My husband and I were talking about global warming the other day. We both think it's sad that many people don't even allow room for talk on the subject. I'm no scientist, and I've done zero research on climate. However, I am interested in any research on the topic and am not 100% convinced that there's anything like consensus or that we'll find definitive answers any time soon. I do think it's a shame that global warming has already become a "fact"; several scientists apparently
. But I guess that I shouldn't be surprised that people would rather argue than talk.
If global warming is causing all the oceans to rise, why hasn't anyone closed down the base on Diego Garcia, or for that matter, any other atoll with a significant defense installation worth money?
Posted by: Jason at June 16, 2006 11:52 AM (/5dHh)
"Global Warming" ia about two entirely different things which the Left tries vigorously to lump together.
1) Is the weayher getting warmer?
2) Evil mankind is CAUSING this.
Well, there has NEVER been a time when the climate was neither getting warmer, nor getting cooler. Change is NORMAL.
As for #2, was it emissions from Fred Flintstone's car that caused the last Ice Age to melt? NO? But, melt it did without any help from mankind.
So, when offered "proof" that global warming is happening, you are also supposed to take this as "proof" that mankind is CAUSING it.
Don't fall for it.
Oh. And why does the Left insist on calling the Earth "the planet?" It's because "planets" are small and fragile. I mean look! They all fit on one 3' x 5' poster on a classroom wall! And, those 3D models of the Solar System are even smaller. Small, and fragile.
Don't fall for it.
Posted by: Bill at June 17, 2006 05:47 AM (dpo5g)
It has become virtually impossible to have a meaningful public debate on any question with any complexity to it, because too many individuals jump to arguing without bothering to pass through the stages of learning and understanding. Lots of people are expression fervent opinions on "net neutrality" who don't know what a peering agreement is, and have no interest in finding out. Lots of people argue pro or con on ethanol without bothering the understand the energy balance question, or the problems that exist in transporting this substance.
Posted by: david foster at June 17, 2006 12:48 PM (/Z304)
Of course, there are people who call themselves scientists who don't believe in evolution, too.
And I always thought that "the left" called called the Earth "the planet" because it was an oblate spheroid orbiting (what we radicals call) "the Sun." What do people on the Right call the Earth? "God's Domain?"
Posted by: Pericles at June 17, 2006 01:06 PM (eKf5G)
Take another look at the meaning of the word consesus in your dictionary.There is a consensus in the scientific community, verging on unaninimity. But expertise is just another word for "predjudism" as the president says. People git infermation in their head that keep's em from bein good deciders. That's why we need to get our scientific information from preachers and novelist,you know, the knda folks that'll tell us the kinda things we want to hear.
Posted by: herb at June 17, 2006 01:53 PM (/r0Hi)
The guy who wrote that article, Tom Harris, has degrees in Mechanical Engineering and works for High Park Group...and what is High Park Group? It's hard to tell from their own website, but this one has a little more information:
"Mr. Egan is president of the High Park Group, a public policy consulting firm that focuses largely on energy issues out of its offices in Toronto and Ottawa. He is retained by the Canadian Electricity Association on a range of issues, including U.S. advocacy (monitoring the U.S. Congress and Administration on issues of interest to the Canadian electricity industry)."
Kind of sounds like an industry shill to me, but who knows...
Regarding consensus, of course there will never be 100% consensus on an issue as complex as global warming, but this is what Science (one of the most respected scientific journals in the world) has to say on it:
"Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case."
Posted by: Polar at June 17, 2006 02:15 PM (59MED)
I have been married to a marine biologist for 48 years. I think I can speak for him on this, if the globe is warming it has to do with natural cycles. Man is not talented enough to change those cycles. Nor have we been around long enough to learn all that is going on. Putting all that data into a computer is impossible, since we cannot know what all the data is. All the models are skewed to the modelers belief system. And it is a belief system they are tied to just as much as any Christian or Muslim. (sorry that last charge is from my belief system but he thinks it, too!) My belief is that "Peer reviewed" in the current science community means a certain in-group allows only their beliefs in the major journals. And the basis of their belief to get the grant money. I can say this now that he is no longer in that system and has been retired for quite a few years.
Everytime I see a headline or news story on a theory or breakthrough, I think "hmmm...grant money". Publicity buys it. Do I sound cynical?, yes. I am.
Posted by: Ruth H at June 17, 2006 02:20 PM (5p1l0)
The globe is ok dude, the globe is awight. The globe'll be here when we'er long gone. Don't worry about the globe!!
Posted by: herb at June 17, 2006 07:33 PM (Loext)
really, i think the most important thing to remember on this issue is the following:
if you come across anyone who doubts that global warming is real and that we are causing it, THAT PERSON MUST BE SHOUTED DOWN!
Posted by: annika at June 17, 2006 09:24 PM (fxTDF)
You certainly can't infer, simply from the fact that the Earth is getting warmer, that our CO2 emissions are responsible. Establishing causality in science is difficult, especuially where you can't run controlled experiments. At the same time, we know that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, and we know that humans are putting an awful lot of it into the atmosphere. So prima facie there is nothing stupid or absurd about the idea that we might be making a contribution to the phenomenon.
What is interesting to me about the debate is that environmentalists are the bete noire of today's conservatives, but environmentalists are the ones with the more conservative attitude. Not just because they are conservationists, but because they worry about unintended consequences. It used to be conservatives who had the attitude that we aren't as smart as we think we are, so we should always be very careful, and not tamper with things too much. Now, though, people on the right seem to have the attitude that we can let companies do whatever it is profitable for them to do, and we're so smart that nothing could possibly go wrong.
Then again, why should we be surprised? The party that used to think that the law of unintended consequences would defeat attempts social engineering in THIS country now seems to think that we are able to completely remake a foreign culture where hardly any of us even speak the language.
Posted by: Pericles at June 18, 2006 02:52 AM (eKf5G)
First of all, if you actually look
at the Vostok ice core data
that shows CO2 levels and temperatures over the last 400,000 years, you can clearly see that temperature changes precede
CO2 level changes. How come the global warming alarmists keep missing that? For another, those who keep screaming about human-caused CO2 levels and global warming are completely ignoring the effects of sulfur dioxide, aerosols, water vapor, methane, land usage, albedo and, of course, solar output. It's all about pushing their anti-capitalist, anti-Western agenda.
Posted by: CavalierX at June 20, 2006 05:18 AM (72ufR)
I'm curious. A previous poster commented that humans simply don't have the capacity to affect such large scale changes in earth's atmosphere. Yet 15 years ago there was much concern about the ozone hole over the southern pole that was as large as Antartica. Reduced emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals was insituted and today the ozone hole problem has all but disappeared. Now I'm scratching my head wondering how that could be possible? After all, we can't make that kind of impact because we aren't 'talented enough'. Right?
Posted by: Allen at July 04, 2006 02:55 PM (FfZGl)
| Add Comment