Trent Jones Jr. on Global Warming

[Tom_Doak]

If that is all Mr. Jones actually said about global warming -- that it is shifting golf development northward -- then I do find it somewhat offensive.  If he believes the science of it, then he ought to be more concerned about other side-effects than making the Nordic countries ideal places to hire him.

[ForkaB]

It is unseasonably cold in Scotland today (~35 F).  Should I sell the Prius and buy a Hummer, or vice versa?

Confused minds want to know......

[Forrest Richardson]

"If he believes the science of it, then he ought to be more concerned about other side-effects than making the Nordic countries ideal places to hire him." — Tom D.

Well, as a golf course architect, he certainly has gotten the attention of the media and pushed his point. I will give him more credit — his ability to get an interview and attention is far more than most people will ever hope to accomplish in that regard. Maybe along the way his viewpoint will make a difference on levels beyond golf.

[astavrides]

Mike, there's a far better chance of you being around for the following:

I was watching a PBS show on supervolcanos a few weeks ago. Turns out there's one under Yellowstone. It's on a 600,000 year cycle, and it's been 640,000 years since it last blew.

We're all living on borrowed time.

My suggested solution: don't work, just post.

 

I think we need to support space exploration so that we can colonize other habitable parts of the universe.

[Mark Pearce]

Global Warming as a scientific fact is pure speculation, therefore it is NOT viable as a fact.  It's been very cold throughout the Western part of the US as of late, and temperatures are around normal in the Northeast where I am.  Of course, liberals will point to this as proof of global warming because it's really "global climate change."  Shows you how credible the global warming is when you claim cold weather proves a trend of warming.  

So what effect will warming have on golf courses?  Probably nothing.  I will say, I was thrilled to play golf on both Christmas Day and New Year's Day, but I am certainly not playing any golf now.

The only reason this has become a political issue is because of the President's stance against the "fact" of global warming.  If the President said there was global warming, most liberals would dismiss it as a flawed theory, a scam.  Politics as usual.

What a fantastically absurd post on so many levels.  The first paragraph  in itself is a masterpiece of its kind.  What really annoys me, though, is the arrogance of the last paragraph.  You really believe, do you, that whether there is global warming or not is a political issue only because of the opinion of the occupant of the White House?  In case you are not aware, there's a world outside the borders of the USA and we can form our own opinions, thank you, without worrying about what Bubya thinks.  That's not to say, of course, that what Dubya thinks about all sorts of things doesn't worry me.

[astavrides]

John Kirk,

I think some of the silly humor on this thread, mine included, come from feelings of powerlessness and confusion.

If indeed Global Warming is happening, and is caused by human activity, what the hell are we supposed to do as individuals?   Am I supposed to drive my Prius while getting run over by a Hummer?  When the methane gas from dairy cattle and the CO2 emissions from volcanic eruptions spew as much pollutants into the air as 50 environmentally dirty Russia's and Belarussa's, how do the feeble efforts by each of us make much of a difference, no matter how well-intentioned?

What you're hearing here is some of the same type of gallows humor that created movies like Dr. Strangelove during the Nuclear cold war, fueled by people's combination of fear and seemingly minute ability to do a damn thing about it.

Those who deny global climate change often rail against the funding of those who contend it's very real, yet they are most often in the pockets of the big oil companies and others who profit from the status quo.  

The problem is that even if it is real, and I truly believe it is, is there anything any one of us can really do about it to make a significant difference?

If someone has some great ideas, now would probably be a good time to speak up.

You gotta be kidding me? You think we as individuals can't make a difference? If everyone did a little bit it would go a long way.

I think it is important that we as individuals do what we can, even if it seems insignificant.  Of course, what individuals in the government can do is far more significant.  The only thing we can do about that is to lobby them, and to try to affect who gets elected.  

Mike, good point you make about those who deny climate change profitting from it, probably more so than those who accept that climate change is real.  But I would check the statistics on what produces greenhouse gases.  And I would also say that a simple solution (although many wouldnt want to do it) to cattle emitting methane (rather than CO2) is to not have so many cattle (don't eat meat or dairy).

[Mike_Cirba]

stavros,

That's what I'm hoping to hear, no matter how remote the possibility of it actually happening in reality.  (i.e. everyone switching to a vegan diet)

As a self-professed agnostic moderate (people who claim to know all the answers on both sides scare the heck out of me), one of the frustrating things I find with the Democrats being the loyal opposition has been their amazingly eloquent ability to criticize and their utter mute inability to offer any meaningful ideas of their own.

While Bush has been an unmitigated disaster, I struggle with the idea that Gore or Kerry would have been a marked improvement.  

[Dan Kelly]

It is unseasonably cold in Scotland today (~35 F).  Should I sell the Prius and buy a Hummer, or vice versa?

Confused minds want to know......

Buy a Hummer. Put it in (cold) storage. At the last Barrett-Jackson auction before Doomsday, it'll go for a queen's ransom.

[Dan Kelly]

I was watching a PBS show on supervolcanos a few weeks ago. Turns out there's one under Yellowstone. It's on a 600,000 year cycle, and it's been 640,000 years since it last blew.

We're all living on borrowed time.

Thanks, George. Knowing this should make the 4-foot putts much easier next summer.

Presuming there *is* a next summer!

[Dan Kelly]

John Kirk,

I think some of the silly humor on this thread, mine included, come from feelings of powerlessness and confusion.

If indeed Global Warming is happening, and is caused by human activity, what the hell are we supposed to do as individuals?   Am I supposed to drive my Prius while getting run over by a Hummer?  When the methane gas from dairy cattle and the CO2 emissions from volcanic eruptions spew as much pollutants into the air as 50 environmentally dirty Russia's and Belarussa's, how do the feeble efforts by each of us make much of a difference, no matter how well-intentioned?

What you're hearing here is some of the same type of gallows humor that created movies like Dr. Strangelove during the Nuclear cold war, fueled by people's combination of fear and seemingly minute ability to do a damn thing about it.

Those who deny global climate change often rail against the funding of those who contend it's very real, yet they are most often in the pockets of the big oil companies and others who profit from the status quo.  

The problem is that even if it is real, and I truly believe it is, is there anything any one of us can really do about it to make a significant difference?

If someone has some great ideas, now would probably be a good time to speak up.

Bravo.

[Kalen Braley]

stavros,

As a self-professed agnostic moderate (people who claim to know all the answers on both sides scare the heck out of me), one of the frustrating things I find with the Democrats being the loyal opposition has been their amazingly eloquent ability to criticize and their utter mute inability to offer any meaningful ideas of their own.

While Bush has been an unmitigated disaster, I struggle with the idea that Gore or Kerry would have been a marked improvement.  

Well said, hit the nail right on the head with this post.

And to those who think there is not a massive political component to this, I think thats being very naive.  In politics, everything is fair game, and both sides of the aisle love sticking it to each other!!

I am also neither a democrat or republican and loathe the candidates that these parties have put up for Presidential election in the last 8 years.

[George Pazin]

8 years?

Sorry, then you're not a moderate.

 

[Craig Van Egmond]

No George, he's probably just young.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well,

Since I started the silly humor by taking a swipe at one of my own kind with stereoptypical humor (i.e., hot air producers) I apologize for any offense that may be taken.

Mark Pearce,

There must be some doubt as to global warming, since I have it, and I am not alone.  

I would say that if the earth is warming, it would not be a 20 year trend, it would be longer than we have kept records, industrial pollutants notwithstanding.  And it would likely be more related to the tilt of the axis that has caused the four ice ages and is predicted to cause others in the far future.

Makes sense it should get warmer in between, no?  And since the earth has survived these cycles, I think (with no real backup, admittedly) that logic says it will survive again, perhaps with life evolving into slightly altered forms, as it has for the last ten million years.  What are ya gonna do?  

We have a similar - and golf related - debate going on here in Texas with water and our recent drought.  While its bad, water table levels were actually recorded lower back in 1905, before millions started moving here, and suggesting its not just our current consumption that draws the water down as much as natural cycles.  All of which gets forgotten in the drive for the government to control all the water, which is a bigger issue for ranchers, etc. but will effect golf courses.

I fear what more unnecessary and expensive govt programs might do, as I doubt this would be the first one pulled off without a hitch.  And I hate to have the US play under different economic rules, even though I understand the rationale.  I guess I favor "jobs, jobs, jobs" over a plan crafted on at the very least incomplete scientific data and unknowable outcomes.

That said, if Bush were serious about rationally reducing hydrocarbon production, (which I doubt - in truth, he can't be re-elected so he doesn't care about contributions as much as polishing his legacy, same as every other politician before him, liberal or conservative) I doubt anyone would argue at all.  And IMHO, slow reduction starting now would work fine without drastic measures proposed by some others.

Well, any average citizen.  As noted, it is political in the US, and whatever any president proposed would immediately be repudiated as wrong by the opposition party.  But again, what are ya gonna do?  

Anyway, that is the basic argument against adopting the worldwide treaty.  Does it have holes? Of course, but many points are not as unreasonable as portrayed by Al Gore and his supporters.

[Mark Pearce]

Jeff,

There's some doubt as to whether Darwin was right, apparently, but most scientits are happy to accept that evolution is a better model than creationism.  What is fact, not theory, is that the ice caps are melting.  And that 8 out of the ten hottest years on record were in the last ten years.  Now this may all be down to something other than greenhouse gases but the vast majority of scientific opinion doesn't think so.  If it is, then we don't have fifty years to be sure, we need to act now.  Since there isn't anyone arguing that pumping the combustion product of fossil fuels into the atmosphere is actually good for the planet it seems to make sense to reduce emissions and the best way to do that without causing major suffering is to start now.

As to your comments about life possibly having to evolve into slightly altered forms, I'd ask a dinosaur whether that's acceptable, or even the likely outcome.  If predictions of the effects of global warming are correct, then a large number of major cities (including New York, London, Los Angeles and Washington) will be under water.  That could happen in the next hundred years.  The human race will survive but it will be pretty unpleasant, hundreds of millions will die and, given mankinds history when faced with crises of that nature, it's odds on there'll be a war or two.

Still, there remains a chance that all the models are wrong (and certainly scientists have been before) so why should Americans give up their right to drive SUVs with 6-litre engines?  After all, that's a fundamental human right, isn't it?

[Kyle Harris]

I'll just wait for the next pacific island to decide to blow its top and put this thing to rest for the next 200 years.

[Joe Hancock]

Mark Pearce,

The only thing that stands out to me in your post concerns the statistic about hottest years. The number of years that we have good, factual data (globally) concerning climatology is a blip in the history of the planet, I have a hunch. Of course, scientists can probably "prove" what the temps were in Siberia 4 million years ago.....

Joe

[George Pazin]

Someone did release a study somewhat recently - within the last year or two - that stated there were decades in the 1500s (I think) that were significantly hotter than recent decades. I think they studied trees or something like that.

BTW, I highly recommend the supervolcano show that I cited earlier, it was fascinating on many levels.

And, of course, you can never go wrong with that Day After Tomorrow documentary from a few years ago, the one starring Dennis Quaid.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

I actually was responding to David Suchers "no doubt" comments, and somehow put your name in there. Perhaps global warming is happening right inside my head and its affecting me.

I think we agree on starting now to reduce emissions just to make our own lives more pleasant. Setting MPG and emissions limits, which I think is what Bush was referring to, to gradually make cars run cleaner and with more fuel efficiency is a legitimate govt. function.  That should get us out of our SUV's in great numbers, as does $2 gallon gas.  (What kills me is if Kerry or Gore had been elected, the $2 gas would have been touted as his plan to get us to drive less....with Bush, its him caving in to oil companies....in truth, I doubt either could have controlled gas prices since we import so much)

That said, emission reductions entails some other hard choices - here in Tx we need a dozen new power plants or we will have brownouts soon.  No one wants coal plants (pollution) or nuclear (possible 3 mile island) and wind is generally agreed to be able to provide 10% of need at most.  There are no perfect choices, and human impacts to the pristine environment are signifigant.  If you presume increasing pollution from 10 new coal plants, and at least one nuclear accident per century, which is a better option for the 90% of power we need to generate?

I have concluded that each of us is going to have about the same impact on the enviroment one way or the other.  That is illustrated by those who favor dishwashers over paper plates.  What is a bigger impact - another acre of landfill or the energy used in the dishwasher?  Some have said they are equal either way.

I seriously doubt the predictions of LA being under water in this century are correct (unless by earthquake)  I say that because I think there is very little unbiased scientific writing these days (as odd as that sounds to pure scientists) It sounds like something an enviromental group would pay a scientist to say to be a "call to action." JMHO, and of course, industry does the same thing.

As to asking the dinosaurs, which is to illustrate that we people don't want to evolve, yes its not pleasant to contemplate, but I figure the forces behind evolution (including the supposed meteor stikes that some think wiped out the dinosaur) are way beyond our control.  Not saying I don't understand why we should try, but long term change is inevitable. And I am glad some prehistoric creature didn't do more to keep us all from having gills or waking on all fours - you know, its possible (and probable according to evolutionary theory) that whatever changes to the human race will be improvements, not the devolvment you and others fear.

Its all an interesting debate.  I'm done, because I have work to do, but feel free to continue without rancor.  The main point of my last post was to apolgize for the silly humor on an important, but probably now, if not originally, OT subject.

Never in a million years of evolution, did I think that this group would object to a pot shot at RTJ Jr!

[Mike_Cirba]

Never in a million years of evolution, did I think that this group would object to a pot shot at RTJ Jr!

Jeff,

You are so out of touch sometimes!  

RTJ Jr (GOOD)
Rees   (BAD)

Next time make it about Rees and Global Warming and you'll likely pass by unscathed.  

[ForkaB]

What would golf courses look like if we had gills and walked on all fours?  I bet the 17th at Sawgrass would be a helluva lot easier.

[Matt Kardash]

It really depresses me to hear so many people here just thowing around their OPINIONS on the subject of global climate change without knowing the facts. When I don't know something I shut my mouth and listen. Maybe you should do the same. And i'm not saying this because I disagree with you. I'm saying this because you have nothing to back up your statements. You only have personal beliefs which are based on everything except science.

I study climate change. In general the planet is warming (yes, some small isolated spots have shown cooling). This rapid tempetature increase coincidences with the industrial revolution. The increase of C02 in the atmosphere is directly correlated with this temperature rise. These are FACTS. You can interepret this how you want, but they are facts. By the way, no scientist in the world disputes the fact that the planet is warming. Yes, there are a few rogues out there who are trying to make the case that climate change is NOT anthropogenic. There is no 100% certainty that climate change is human-related. However, the correlation IS strong. I think we are better off being safe than sorry.

[JSlonis]

There is an excellent article in the Philadelphia Magazine that just arrived today about this whole Global Warming issue.

The gist of it is about a UPENN Geology Professor who thinks Al Gore and his ilk are more than a little off base and too hasty in their assumptions of what is actually occuring.  He doesn't think that global warming is even in the top 10 of current environmental problems. One of his points was that we've only been keeping record and truly studying the earth's climatic changes for about 200 years.  This is an extremely small sampling considering that the most recent Geologic Era, the "Cenozoic" began about 65.5 million years ago.  This Cenozoic Era brought about a cooling of the earth at a time when the dinosaurs became extinct.  The professor also stated that over the many millions of years the scientists believe the earth to have existed, it has been majoritively warmer overall than what we are experiencing in these modern times.

To me, it was an interesting article.  Like Mike Cirba(the agnostic moderate-I like that)the folks who are 100% certain on opposite sides of an issue, regardless of the issue, scare the heck out of me.  I thought it brought some common sense points to the topic, instead of the knee jerk scare tactics so often associated to it.  I'm certainly not an expert on the topic, but it is one that interests me and I appreciate hearing both sides of the debate. Granted there were not the vast numbers of people and industry we now have throughout the millions of years prior, but this current "global warming" is a mere blip on the much larger picture.

Carry on...

[Matt Kardash]

Actually, since shortly after the last ice age the temperature trend was showing a slight decrease until the time of the industrial revolution.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt you can understand why some on here are jaded over the so called "science" of Climate Change.

How scientific can it be when there isn't a consensus on why its happening?  Correlations are a long way off from direct cause and effect relationships.  If the evidence really is clear then why isn't everyone reading the signs the same way?

I view this process similiar to a religious undertaking. Its like reading the bible, everyone is looking at the same book, but yet there are thousands of different ideas ideas/implmentations/beliefs on what the true nature of god is and the plan he allegedly has for us.

So in the meantime we have scraremongers like Al Gore who think we should all follow his "religious" teachings, no different than a priest of your local church.  No thanks!