOTA hands down.

How do you measure this? Which more accurately predicts the number of "splash hits" in 100 years?

Since I am, until July, the BBTF "resident climate change scientist", let me proudly proclaim that this article is phooey.

1)As Mr. Kaufman already pointed out, 100 years into the future might as well be forever from a stadium's perspective.

2)A meter of sea level rise is on the high end of predictions by the end of the century

3)The earthquake recurrence interval on the San Andreas fault system is such that, over a 100 year period, I'd be much more worried about that.

4)Citifield, in NYC, is in a much worse location w/r/t the ocean, since it's both low and located in an area of the LI Sound that could potentially see high storm surges in the right conditions

5)This article betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the consequences of sea-level rise. If sea-level were to rise a meter, there are steps that can be taken to preserve land less than a meter ABSL at the present day. See "Holland".

6)A substantial portion of the Bay Area (eg: much of the financial district of SF, the international airport) lie at or w/in 1m of present sea level. The stadium is the least of the Bay Area's potential losses in case of catastrophic SL rise.

2)A meter of sea level rise is on the high end of predictions by the end of the century

A little back of the envelope calculation:

Area of the oceans (in million square miles) ~ 360
Area of landlocked ice ~ 18 (Antarctica - 14, Greenland - 2, the rest ~ 2)

So, for the ocean to rise one meter, 20 meters of every square km of landlocked ice must melt. That seems a pretty tall order

Forget any arguments about the enviromental issues; the writers obviously must not be big baseball fans, if they're worrying about a baseball stadium lasting a hundred years.

Forget the stadium, baseball won't last 100 years

A little back of the envelope calculation:

Area of the oceans (in million square miles) ~ 360
Area of landlocked ice ~ 18 (Antarctica - 14, Greenland - 2, the rest ~ 2)

So, for the ocean to rise one meter, 20 meters of every square km of landlocked ice must melt. That seems a pretty tall order.

Warmer weather causes water temperatures to rise, causing water to expand. You see the same contraction/expansion with highway pavement. Icebergs melting adds to that, but wouldn't be the only cause of rising water levels.

I think The Chronicle is secretly working with The Weather Channel

I dig how King worked the Ramones into his post.

Dzop, I hope your right, but I've grown less sanguine over the years.

If I'm not mistaken, the IPCC's most recent report has the sea levels rising from between 7 and 23 inches until 2100.

It's kind of a shame that the most irresponsible people have essentially captured both sides of the global warming debate.

I know levies didn't work so well in NOLA, but they still exist, right?

It's kind of a shame that the most irresponsible people have essentially captured both sides of the global warming debate.

Equating the two extremes of this debate is pretty lazy.

It's kind of a shame that the most irresponsible people have essentially captured both sides of the global warming debate.

Indeed.


Equating the two extremes of this debate is pretty lazy.

I don't think so. Given the uncertainties involved one could make a plausible case that the extreme of the doomsayers could cause more damage than the extreme deniers. I think it is clear that the climate needs monitoring (data collection at a far greater rate) and that, for a variety of reasons aside from the end of civilization, pursuing renewable energy makes sense. But the side that is supposed to be champions of reason and objectivity have essentially shut down debate on both the subject of causes and solutions, which, IMO is far more dangerous than sticking one's head in the ground.

Of course, I generally am far more critical of my side of debates than the other.

I don't think so. Given the uncertainties involved one could make a plausible case that the extreme of the doomsayers could cause more damage than the extreme deniers.

I definitely agree here. I am not sure I would say more, but you might be right in that they do more damage by crying wolf. I also think sticking your head in the ground would be less dangerous if it wasn't coming from up top.

Dzop, I hope your right, but I've grown less sanguine over the years.

Eh...the best way to think of global warming is that there's a 99.5% chance that, while weird and different, it really wont be very costly. The reason it's scary is the 0.5% chance that something really terrible and unforseen happens, like the collapse of an icesheet or the desertifiction of some substanial region, or a big change in tropical cyclone frequency and intensity, and then its a big deal.

You'd be surprised how level-headed most true climate scientists are. James Hansen is probably the most "alarmist" guy at my university, and even he's remarkably sanguine when speaking to other scientists; he's decided to be alarmist when speaking to the public to, and I'm quoting, "scare people into doing something." Gavin Schmidt, who's one of the people behind realclimate.org, is about as smart and reasoned a guy as you'll ever meet.

The general consensus among the people I work with is: Yes, its a big problem; Yes, it'll cost some money to deal with; No, the sky is not falling.

Actually, the Cubs were about to end their second-longest World Series drought 100 years ago.

It's kind of a shame that the most irresponsible people have essentially captured both sides of the global warming debate.

Why should this debate be any different than all the others?

You know what's really a shame? That global climate change is coming to be viewed as the only basis for doing or not doing anything about emissions. The fact that carbon isn't great for breathing ought to enter into the equation at some point.

The fact that carbon isn't great for breathing ought to enter into the equation at some point.

This is an oft-repeated myth.

The increased CO2 in the atmosphere has no, and i mean, ZERO, public health impact outside of the indirect impacts of global warming.

However, warmer temps do affect respiratory health via the [warmer temps->more summer ozone->bad for breathing] chain

"The general consensus among the people I work with is: Yes, its a big problem; Yes, it'll cost some money to deal with; No, the sky is not falling."


It depends where you live. I agree with you that global warming is an issue that can be dealt with. I'm pretty sure we'll be finding solutions, if not to stop the warming of the earth, at least to deal with it.

That said, I've been working with Inuit (Eskimos) people in the Canadian Arctic for the past ten years and let me tell you one thing: the sky is literally falling on their heads. The sea ice, which they've been relying on for the past centuries for both hunting and travelling, is dramatically changing and making their life much harder and their way of life obsolete.

Now, I know that like all human beings, Inuit will find ways to adapt to those changing conditions. But believe me, they'll need to make drastic adpatations because there their environment is drastically changing.

I do try and recall that my seventy odd years are but a speck on the time continuum that is the lifespan of Earth.

That being stated, and with all due respect to JRR Tolkien, the world is changing. I feel it in the earth, I taste it in the water, I smell it in the air.

I have aged and therefore am not constant. Clearly this influences my perception of my reality. Yet early in the morning when I reach the hillock that acts as a resting spot before returning to home I am ill at ease.

And no, it's not because of arthritis. Wiseguys......

The fact that carbon isn't great for breathing ought to enter into the equation at some point.

The majority of earth's life forms (plants) disagree with you.

I think the doomsayers are being forced to be doomsayers because they are being ignored, even silenced

For people being silenced they sure are making a lot of noise.

This is an oft-repeated myth.

Sorry you couldn't see that my tongue was in my cheek. Kevin made my non-snarky point clearer.

OTOH, is it also a myth that many activities associated with carbon emissions are also associated with the emission of gases that do have a public health impact? Like ozone, for instance?

That said, I've been working with Inuit (Eskimos) people in the Canadian Arctic for the past ten years and let me tell you one thing: the sky is literally falling on their heads. The sea ice, which they've been relying on for the past centuries for both hunting and travelling, is dramatically changing and making their life much harder and their way of life obsolete.

Indeed. Of course, there are very few Inuit, and there are orders of magnitude more people in the temperate and tropical latitudes. Therefore, it is possible -tragic, but possible- that we'll have to sacrifice the Inuit for the good of everyone else.

One problem that the Inuit face is that the climate up there is wildly variable, due to anthropogenic or natural causes. If you look at estimated sea-ice coverage maps from the North Atlantic that compare the Midieval Warmp Period to the Little Ice Age (all natural variability), the difference in avereage sea-ice extent is astounding, and the change happened, IIRC, in ~100 years. The high-north is not a very salutory place for human habitation.

OTOH, is it also a myth that many activities associated with carbon emissions are also associated with the emission of gases that do have a public health impact? Like ozone, for instance?

No, see post 27.

Forest fires frequency (more fine particulate pollution), aridity changes (dustier air)...etc...there are many ways for higher temps to affect respiratory health.

The majority of earth's life forms (plants) disagree with you.

You do realize that plants don't breathe carbon, don't you? I mean, plants don't have lungs, and photosynthesis doesn't have anything to do with respiration. Deprive a plant of oxygen and see how happy it is.

This comment is going to be swamped by global warming discussion, but I wanted to go back to something that King said:

Baseball's usual short-sightedness really isn't much of a problem in this case. The shelf life of a stadium is 20-30 years.

How come the Connie Mack Stadiums and Forbes Fields of the worlds lasted until the 60's/70's?

How come the Connie Mack Stadiums and Forbes Fields of the worlds lasted until the 60's/70's?

Is Oriole Park at Camden Yards really a middle-aged ballpark? Should Angelos start planning for a replacement? I mean, he's got fifteen years left on that old eyesore, tops.

"The high-north is not a very salutory place for human habitation."

False, human beings have been thriving there for thousands of years.

However, it is true the the Arctic climate has been dramatically changing over the past 1000 years or so, going from milder to cooler then to milder again. Thule people (the ancestors of the Inuit), who were mainly a bowhead whale hunting culture, had to adapt to cooler conditions while moving East from Northern Alaska. When they reached the high Arctic Island, they settle there for a while but had to move down south to where they are staying right now because the earth was actually getting colder. They also had to adopt several technologies developed by the Dorset people who were already more acustomed to colder weather (the igloo or snow house, the qulliq or oil lamp, etc.). Thus, the upcoming warming of the Arctic is not actually the first time this people will have to adapt to new environmental conditions.

However, this is the first time that the changes are so drastic. In the past ten years (we're not talking centuries, here), the ice in many regions is forming one month later and melting one month earlier. This is no detail nor for them, neither for us.

And, btw, I could not understand your "sacrifice the Inuit for the good of everyone else". What good? And how will "sacrifice" the Inuit will be good for us anyway? I don't get it.

How come the Connie Mack Stadiums and Forbes Fields of the worlds lasted until the 60's/70's?

That was then, this is now. I guess. Nowadays it takes "charm" to keep an old ballpark around.

The A’s seem unfazed by the warming warning, saying they wouldn’t be proceeding with planning for a Fremont ballpark if they thought water was a worry.

Which doesn't mean they thought about it for even a millisecond.

I think the doomsayers are being forced to be doomsayers because they are being ignored, even silenced

For people being silenced they sure are making a lot of noise.

Both good points. I think the problem with the sky is falling crowd is two-fold:

1) It won't convince those who are coming at the problem with an agenda (e.g. "Big Oil") and will only polarize some in the middle.

2) Pretending certainty when it is clear to most that you can't possibly be certain will alienate a large number in the middle - folks who aren't scientists but can exercise some logic. This is, as you alluded, the crying wolf idea. In fact, we've already seen it. thirty years ago everyone was sure an ice age was coming. They know look pretty silly.

I also think connections between scientists and politically active groups inevitably biases the science. Just as I don't trust a scientist with lots of oil industry money, I don't trust a scientist who has a lot of support from folks invested on the other side.

Arrogant certainty is a plague of science and it turns me off. I hope you are right that the science being done is reasonable and objective. The "analysis" in the press certainly doesn't come off that way.

No, sticking one's head in the ground is more dangerous, by far.

As the old analogy goes: when you find someone with a knife stuck in them, you don't immediately pull it out.

Save OPACY!!

The shelf life of a stadium is 20-30 years.

OK, a non-snarky response instead. The multi-purpose mistakes of the 70's and 80's lasted 20-30 years. Well-designed and well-built baseball parks, properly maintained and kept current, should last a good bit longer. Kaufmann Stadium is about to host it's 35th opening day. Dodger Stadium is going on 46 years old. Both remain quite viable baseball venues, to say the least.

Of course, Fenway and Wrigley are much older, and while both have some real limitations that are masked by history and charm, the ownership of those franchises are clearly committed to those facilities for the foreseeable future.

You do realize that plants don't breathe carbon, don't you? I mean, plants don't have lungs, and photosynthesis doesn't have anything to do with respiration. Deprive a plant of oxygen and see how happy it is

Sorry, I find it a little funny that you correct Arom that plants don't have lungs and then end it by projecting feelings on to the plant. Not a criticism just funny.

Yes. And methane.

I thought the methane problem had been successfully linked to super bowl parties.

Not a criticism just funny.

I guess it is. Completely unintentional though. I suppose I should have used a more scientific term than "happy." Something without emotional connotations. Maybe "viable."

I thought the methane problem had been successfully linked to super bowl parties.

We stopped serving the bean dip several years ago.

False, human beings have been thriving there for thousands of years.

At what population density? Habitability is not binary-there are places in which humans can't live (on top of an ice sheet). There are places where conditions are ideal for human habitation (France has got to be close to that). Then there's everything else in between. The north can only support a low population density.

What I mean when I say, "sacrifice the Inuit", I mean, that the emission of greenhouse gas improves the quality of life for the average person: it's not that we couldn't stop emitting carbon tomorrow, its that it would be fantastically expensive. Every dollar invested in alternative energy comes out of another pocket; be it healthcare, infrastructure, etc. For many people in developing nations, cheap energy is the difference between survival and poverty.

The cost of Kyoto and other carbon emission measures is diffuse amongst billions of people, while the cost of global warming is concentrated among a few Inuit. But nevertheless, its possible (and I would argue, nearly certain) that the cost of ruining the Inuit way-of-life, however you choose to quantify it, is less than the impact of greenhouse gas reduction measures integrated among everyone else on Earth. So the Inuit, Pacific Islanders, and other people with unique vulnerabilites to climate change, may get "sacrificed" for the wider good.

Isn't everyone forgetting that the Mayan civilization predicted the world to end in 2012? I think that's the same year as the next CBA, so it better be a damn good one.

And 100 years from now, I'd say overpopulation is the main problem...when a system reaches its carrying capacity and drastically drops off for whatever reason.

I also just looked up a stat that makes my argument more persuasive.

There are 47,000 Inuit, total, in Canada.

There are 6,500,000,000 people on Earth.

I also think connections between scientists and politically active groups inevitably biases the science. Just as I don't trust a scientist with lots of oil industry money, I don't trust a scientist who has a lot of support from folks invested on the other side.


I think the most worrisome thing about all this is that we simply don't have the technology to really make a dent in all of this. For all the debate about Kyoto, even full compliance in Kyoto with US and Australian participation makes as much an impact as trying to piss on an oil well fire.

And even the signatories are having a good bit of problems meeting the goals even with getting Russia to hook them up with a ton of pollution credits (thanks to the collapse of Russian industry since 1990). The UK is the only one really meeting projections mostly on their own, but even that's mostly from industry moving elsewhere.

6)A substantial portion of the Bay Area (eg: much of the financial district of SF, the international airport)

The other professional baseball club's stadium as well.

Is Oriole Park at Camden Yards really a middle-aged ballpark? Should Angelos start planning for a replacement? I mean, he's got fifteen years left on that old eyesore, tops

Assuming completion of the A's new stadium finishes on schedule for the opening of the 2011 season, and Miami has built a ballpark by then as well, the following is a list of MLB's oldest stadium just four years from now:

1) Fenway Park - 1912
2) Wrigley Field - 1914
3) Dodger Stadium - 1962
4) Angels Stadium - 1966
5) Kauffman Stadium - 1973
6) Skydome (Rogers Centre) - 1989
7) US Cellular Field - 1991
8) Camden Yards - 1992

I can't tell you how old that makes me feel.

I think the more important issue is the amount of money being spent on a messy war in Iraq. If even 2% of that money was used for better purposes, it could cure global hunger, make a huge dent in the Aids pandemic in Africa, and perhaps progress cancer treatment by far. I'm of course going on the assumption that the Iraq was is hovering around the $1 trillion expenditure mark after, what has it been , 4 years? So that's $250 billion per year, and 2% of that is $5 billion per year. Plus, there's that added bonus of, you know, not killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and young men. Addition by subtraction. But who am I kidding? It's human nature and we've always fought in war? (/sarcasm)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

And 100 years from now, I'd say overpopulation is the main problem...when a system reaches its carrying capacity and drastically drops off for whatever reason.

I thought the UN was predicting the Earth's population to peak in the next century and then begin a decline (although I guess this all depends on Africa).

Also I am going to go out on a limb and say declining population becomes a problem before over population (most old people are a real drag on the world economy).

Phil, first, the Arctic can support large density. See Murmansk. The low density of Inuit people in the Canadian Arctic has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with their way of life. Friendlier environment inhabited by hunter-gatherers also show a very low density (see prehistoric France). Now, I don't thing you can asign value to a territory because it is less or more populated or because the people who inhabit it chose to live one way or another.

My point is not there anyway. What I meant to say is that, in the long run, the changes that are happening so quickly in the Arctic are going to affect us as well.

The emission of large quantity of greenhouse gas might imporve or life in the short run (as I'm writing this, I'm in my office and its -5 F outside, so I know what you're speaking about), but I'm afraid the impacts my be costly in the long run.

I'm also pretty suret that that there are ways to have a great quality of life without emitting as much greenhouse gas. There are enough bright people on this earth to find sustainable solutions that would make sense both economically and environmentally.

Spoken like a true Frenchman.

Other than one distant cousin who, I believe, was turned over by the locals to the Gestapo during WWII, the only French I have in my blood is the Nuits-St.Georges from last Friday's dinner.

Wow Skydome is the 6th oldest stadium soon.

"I also just looked up a stat that makes my argument more persuasive.

There are 47,000 Inuit, total, in Canada.

There are 6,500,000,000 people on Earth."


Wrong.

A human being is a human being. You cannot assign more or less value to someone because he or she is part of a smaller culture. That makes no sense. Do Chinese people have 6 times more value than Americans?

The multi-purpose mistakes of the 70's and 80's lasted 20-30 years.

Those stadiums may or may not've stunk. They were cleaner than the old ones and usually offered better sightlines. But alot of the patrons were seated further away than they would be at the older parks. What I do miss is the playing style of the ashtray park era. Turf sucked, but it put speed at a premium. Also, the foul lines were longer than they are now. That and the curvilinear fences made it harder to hit homeruns. If I've read Green Cathedrals and various baseball encyclopedias correctly, most fences were straight lines in the previous and later eras.

I think the more important issue is the amount of money being spent on a messy war in Iraq. If even 2% of that money was used for better purposes, it could cure global hunger, make a huge dent in the Aids pandemic in Africa, and perhaps progress cancer treatment by far.

Do realize how many second basemen Jim Hendry could sign with that kind of money? Almost as many as he actually has signed!

Just think how much JP could've bid on Gil Meche with that kind of cash.

I thought the UN was predicting the Earth's population to peak in the next century and then begin a decline (although I guess this all depends on Africa).

Also I am going to go out on a limb and say declining population becomes a problem before over population (most old people are a real drag on the world economy).

I think so too. Even some middle-of-the-road developing countries, like my own, are expected to reach a population peak sometime in the first half of this century.

I liked football better in the pre-West Coast offense days, too, but I'm not sure if the stadia had any effect on that.

And even the signatories are having a good bit of problems meeting the goals even with getting Russia to hook them up with a ton of pollution credits (thanks to the collapse of Russian industry since 1990). The UK is the only one really meeting projections mostly on their own, but even that's mostly from industry moving elsewhere.

It's hilarious listening to Chirac chide the United States for its refusal to sign Kyoto while France is also non-compliant with said treaty. A fat lot of good it's done them.

All that said, whether it's good or bad for us, the end result is we all will have to wean ourselves off fossil fuel just because of scarcity. Oil will be first (hey, didja know that Mexican production is plummeting?), and then it's coal... exponential usage hikes equals rapid declines in time-to-exhaust (i.e., those 200 years of coal in the ground in the U.S. is more like 40 years if we start burning it for liquid fuels). Better to get off that treadmill sooner than later.

I thought the UN was predicting the Earth's population to peak in the next century and then begin a decline (although I guess this all depends on Africa).

It's true, most of the planet is experiencing declining fertility rates. In most of the advanced countries the fertility rates are actually below replacement level (perilously so in a few cases).

Paul Ehrlich was predicting that mass world starvation and catastrophe would be taking place by this point long before global warming ever surfaced as an issue. Of course Thomas Malthus was making the same exact predictions nearly 150 years earlier!

What the Malthusian doomsayers never seem to be able to comprehend and factor into their analyses is the benefits of technological progress. Trying to accurately predict what the world is going to look like in 50 or 100 years is a game of fools.

As an A's fan and a wino, I see global warming already affecting the Bay Area. Many acres of Chardonnay, a relatively cool weather grape, have been ripped out of Southern Napa Vineyards becasue of a very small change in average temperatures. Large zones of Central & Northern Napa which are currently producing excellent Cab will probably become Zinfandel vineyards in a few years, again becasue of a tiny 1 degree or so change in average temperature.

You cannot assign more or less value to someone because he or she is part of a smaller culture.

If the point of government is to maximize the welfare of its citizens, then you absolutely must assign less value to a smaller culture. Would it make any sense to impost a 10% tax on 6.5 billion people to save the culture of 47,000?

Your previous post is also misguided. Hunter-gatherer cultures do indeed have lower population densities than agricultural cultures. But the reason the high north has hunter-gatherer cultures is that the climate cannot support agriculture*. Murmansk is the exception that proves the rule; it is the a rare open water port in the Russian arctic, and so a city developed there. But if you look at the globally averaged population density by latitude, there is a massive drop-off in density once you get north of ~60N. This is fact, not subjective judgement.

The changes that are happening in the Arctic cannot affect us all. We are not hunting seals on sea ice. We are not in a region with permafrost. Each region on earth faces different challenges w/r/t Global Warming. Those that face the High Arctic are particularly daunting, and thank god so few people live there.

The kind of rhetoric you're using is what drives scientists like me crazy, because its filled with unsupported alarmist speculation ["the changes will affect us all"] and irrational economic statements [47,000 lives have as much value as 6.5 billion lives]. Being lumped in with the likes of you makes laypeople disregard my work as "politically motivated".



*Other than caribou herding, which I guess qualifies

As an A's fan and a wino, I see global warming already affecting the Bay Area. Many acres of Chardonnay, a relatively cool weather grape, have been ripped out of Southern Napa Vineyards becasue of a very small change in average temperatures. Large zones of Central & Northern Napa which are currently producing excellent Cab will probably become Zinfandel vineyards in a few years, again becasue of a tiny 1 degree or so change in average temperature
<Robert Parker>
What? You don't like your cab with 16.5% alcohol!? Only Frenchman and Communists agree with you
</Robert Parker>

Maybe Tuktoyaktuk will become wine country.

The kind of rhetoric you're using is what drives scientists like me crazy, because its filled with unsupported alarmist speculation ["the changes will affect us all"] and irrational economic statements [47,000 lives have as much value as 6.5 billion lives]. Being lumped in with the likes of you makes laypeople disregard my work as "politically motivated".

It's not one or the other. We're not sacrificing 47,000 people to save 6.5 billion people or their wallets. What it would require is a destroying of their culture, and moving them all down to a more habitable area. The government could easily cover that cost - they'd just have to adapt to a complete new way of life. But tough luck, that's how the planet is working.

I'm also pretty suret that that there are ways to have a great quality of life without emitting as much greenhouse gas. There are enough bright people on this earth to find sustainable solutions that would make sense both economically and environmentally.

I think it is far from certain that there are sustainable energies that could replace what we have. Spending money doesn't guarantee the scientific or engineering breakthrough you want. Nuclear power, though not sustainable, would be a great boon to energy independence and reducing emissions but you can't find many of the folks most worried about climate change suggesting it.

But your point, that smart people should be able to come up with an environmetally benign, economically secure, sustainable source of energy is wish-casting. Maybe it could be done, maybe it couldn't. But just saying you're pretty sure isn't much of an argument.

Kyoto, even if all else contained in it worked as intended, wouldn't work simply because it omits China and India.

How come the Connie Mack Stadiums and Forbes Fields of the worlds lasted until the 60's/70's?

A better way of putting that might be "why were so many of the 1910s concrete-and-steel parks demolished in the 1960s and 70s?" Wrigley and Fenway, and to some extent Tiger Stadium, are witness that the fabric of those places and their appeal as venues are still good after nearly a century. The reason so many of these places were replaced with ashtrays in the middle of freeway loops certainly has to do with urban politics of the mid-20th-century, just as the replacement of the ashtrays by faux-Shibes has to do with the conjunction of politics and the economic forces of revitalized city centers in the 1990s. I imagine that there have been some stadium designs that were intrinsically crap and needed tearing down, but the Shibe-era parks are not among them. Neither are the great bowls: the Los Angeles Coliseum and the Cotton Bowl, e.g., are still terrific football stadiums but economically uninviting to NFL teams.

Could someone please give me a definitive explanation for what effect global warming will have on the real thing we need to worry about - killer bees! Remember them? They were coming over in a swarm, and there was nothing we could do about it.

Could it be that the bird flu - remember that? - mutated in such a way that the bees all died, and their decaying carcasses caused the global warming which is presently responsible for the temperature here to be 14 degrees. But for the above, it would be closer to 13.

It's not one or the other. We're not sacrificing 47,000 people to save 6.5 billion people or their wallets. What it would require is a destroying of their culture, and moving them all down to a more habitable area. The government could easily cover that cost - they'd just have to adapt to a complete new way of life. But tough luck, that's how the planet is working.

Dude, I totally agree that the Inuit should be compensated for the cost of moving to a habitable area or developing a new way of survival. I'm just saying that Canada could give $1,000,000 to each Inuit who lives in the Arctic, and they'd be spending much less, orders of magnitude less money that would be required to stop, let alone reverse anthropogenic climate warming. Using the Inuit as a reason to stop emitting CO2 is crazy.

That's exactly my point Hughes.

ie: its not like we're gonna leave them there to melt in the ice. We just pay for their relocation to reserves in the territories or something to that effect. Much cheaper, but they'll have to change their way of life, which is the cost of the situation.

Post 74:

But governments have halted construction, mining, logging, and other activities that were found to disrupt the ecosystems of endangered birds and animals.

Just pointing out the disconnect with your last comment.

They are televvising Congressional hearings on censorship of government scientists

Like this?

But governments have halted construction, mining, logging, and other activities that were found to disrupt the ecosystems of endangered birds and animals.

Just pointing out the disconnect with your last comment.

Harvey, that's crazy and irrational too, but in a country as rich as ours, we can afford such adventures. What really gets me going is when we try to impose our Western environmentalism on a developing country where they don't have that kind of luxury.

If even 2% of that money was used for better purposes, it could cure global hunger, make a huge dent in the Aids pandemic in Africa, and perhaps progress cancer treatment by far.

On your first two points I say no way. Money is not the problem here. There is already enough money/food donated to take care of all the world hunger the problem is getting it to them. There are people using food as a means to control people in their country. Somewhat the same problem with the Aids pandemic.

Cancer, maybe, I guess you could be right but I think throwing more money at things usually doesn't do much. Now if you could change people’s habits and lifestyles then you will have the cure for most cancers.

ie: its not like we're gonna leave them there to melt in the ice. We just pay for their relocation to reserves in the territories or something to that effect. Much cheaper, but they'll have to change their way of life, which is the cost of the situation.

Perhaps an equitable solution would be to strip all the remaining green spaces in Loudoun County (Virginia) and build luxury houses for the Inuit there. Since Loudoun may be the most pro-development and SUV gung-ho county on the entire East Coast, I'm sure that its current residents wouldn't put up any fuss.

If the point of government is to maximize the welfare of its citizens, then you absolutely must assign less value to a smaller culture. Would it make any sense to impost a 10% tax on 6.5 billion people to save the culture of 47,000?

Well, since the "culture" of billionaires is even smaller than 47,000, why not let the billionaires and the Inuit trade places? Or if that's too harsh, maybe just put a 10% surtax on the billionaires, give the cash directly to the Inuit, and let the Inuit buy whatever houses they want.

BDC, I should loook through some old Sporting New's about that stadium stuff. (Paper of Record is now free!) But I have other SABR projects that I want to take care of first. Green Cathedrals covers some of this stuff, but I don't think that it goes too in depth about it.

Harvey, that's crazy and irrational too,

why is that crazy and irrational?

Well, since the "culture" of billionaires is even smaller than 47,000, why not let the billionaires and the Inuit trade places? Or if that's too harsh, maybe just put a 10% surtax on the billionaires, give the cash directly to the Inuit, and let the Inuit buy whatever houses they want.

Perhaps you've heard of the "income tax". Or the "estate tax". Or the "property tax". Last I checked, most rich people pay much more than 10% of their income to the Federal government every year. Where do you think the government's money comes from, Mars?

Of course, this will allow for a dramatic rise in professional underwater Baseball players...

Perhaps an equitable solution would be to strip all the remaining green spaces in Loudoun County (Virginia) and build luxury houses for the Inuit there. Since Loudoun may be the most pro-development and SUV gung-ho county on the entire East Coast, I'm sure that its current residents wouldn't put up any fuss.

Better let the Inuit know they shouldn't even think of blowing through the Dulles tolls in the wee hours of the morning; word is they're really about to step up enforcement.

They are televvising Congressional hearings on censorship of government scientists

Like this?

Quilvio - I don't understand how the article you link to is equated with "censorship of government scientists." Since the furor is over a National Park bookstore filled with books including one creationist book. The only one practicing censorship in that article was the Park Superintendent who wanted to censor the creationist book. For all I know he also wanted to take it out back and burn it.

Of course, this will allow for a dramatic rise in professional underwater Baseball players...

Not to mention that all polo's will be water polo's, united at last!

why is that crazy and irrational?

Because why would you invest money to save a species when you can save lives with the same money? I'd rather spend that money on virtually anything that benefits citizens, rather than animals.

People forget, I think, that animals lack conciousness, and that animal species have no inherent value.

However, I strongly support preservation efforts that exists with an eye towards future tourism development. Obviously, the folks around Yellowstone are dammed glad that was made into a park...sometimes, preservation can be in the best interests of the community as a whole but not in the interest of the loggers/miners/etc who own the land; in those cases, I strongly support "environmental" legislation.

Of course, this will allow for a dramatic rise in professional underwater Baseball players...

The Red Sox were prescient when they decided to sign Lobsterman Devern Hansack.

Of course, this will allow for a dramatic rise in professional underwater Baseball players...

Making his triumphant return to MLB..........Gregg Jefferies!

People forget, I think, that animals lack conciousness, and that animal species have no inherent value.

You can't know that about the former, and as for the latter, it applies as well or better to the human race.

I just want to go on record now as being on the fence on the Inuit-Billionaire issue. The Inuit people seem to be nice and have given the world the Inuit Pie, while billionaires on the other hand can buy and sell my @ss so staying on their good side is always a plus. This is so hard.

Of course, this will allow for a dramatic rise in professional underwater Baseball players...

All hail deceased pioneers Snuffy Stirnweiss, Roberto Clemente, and Norm Cash.

And how could I have forgotten Ed Delahanty?

animal species have no inherent value

Mankind would be nowhere without cattle and horses.

zop:

I am a semi-retired farmer. Over my lifetime I have raised, tended, and then slaughtered any number of domesticated animals.

As a man who enjoys the wild, I have had close quarters with many a wild one.

Based solely on my lame, imperfect, completely amateur perception AND knowing that what a person writes is not always what a person means your second comment in post 89 is the dumbest godd*mn thing I have read on this or any other site, forum, blog, or alternative electronic messaging format.

"Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."

--Theodore Roosevelt

#87, I was recalling the following quote:

“It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”

I had remembered this as being made by a ranger or other NPS educator. (it was actually made by PEER itself)

And if you want to dismiss me as some kind of tree-huggin', even varmints are precious PETA freak you have misjudged your audience............

People forget, I think, that animals lack conciousness, and that animal species have no inherent value.

However, I strongly support preservation efforts that exists with an eye towards future tourism development.

Wow...not sure how to respond to that.

Well, since the "culture" of billionaires is even smaller than 47,000, why not let the billionaires and the Inuit trade places? Or if that's too harsh, maybe just put a 10% surtax on the billionaires, give the cash directly to the Inuit, and let the Inuit buy whatever houses they want.

Perhaps you've heard of the "income tax". Or the "estate tax". Or the "property tax". Last I checked, most rich people pay much more than 10% of their income to the Federal government every year. Where do you think the government's money comes from, Mars

Of course I meant a 10% surtax on top of the income tax. That extra little loss of discretionary income shouldn't bother those 793 billionaires any more than uprooting 47,000 people and transplanting them in various foreign culture would inconvenience the Inuit. And we mustn't coddle those insignificant minority cultures, you know. And it's all for the greater good.

“It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”

When people ask my Mom her age in her presence, my response is also "No comment." And my Mom can't kill you with boiling sulfuric acid. I'd tread carefully, too, were I a park ranger. :)

Mankind would be nowhere without cattle and horses.

There's a theory that one of the important advantages that Homo Sapiens had over Neanderthal man was the domestication of dogs.

Animal diversity is important for eco systems, rain forests, non-mass extinction, part of the food chain, and they are important creatures to protect anyway since they are living.

There's a theory that one of the important advantages that Homo Sapiens had over Neanderthal man was the domestication of dogs.

James Watt invented the steam engine.

However, I strongly support preservation efforts that exists with an eye towards future tourism development.

Perhaps we can just hand over the Yellowstone snowmobile concessions to the Inuit and kill two cultures with one stone.