Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Sureboss]

But surely that brings in to question the accuracy of that data?

---------

Could someone explain this to me?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/01/ozone-antarctica

The hole in the Earth's ozone layer has shielded Antarctica from the worst effects of global warming until now, according to the most comprehensive review to date of the state of the Antarctic climate. But scientists warned that as the hole closes up in the next few decades, temperatures on the continent could rise by around 3C on average, with melting ice contributing to a global sea-level increases of up to 1.4m.

Huh? I thought that hole's in ozone layer meant that the lack of ozone (O3?) meant more warming would take place?

 

[Touring Mars]

Not really. The main reason why climate science in the 1970's was unable to draw any firm conclusions about the direction of future global climate was almost certainly due to insufficient data rather than the accuracy of the available data. Some of the methods by which air, surface and sea temperatures are measured today are very similar to those that have been used for a long time, but that is not to say that they are inherently inaccurate. Of course, the accuracy of the data is an issue, but it is an issue dealt with routinely in climate science - even measurements made today have unavoidable errors associated with them. As such, you'd be hard pressed to find any climate science publication that does not include error bars or a consideration of the uncertainty inherent in the measurement of the data.

As for the hole in the ozone layer, I don't remember seeing any evidence that suggested that decreased ozone meant more warming. The problem with the ozone layer 'hole' was an entirely separate environmental issue - that reduced ozone increases the UV flux and is therefore extremely hazardous to health. But, as it turns out, apparently another effect it has had has been to mitigate the warming effect of increasing GHG emissions. I can't say I understand what effect it is supposed to have had, but ozone is itself a greenhouse gas, so the replenishment of the ozone layer is probably going to be bad news for the mitigating effects of ozone depletion anyway.

 

[FoolKiller]

However I stick by my criticism of your assessment that posting that garbage was a serious contribution to the discussion.

More serious than discussing the barbecuing of baby seals? Yes, it was. Perhaps on topic would have been better.

If it's merely a question of questioning government's role in the issue, then why does he trot out a series of cherry-picked 'science controversies' rather than sticking to the point? He doesn't even get his facts right, let alone use any actual facts that support his case. That he mentions in passing that his skepticism of climate science might be misplaced is somewhat belittled by the fact that he cites discredited information as a justifiable reason to be skeptical of government policy while neglecting to mention what the actual scientific community thought of the ideas at the time. As such, consider me extremely skeptical of the idea that part of the point of his rant was to enlighted debate on climate science.

Pointing out a series of supposed consensuses, that are now known to be incorrect, that government used in policy decisions. If his attack is on the government action, and how government plays these situations then what the scientific community thought is irrelevant.

But when he attacks the science of the time, and is not quoting a Forbes article as he did when referring to "The Weather Conspiracy," he refers to the National Science Board, which did say in 1974:

During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade... The cause of the cooling trend is not known with certainty. But there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures over the last century.

And in case you are unaware, the National Science Board is the group appointed by the president to advise him on policy. If there is consensus in the NSB, then as far as the president (and thus his policy) is concerned, there is consensus.

The fact is that there were actual scientists, including some as prominent as Carl Sagan, who proposed that men were causing global cooling. Some, including Sagan, even pointed at the possible warming effect of greenhouse gases as a way to find an answer.

An odd twist that then some scientists said pollutants in the air were causing cooling and greenhouse gases were an answer, and today we have at least one scientist suggesting that greenhouse gases are causing warming and injecting stuff (I don't want to call it pollution) to cause cooling may be the answer.


I will give you that he does not refer to Michael Mann's response to his comments regarding plausible deniability. But he is using the "climategate" situation to point out why his "experience driven skepticism" isn't about to be altered just because a government controlled group said he should.

No offense, but you can't have read much of this thread if you can still make a comment like this. Almost every part of the sentence is flawed.

Perhaps you should look at who I am responding too and what all he has said to understand why I responded the way I did.

 

[Touring Mars]

Pointing out a series of supposed consensuses, that are now known to be incorrect, that government used in policy decisions. If his attack is on the government action, and how government plays these situations then what the scientific community thought is irrelevant.

What he fails to consider, of course, is what if the current administration actually consider scientific evidence that is infact correct? The assumption he is making is that the current consensus is wrong, and that government acceptance of it is evidence of its incorrectness.

The fact is that there were actual scientists, including some as prominent as Carl Sagan, who proposed that men were causing global cooling. Some, including Sagan, even pointed at the possible warming effect of greenhouse gases as a way to find an answer.

Yes, Sagan did say this (among other things) and as usual, he was mostly correct. In a paper he co-authored in the journal Science in 1979, he does indeed say that albedo changes attributable to human activity, predominately desertification, could influence the climate drastically. But he also said that this would happen in tandem with other anthropogenic influences on the climate, specifically the greenhouse effect, and that the cooling effect of albedo changes (the focus of this paper) would merely "partially compensate" for the (presumed warming) effect of increasing CO2.

"Extrapolation of present rates of change of land use suggests a further decline of -1K in the global temperature by the end of the next century, at least partially compensating for the increase in global temperature through the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, anticipated from the continued burning of fossil fuels. However, further such changes are unlikely, because virtually all the surface area of the earth will, at present rates, have been converted to high-albedo land use by then. The surface albedo of the earth will reach an asymptotic limit long before the carbon dioxide abundance will."

Now, does that sound like someone predicting an ice age to you? It doesn't to me, but it does suggest that cherry-picking Carl Sagan quotes to demonstrate that even great scientists can be wrong is just a bit unfair. Sagan and co-authors were not incorrect in their assessment that human activity can and is influencing the Earth's climate by virtue of the resulting albedo changes associated with that activity. What they didn't say was that these effects would or were even likely to dominate, and as the quote above suggests, they were already well aware by 1979 that there was a limit to just how much anthropogenically induced albedo change would have, especially when set against the other anthropogenic climate effects such as greenhouse gas climate forcing. Sagan was of course not oblivious to the fact that great scientists can be wrong, as evinced by this classic quote below, but atleast it was fair to say this because Ptolemy was wrong, not because our interpretation of his comments was wrong.

And there was the astronomer Ptolemy, who compiled much of what is today's pseudoscience of astrology... showing that intellectual brilliance is no guarantee for being dead wrong.

 

[Biggles]

Unlike the case of the Iraq war & the Bush administration, it's not clear to me what the self-serving motivation would be for governments to actively promote the dangers of "global warming" or "climate change." As far as I can see, most governments - left wing, right wing or centrist - appear to be very reluctant to spend money or political capital in attempting to reduce carbon emissions.

 

[Dotini]

Mainly they want to spend it to get reelected. Too bad it's just about gone.

 

[Danoff]

Unlike the case of the Iraq war & the Bush administration, it's not clear to me what the self-serving motivation would be for governments to actively promote the dangers of "global warming" or "climate change." As far as I can see, most governments - left wing, right wing or centrist - appear to be very reluctant to spend money or political capital in attempting to reduce carbon emissions.

The left here is actually quite interested in catering to the environmentalist vote.

 

[Dotini]

And the left is large and in charge?

Here's a Pew poll which says more Americans believe in angels than human caused global warming.
http://rawstory.com/2009/12/americans-angels-humancaused-global-warming/

 

[Touring Mars]

Here's a Pew poll which says more Americans believe in angels than human caused global warming.
http://rawstory.com/2009/12/americans-angels-humancaused-global-warming/

If nothing else, this should serve as a reminder about the wisdom of allowing public opinion to influence policy on scientific issues such as this - although I have no doubt that it frequently does.

I agree with your post Biggles - and I would add to that that for most people who concern themselves with this issue on a purely scientific level, partisan politics are of little to no interest. It is far more important that we get the science right regardless of whose political agenda it might ultimately support.

 

[Biggles]

Mainly they want to spend it to get reelected.

Perhaps overly cynical, but certainly politicians tend to take a rather short-term view of issues.

The left here is actually quite interested in catering to the environmentalist vote.

I don't see that the "environmentalist vote" has been a particularly strong factor in dictating government policy in most countries - certainly not in North America. The "environmentalist industries" are still relatively small & lacking lobbying clout, compared to big, established "polluting industries" like oil, coal, & auto manufacturing, which are firmly entrenched within the political system. Overcoming that kind of entrenched self-interest is hard when the arguments for the environmentalist case are focused on long-term, generalized, global issues.

 

[Danoff]

I don't see that the "environmentalist vote" has been a particularly strong factor in dictating government policy in most countries - certainly not in North America. The "environmentalist industries" are still relatively small & lacking lobbying clout, compared to big, established "polluting industries" like oil, coal, & auto manufacturing, which are firmly entrenched within the political system. Overcoming that kind of entrenched self-interest is hard when the arguments for the environmentalist case are focused on long-term, generalized, global issues.

No need for lobbying when you have voters.

 

[Biggles]

No need for lobbying when you have voters.

Fortunately, the voters only get to influence the process every few years, whereas the lobbying, & the millions spent on political contributions, influence peddling, bribery & graft goes on 365 days a year.

 

[Dotini]

No need for lobbying when you have voters.

There must be a paucity of voters, since there are 5 lobbyists for every legislator in the US Congress.

My nephew is a lobbyist in the Washington State legislature. It's a low calling for a Juris Doctor with a passing score on the state bar exam, but heck, young people need to work. His firm's portfolio includes the police chiefs, fire chiefs, port commisions and some of the tribes.

 

[ItsHim]

I was pointing out your error in reasoning, not saying your end assumption is wrong. You, in your area, have seen what is, in your relativly short lifetime, freak weather conditions. But the fact is that your region has very likely seen those same conditions before humans were putting stuff into the atmosphere. I am not saying that climate change doesn't happen, but I am saying that your individual circumstance cannot be scientifically linked to any form of climate change.
(...)
Or is it just possible that these are regional extreme conditions that can occasionally happen?

The real question is if we can directly link human activity to climate change. The best we have is temporal correlation. That is not enough. There are studies looking into solar activity which also show similar temporal correlations. And if we are going to only assume this can be man-made change then we have to answer for why other time periods had similar changes with no men to be seen.

(...)

So please, don't accuse me of being some science doubter just because I question the method being used and ask that it be definitive. Einstein found ways to prove many of his theories.

(...)
Side note: I also do not use a sat nav.

I'm not here to hurt anyone's feelings, so I'm sorry if I offended you. That's not my intention, nor do I want to make any accuses of persons in particular.

I believe in science. Not in scientists, but that considering all things, science works because the processes and principles of science work in general. Why? Because we have sat navs as well as atomic power plants, space travel and so forth. Eventually they "get it right" and "wrong" theories will get corrected over time. Eventually this will yield results other than theories being discussed in papers and summits.

Science should be constantly challenged and questioned, but not doubted. So, again, I'm not attacking you personally, or even aiming it at you!

I just happened to say it in a new paragraph in a posting which started with a quote of you.

The green house effect was first discovered in early 19th century. CO2 being one contributor was to my knowledge firmly established in the 20th century, and it's got a share of 10-25% of the gases responsible for the virtual glass. To my knowledge, there was never as much CO2 in the ecosystem as is today. It's known that the human caused CO2 is very small in percentage, but on the other hand there seem to be no consense how sensible the system reacts to changes. So, for me, it is not safe to assume that even a small increase in CO2 concentration can't have a noticeable effect.

Other factors as solar activities have contributed to a, quite noticeable, climate change in the past. One theory is that the small ice-age in the 14th century was caused by the lack of solar flare activity.

But, to my knowledge, it is important to understand why there was a rise or drop in temperature in past times. It's important to distinguish between causes, even if the effects seem similar.

That's really the bottom line of facts I'm basing my judgement.

Now, you are quite correct that for my observations to be of any relevance scientifically, there should be more data collected in the first place. And, if I might say so myself, the human memory is quite a tricky beast because we seem to remember extremes far better than anything else. Memory isn't hard evidence, because it's biased and subjective.

On the other hand, instinct has played a major part in survival. "Gut feeling" is there for a reason, because it helps us discover dangers before the conscious mind has done all the thinking and the "oh dear, there's a lion behind that tree I haven't seen" thing.

Thus, the feeling I have that something isn't quite right has some value to me.

There is no proof that the freak weather conditions I can remember from the past 8 years haven't occurred at some earlier point other than neither my grand-parents nor my parents seem to be able to remember anything quite like it.

Either I'm imagining things, or not. But we can only tell at some point in the future. Maybe in 20-30 years time, there can be a judgement if indeed the first signs of climate change (and freak weather is considered one of the side effects) were visible in the early 21st century.

So, aggregating weather to climate is not a leading factor. It's nothing that will pick up dramatic changes, but on the contrary iron out any extremes.

Second, in my eyes "average" temperatures are not that good a measurement after all.

The human body, while able to adapt to the most hideous condition, has a fairly narrow comfort zone. We are doing actually not that bad at all, but for the sake of the argument let's say my personal comfort zone is between 18 and 28° C.

I was trying to get some data quickly off the internet concerning how often and for how long weather was so that I wasn't in this zone. I haven't found any. That's certainly not to say there isn't any such data, I just couldn't find it in a short amount of time.

What I did find quite easily were average temperatures on certain months and how they compared to older data. But this doesn't answer my question at all.

Now, I find the whole "carbon footprint" discussion quite tricky:

One of the largest human contributors of carbon dioxide is... humans. To put it into perspective, if you and two friends all switch from a Hummer H2 to a Toyota Prius, I can offset the carbon dioxide you no longer put out by having a baby - and the baby lasts for 80 years (and doesn't cause all kinds of environmental mayhem to make and dispose of, but that's beside the point).

(...)

All we know right now is the the climate is changing a bit. We don't yet know why. We don't yet know if the consequences will be good, bad or a mix of both (change usually brings a mix of both) and it really depends what species you are and where you live as to which consequence is visited upon you. And lastly we don't know if we can change it or if we really ought to, lest it brings out a completely different mixed bag of consequences.

(...)

That said, atmospheric carbon dioxide is a smidge high compared to historic maxima and it probably wouldn't do much harm to flick the light switch off and try to see how many mpg you can get out of the car - and it'll save you some money for beer (which is a carbon dioxide sink).[/color][/b]

I believe I can see what you're getting at, but I feel one should really distinguish between "essential" and "non-essential" CO2 emissions.

Now even I have to admit that from time to time I feel like reproducing is somehow hard-coded inside my head. It's not only because I like sex, but because the idea of fathering a child has a strange ring to it. Despite I don't really fancy bringing up kids and founding a family, the older I get the more often the thought crosses my mind. And it's not my mid-life crisis as well. I hope

So, by our very existence, we meddle with stuff. But I think there is a major difference between "natural" causing of CO2 - by having a baby - and "unnatural" causes by constantly being on the move and dashing from A to B.

What I gathered is, that after WW2 it was a major goal to improve food supply for the American citizens by making sure, beef was available in large quantities and thus at rather cheap prices. Meat was 50 years ago a luxury. While I'm not very fond of meat myself, I do once in a while enjoy it and I believe it gives my body nutrition I couldn't get otherwise.

On the other hand, cattle are made responsible for an increase of CO2, amongst other things.

But, I don't feel in hindsight you should simply let them take all the blame. In the first place, it's a very natural thing to wish for good nutrition, and to make "good" nutrition available for the biggest amount of people.

That's doesn't work out too well with many people still suffering from famine, but there's only so much one can do at any point of time.

I believe that it's only fair to try to reduce the amount of CO2 that can be reduced by cutting down using resources on things not absolutely necessary.

No-one should be forced to sit in a cold cave, on the other hand heating the house up to 20° or 21°C in winter is quite sufficient. One could always put on a jumper. By fiddling with the central heating, I could bring down energy consumption by about 20% (prices have risen by roughly 25% over that period, yet the bill has stayed almost identical), thus reducing CO2 by 20% quite easily.

As far as the question goes if we should do something about it, I'd simply say: yes, we should.

Wealth is a beautiful thing. Unlike my grandparents, I don't have to wash with cold water in the morning. I don't have to sleep in a room a bit above 5°C, I can afford a car, virtual unlimited mobility, fancy fruits from all different parts of the world.

I've consumed more "nature" in my 34 years than they did in their 80 years combined. My grandfather travelled maybe 100 km a week, my mother does 1000 km a week and I guess I'm at times well over 3000 km (though not regularly).

You're right in saying on the scale of things considering life on Earth, my life-span is not significant. But I happen to care about it, very much in fact.

If I would put my life in that frame, I could also decide to suddenly believe in God and hope for an eternal after-life. Maybe I'd chose a religion where I get rewarded with virgins instead of divine food, something to keep me occupied for the rest of my after-life other than eating and floating round in the clouds and singing merry songs

You point out we don't know if we actually improve things or make them even worse. Well, as I stated in my original post, if the things I had the last couple of years are anything I'd had to face in future, then things have gotten worse for me.

So yes, I can say I feel comfortable with the thought that I personally have a grown responsibility for "nature" as I'm using up far more of it than my predecessors did. I came to cause much more CO2 than 100 years ago. Maybe it's time to cut back a little. Just in case.

 

[FoolKiller]

The assumption he is making is that the current consensus is wrong, and that government acceptance of it is evidence of its incorrectness.

Weird, it sounded like to me he was saying that past episodes have led him to become skeptical of policy based purely on claimed consensus and so he doesn't buy into it now. It is not that because government accepts it that it must be wrong, but that government quickly accepting it and creating policy is wrong.

Sagan was of course not oblivious to the fact that great scientists can be wrong, as evinced by this classic quote below, but atleast it was fair to say this because Ptolemy was wrong, not because our interpretation of his comments was wrong.

So, where is the problem in questioning the science if we admit that they can (does not mean they are) be wrong? And where is the problem in opposing government policy based on such science as long as such questions exist from other scientists?

The left here is actually quite interested in catering to the environmentalist vote.

And increasing their own regulatory powers. See how the EPA just recently gave themselves control over greenhouse gas regulation. The EPA submitted a report that grants them, unelected officials, the ability to create regulation with the power of law. I wish I could say that I was shocked. With this whole new large area to regulate they will likely need a budget increase.

If nothing else, this should serve as a reminder about the wisdom of allowing public opinion to influence policy on scientific issues such as this - although I have no doubt that it frequently does.

I say the same thing about economic issues, but that is often frequently guided by public opinion more than the actual science too.

that for most people who concern themselves with this issue on a purely scientific level, partisan politics are of little to no interest. It is far more important that we get the science right regardless of whose political agenda it might ultimately support.

Getting the science right is great and all, but you cannot ignore political policy. Well, you can, but it isn't suggested if you want to be sure that your rights are still intact at the end of the day. Not that I am saying the fear of bad policy should change the science, but even if it was 100% without a doubt that humans were causing catastrophic climate change asking the government to fix it is likely the worst possible course of action.

I don't see that the "environmentalist vote" has been a particularly strong factor in dictating government policy in most countries - certainly not in North America. The "environmentalist industries" are still relatively small & lacking lobbying clout, compared to big, established "polluting industries" like oil, coal, & auto manufacturing, which are firmly entrenched within the political system. Overcoming that kind of entrenched self-interest is hard when the arguments for the environmentalist case are focused on long-term, generalized, global issues.

You haven't been paying attention to President Obama, have you?

February
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/25/barack-obama-green-economy-environment

"To truly transform our economy, protect our security and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy," the president said. "So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America."

Barely a week after the passage of his $787bn economic rescue plan, Obama came back to Congress with plans for further green investment.

The recovery plan devoted more than $100bn to making private homes and government buildings more efficient, developing wind and solar power and spending money on public transport.

But the president promised even more tonight, saying his budget, which will be announced on Thursday, would allocate $15bn a year to develop wind and solar power and more fuel-efficient cars.

Just last week
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/03/MNHS14H2I3.DTL

President-elect Barack Obama and leaders in Congress are fashioning a plan to pour billions of dollars into a jobs program to jolt the economy and lay the groundwork for a more energy-efficient economy.

The details and cost of the so-called green jobs program are still unclear, but a senior Obama aide, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a work in progress, said it probably would include the weatherizing of hundreds of thousands of homes, the installation of so-called smart meters to monitor and reduce home energy use, and billions of dollars in grants to state and local governments for mass transit and infrastructure projects.

The green component of the much larger stimulus plan would cost at least $15 billion a year, and perhaps considerably more, depending on how the projects were defined, aides working on the package said.

During the campaign, Obama supported a measure to address global warming by capping carbon emissions while allowing emitters to buy and trade pollution permits. He said he would devote $150 billion of the revenue from the sale of those permits over 10 years to energy efficiency and alternative energy projects to wean the nation from fuels that are the main causes of the heating of the atmosphere.

Perhaps you remember Obama's former Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones, and his ideas of a Green Collar Economy.


Granted, Congress' plans are just fixing broken windows and Van Jones was naive of the environmentalists (wind turbines kill birds) and NIMBYs (before he left in controversy), but this administration has been pushing it, and ignoring that their plans require stepping on individual and corporate rights.

 

[Danoff]

Fortunately, the voters only get to influence the process every few years, whereas the lobbying, & the millions spent on political contributions, influence peddling, bribery & graft goes on 365 days a year.

Ideally, voters pay enough attention to the candidates they vote for to avoid putting someone in office who is willing to accept bribery. Occasionally voters have been known to phone-it-in, but the fact remains that it is in their power.

 

[Touring Mars]

So, where is the problem in questioning the science if we admit that they can (does not mean they are) be wrong? And where is the problem in opposing government policy based on such science as long as such questions exist from other scientists?

Questioning the science is perfectly acceptable and happens all the time, but questioning the science because "scientists can be wrong" has very definite limits on its useful purpose - see the Creationism debate for more details. Opposing government policy based on obviously flawed or discredited science is perfectly acceptable - but questioning government policy based on one's own biased and flimsy understanding of the science is not. And trotting out a few examples of where government has been wrong about the "science" is not evidence that governments can't be trusted to get the science right. Granted, it does suggest that governments need better scientific advisers or pay more attention to who and what they listen to and consider 'legitimate science' though. But the video you showed doesn't address this - it merely uses a bunch of conjecture and cherry-picked examples to support a pre-supposed view that the current "liberals" in power shouldn't be trusted, and by extension that the science that they consider trust-worthy also shouldn't be trusted. If that wasn't atleast part of the intention of that film, then I'm a Dutchman.

I'm aware that the Guardian is a left-wing paper (and they despise cars so I'm not often inclined to give them much attention) and that there's a distinct lack of right-wing papers in their list, but it's an interesting story nonetheless and quite an impressive movement.

The Guardian is generally left-wing, but it is also doesn't ignore the other side - frequently giving prominent space to opposition voices. No better example perhaps than today's reprinting of Sarah Palin's views on the Copenhagen summit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/09/sarah-palin-obama-boycott-copenhagen

 

[FoolKiller]

it merely uses a bunch of conjecture and cherry-picked examples to support a pre-supposed view that the current "liberals" in power shouldn't be trusted, and by extension that the science that they consider trust-worthy also shouldn't be trusted. If that wasn't atleast part of the intention of that film, then I'm a Dutchman.

Actually he said government in general as he pointed out that he faced very similar criticism when he questioned the consensus "conservatives" used to defend going into Iraq. He is not being partisaned against the science because liberals support it, he is however questioning if, in light of recent events, there isn't a possibility that the science has been politicized.

 

[Touring Mars]

Playing the balance card doesn't mean he isn't talking bollocks in the rest of the video.

 

[Biggles]

You haven't been paying attention to President Obama, have you?

Your references indicate to me that the "environmentalist vote" in the U.S. is so weak that the President has to make strong economic arguments in favour of supporting "Green" initiatives rather than relying on environmental arguments. This (of course) includes putting billions of public money up for grabs which, just like the billions in subsidies for "polluting industries", is intended partly to help "buy" support (& votes).

In contrast, in some European countries, there is an actual, significant "environmentalist vote" which puts concern for the environment ahead of all other issues. That is probably why those countries (Switzerland, Norway, Sweden etc.) are making real progress on reducing carbon emissions, while the governments of the U.S. & Canada are paying little more than lip-service to environmental concerns.

 

[FoolKiller]

Playing the balance card doesn't mean he isn't talking bollocks in the rest of the video.

I figure we will know more when the UN and Penn State finish their investigations.


What I am finding sad, and I am sure we can all agree here, is that scientists on both sides are receiving death threats and harrasing messages.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2766874.htm

It is one thing for people to disagree, and even question the legitimacy of the science, but this is a step too far.

Your references indicate to me that the "environmentalist vote" in the U.S. is so weak that the President has to make strong economic arguments in favour of supporting "Green" initiatives rather than relying on environmental arguments.

From one of my previous quotes:

During the campaign, Obama supported a measure to address global warming

He was elected on a green platform. He justifies it now by pretending that it is an economic gain.

 

[Touring Mars]

What I am finding sad, and I am sure we can all agree here, is that scientists on both sides are receiving death threats and harrasing messages.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2766874.htm

It is one thing for people to disagree, and even question the legitimacy of the science, but this is a step too far.

👍 Well said.

 

[Biggles]

From one of my previous quotes:
Quote:
During the campaign, Obama supported a measure to address global warming
He was elected on a green platform. He justifies it now by pretending that it is an economic gain.

Since when was quoting yourself, sufficient proof to support an argument?

As far as I recall, throughout the campaign Obama, (& other politicians of various stripes) made statements touting the benefits of a new "green" economy. My point is, I don't see much evidence of a co-ordinated environmental vote strongly influencing public policy in North America.

The idea of some international environmental "conspiracy", supported by a global cabal of climate scientists holding sway over the general public & politicians, is a right-wing concoction designed to discredit the science & distract people from real environmental issues. Globally, the traditional "polluting" industries still wield way more power, money & influence than the environmental movement. While there is undoubtedly some BS & obfuscation on both sides, I would have more confidence in the motivation behind the scientific consensus, than I would in the motivation behind the nay-sayers.

 

[FoolKiller]

Since when was quoting yourself, sufficient proof to support an argument?

You mean, requoting an article that I quoted before? Don't tell me I quoted and linked two articles and a video and you didn't bother fully going over them.

As far as I recall, throughout the campaign Obama, (& other politicians of various stripes) made statements touting the benefits of a new "green" economy. My point is, I don't see much evidence of a co-ordinated environmental vote strongly influencing public policy in North America.

So, the current cap & trade bills up for debate in Congress now is my fantasy then? The EPA claiming greehouse gases as a harm to health and welfare and the administration telling Congress that the EPA will do it if they can't is another? Debates over whether we should be forced to switch to CFLs is just a dream?

Or are you going to tell me that every politician, including the president, that supports these initiatives is willing to lose enough votes to lose his job to pay off some green industry run by Al Gore? Yes, government practices corporatism, but it must first convince the voters that it is doing the right thing so they will support them in their efforts.

Granted, before now there hasn't been a majority of voters in the US that support this but for some politicians it is their core demographic.

The idea of some international environmental "conspiracy", supported by a global cabal of climate scientists holding sway over the general public & politicians, is a right-wing concoction designed to discredit the science & distract people from real environmental issues. Globally, the traditional "polluting" industries still wield way more power, money & influence than the environmental movement. While there is undoubtedly some BS & obfuscation on both sides, I would have more confidence in the motivation behind the scientific consensus, than I would in the motivation behind the nay-sayers.

I don't know what this has to do with what we are talking about.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Updated December 09, 2009
Administration Warns of 'Command-and-Control' Regulation Over Emissions


FOXNews.com


The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a "command-and-control" role over the process in way that could hurt business.

"If you don't pass this legislation, then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area," the official said. "And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."

What a suck-bag.

 

[orimarc]

Ok, tl:dr exercise:

1) What's wrong with the planet?
2) Is there any solution?

 

[Touring Mars]

Updated December 09, 2009
Administration Warns of 'Command-and-Control' Regulation Over Emissions


FOXNews.com


The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a "command-and-control" role over the process in way that could hurt business.

"If you don't pass this legislation, then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area," the official said. "And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."

What a suck-bag.

As someone who has voted for the last option in the poll above, would you mind answering this question... did you vote that way because you object to the proposed mechanisms (such as that you have just mentioned) for dealing with the problem, or because you have evaluated the climate data yourself and concluded that it doesn't support the statement that the climate is currently warming? I find it hard to believe that the latter can be true, and suspect that the former is more likely true - even some of the most ardent skeptics of AGW theory don't deny that the climate has been warming. Feel free to reject my request for an answer, and please don't think I am being rude asking, but I would really like to hear your explanation for how global warming isn't happening, or atleast to gain some insight into your reasons for voting the way you have.

 

[Biggles]

Don't tell me I quoted and linked two articles and a video and you didn't bother fully going over them.

Sorry, Foolkiller. I'll try & put more time aside for this in the future.

I'm not questioning that governments are starting to support & promote green policies & it has been, to some degree, driven by voter concern (much more so in some countries than others). Of course, politics is always the delicate balancing of different interests. Up to now, that balance has, IMO, reflected the far greater influence of the traditional "polluting" industries & the jobs they support. There has been no obvious political advantage from being an aggressive "green" candidate in the U.S. up to this point. If Al Gore & other politicians have become proponents of "greening", perhaps this is because they believe the science is indisputable & the consequences of inaction potentially catastrophic.

Of course, the scientific evidence is not 100% - it's not reasonable to expect that - but I would ask myself who stands to benefit from promoting the seriousness of the climate change problem, & who stands to benefit from discrediting the (overwhelming, if not unanimous) consensus of climate change science.

BTW: I didn't vote in the poll, because I don't see a voting option that represents my point of view:

"Global warming (I believe the current term is "climate change") is occurring & human activity is a significant cause."

(ie. not necessarily the "main" cause).

 

[Dotini]

BTW: I didn't vote in the poll, because I don't see a voting option that represents my point of view:

"Global warming (I believe the current term is "climate change") is occurring & human activity is a significant cause."

(ie. not necessarily the "main" cause).

Ditto for me on this point.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm sorry I missed out such an obvious option when I added the poll earlier in the year. I have now editted the poll to include this option, along with the info that this option has been added after 100 votes have already been cast. To be honest, I'd probably be in this category too, and although the first and last options in the poll are not synonymous with each other, hopefully the rest of the voters in the same section as my vote will not object to the inclusion of the latest option. For the purposes of getting a general feel for who stands where, I reckon it doesn't make a massive difference, but I apologise in advance to anyone who may feel differently.