Since some believe that the "consensus" defines reality. http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Les...Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm If 7% is majority consensus; then it's highly over-rated. But what is the consensus anyways? This is why science isn't run by majority opinion. It's run by rigorously tested hyphotheses. Claiming scientific consensus is reality has led to many wrong conclusions throughout our history. Another one from the same site: CO2's role in global warming is way exagerrated.
Just yesterday the Breck's girl (formerly known as John Edwards) said that all americans should give up their SUV's...I love both of mine, and am going to keep them...all because I like to cause Global Warming...hey Gtech, another round of Chili?
Lorien, D1/16th of a brain: Explain this to me. How did global warming become a partisan issue. I truly don't understand it nor do I understand how arguing that it isn't occuring at all is for the betterment of Americans. If it was discovered that terrorists were polluting the water supply, or damaging the environment George Bush would be raising holy hell about the danger of terrorists. The concept of global warming is that this appears to be a man made phenomena and needs to be studied and addressed. The impact, as described, is far beyond the concept of temperatures going up. Its implication is that water supplies, the ability to grow crops, etc. could be irreversably altered potentially harming millions and billions of people. How does negating its existance help the potential large part of the American population that may vote Republican? I don't see it in any way shape or form. Who does it hurt? Oil companies, industries that use huge amts of oil, industries that suck up lots of energy and emit carbon dioxide, etc. Does it help John Doe American if he can't currently buy inexpensive foods at the market because crops are being ruined? Secondly, what is telling is that the administration hasn't reviewed this openly. Time and again they have bureacratic non-scientists review and alter documents coming out of government sources that show ANY inkling that there might be some validity to the science. How many John Doe American's is that helping? The administration tends to block this every which way. It argues against participation in efforts to further address the issue by warning of a negative impact on the economy. The alternative is that pursuing this issue, scientfically, and if it has merit, from a business perspective would generate enormous new industries, technology, and jobs in other areas. Smart business people and industries already realize this and are pursuing investment in these areas. I can only think that if George Bush had been president when cars were first being used....and Bush received campaign contributions from the horse and buggy industry he would have been vigorously campaigning and pontificating about the dangers, evils, and nonsense of cars. If he had been president when pc's were coming into popularity and he was receiving campaign contributions from the typewriter industry he would have turned the development of the pc into an enemy of the state. So how did this issue become so partisan?
Holy non sequitors batman! Is your post serious? Really. I'm not sure. This sounds like a barfed out stream of conciousness post. Appears to be.... needs to be... Agreed, in part. Please understand that when I refer to GW, I refer to manmade GW, not natural. It happens naturally all the time; we are referring to manmade here. If people wanna study it. Cool. Wonderful. But don't you agree that signing foolish treaties (kyoto, etal) that do not even address the problem - and simply cause others - is faulty. When you, yourself agree that the issue "needs be studied". This is when I'd refer you to the previously posted links, which, clearly you either didn't read or attempt to understand. Here's a pointer for you: So, what you are saying here is either: denying manmade global warming hurts republicans - therefore you should not deny it. Or, you saying that denying it somehow makes it worse? Either way. I'm not sure I'm following. Is "it" global warming? or is "it" acknowledging GW? He can't currently do this? I'm confused. What crops are being ruined? Again. This is where I'd refer you to the links I posted. This isn't an administration point of view. This is based upon published papers in the field from the last 4 years or so. Updated from the original report where the "consensus" came into play. Wonderful. I'm all about businesses innovating. I'm not sure how you've made the conclusion that anyone is against innovation, though. That's interesting. You are the one bringing up Bush and Republicans here. I suggest you ask yourself his question. Why are -you- so partisan about it. I'm talking about people who do the research, where the vast majority do not support the "consensus" view, and a small majority do not implicitly support it.
My cousin who comes up for a family reunion every year is a meteorologist and geologist. Instead of trying to tell you what I believe, i'll just regurgitate what he said when I flat out asked him, "So what do you think about global warming?". He started out by saying that anyone who has truely studied it should know that is likely a failing theory. He says first of all, when we have such a limited length of records, you can assume that it is hard to come up with this type of conclusion. As well, he stated that the records that are primarily used now days no longer have many of the russian records used 20 years ago. Therefore, when you take out colder climated records, and average them out, you would naturally find a warmer temperature than you had 20 years ago. So they way they found the data that might support the theory is actually flawed. As for myself, I can't hardly believe the theory is fact when I know records in my state only go back 100 years and most other places max out only a little longer probably when you look at the grand scheme of how long Earth has been here.
Lorien, it's a good post. Thanks for the information. You as well, PHP. My question is this - and I've asked this before, but don't think it's ever been addressed. Bottom line, we often proceed apace with things that may, or, if you're right, may not, be dangerous. If the data is as yet inconclusive (and this is something I continue to study), the problem is that the downside is potentially disastrous. A few examples. There was no association between cigarette smoking and cancer until quite recently, in the scheme of things. Nevertheless, the first intimations of this association portended the dire results from cigarette smoking. Blithely ignoring the association based on as yet inconclusive evidence was not logical, given the potentially devastating damage as a consequence of cigarette smoking. I hold the same view regarding genetically engineered foods, and I hold the same for the relationship between man-made, unnatural processes, and global warming. If it isn't a problem, we've lost nothing but shittier air to breathe. If it is the problem "my camp" says, we've saved the earth.
100% agreed, if we can avoid using our natural resources, if we can avoid cutting down every tree in the country, if we can avoid doing anything that in the long run may have negative impact on us then why not do it? In a Political Science class I took in college we learned that most people were fairly moderate. By tradition, Democrats are primarily education oriented. But you will never hear a Republican say "Bah, education? Reading is soo over-rated". Same applies here, Republicans would probably be all in favor of recycling and doing their part where possible, they just don't feel it needs to be mandated or that it is one of the biggest issues out there right now.
Thanks, but with respect, I don't think that's quite my point, PHP. To me, it's a question of potential harm. Unless it's definitively proved to me that global warming is b.s., I'd say, the stakes are high enough to still warrant a drastic reduction in manmade atmospheric output. Basically, if "global warmers" are right, by analogy - when the early cigarette-cancer linkage came out, there were many "doomsdayers" and many "naysayers." To the latter, given the potential stakes, I'd still say, how bad is "a little cancer?" I feel the same about nuclear energy, and anything else that has the potential, even if only a slim, theoretical potential at this point, to be a kind of uber-Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.
Northpoint: I agree with you. If the downside danger is bad don't hamper addresssing the science, research, or experimentation with the issue. If the downside turns out to be true all can deal with it more quickly which will only be favorable. If the downside turns out to be untrue, resources are freed to be used elsewhere.
I guess my point is is that the difference between cigarettes - cancer and recycling - global warming is that everyone here is pretty well willing to make changes if the technology was readily available. Lets say Conoco Phillips, one of the biggest fuel companies in the United States decided "Lets stop using oil, and find a more enviroment fuel to produce" and likewise Ford and Chevrolet turned around and mass-produced a vehicle at an inexpensive price that could run the alternative fuel... everyone would do it. They wouldn't just say "Bah, I like my $3.00 per gallon of gasoline". Right now though, the technology is out there, no major company has really pushed it much though. People just don't want to give up their SUV's for tiny cars.
Everyone talks like "Why not just agree that global warming is real and help fight it, then if it turns out to not be a threat, great we have just saved some of Earths resources!" Except fighting this so-called man made global warming will cost developed countries trillions of dollars, while places like China continue to pollute at the same rate and nobody bats an eye. And what does fighting GW mean? Does it mean I have to give up my V8 for a 4cylender? Or some electric pile of crap? Or will I just be taxed out the ass for owning a V8? And what about companies? They will spend millions upon millions of dollars each to go 'green'. Who do you think is going to pay for that? The consumer. I'm not willing to pay extra for my goods and services because Al Gore made a shitty movie. On a side note, I listen to the radio all day. When I'm in my car and a global warming scare ad comes on, if there is open road ahead of me, I floor it to at least 100MPH The stations I listen to have at least one global warming ad per commercial break. It's enough to drive a person crazy.
Lorien, you are right to point out that science is not a popularity contest. Interesting read by David Applegate, AGI Director of Government Affairs: http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/scene298.html I have been guilty of such "name dropping" in the advancement of something I am fairly well convinced of, based on what I have studied so far. Properly chastened. Do you have sources/more information on this? Yeah, it might. We all may need to stop whining about necessary adjustments in this way. See last response. Further, I've said it before - Gore is a straw man. I do not know why "your camp" rides on this, while ignoring the community that works on this, as scientists, diligently and by the rigorous standards of science. Congratulations. Admittedly, a cut and paste only coming - I am intrigued by the article Lorien posted, and still in the middle of reading the opposing view; still, interesting: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 American Geophysical Union resources on global warming: http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/agu1?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=global+warming&btnG=Search Another, a good comment, from a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research: http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/june06/comment.html
And now to the heart of things, it's screwing up wine: http://www.thewineacademy.com/web/eng/noticia01.php?id=175 OK, gloves off. Actually, I have seen the impact already, as formerly "warm weather" grapes - such as grenache and syrah, used in the Rhone wines I love - are having to move further north to maintain quality. I've seen it, but piqued to take a data-based look. Here's something I just found: http://www.climatmundi.fr/lng_EN_srub_34-Global-warming.html
If you take this line of thought to it's admittedly silly conclusion, then why even get out of bed in the morning? Why take a shower every day? You could slip and bust your head open. Why drive to work? Every car you pass on the way is a potential accident that can take your life. To take it to it's silly end, why eat? You could choke. There are lots of potential dangers in life that we, as intelligent beings have to weigh benefits vs. the cost every day. Oh, and alcohol causes cirrhosis of the liver, you better not drink it
I knew what you were getting at. I was being a little facetious in my reply hence the "admittedly silly conclusion".
Then I must admit I'm confused. The degree of potential harm, and the conscious ability to do something about it, was precisely my point, hence, it is impossible to draw an analogy between what I was saying and your post. I don't, therefore, believe your post applies. Does it?