<p>I don’t think you have to be a “right-winger” (or even a conservative) to believe that global warming may not lead to the catastrophic doom that Al Gore predicts. :eek:</p>
<p>Good point, Sokkermom. That’s really my point – the fact that so many people view global warming, it’s causes and solutions as a POLITICAL issue is scary. It immediately makes me question the reasons for this. There must be either a financial or political power reason for this, which is inimical to the pursuit of science. </p>
<p>I don’t know of any conservatives that deny the fact that global temperatures are rising. But I do remember when the earth was supposed to be cooling in the 70’s. I’m pretty sure it’s constantly changing. Even if we are on a particularly long warming path, I think Lomborg has reasonable points about the best way for humans to spend their resources. Why is this a Republican or Democratic issue? </p>
<p>When it becomes “cool” to be a proponent of the “Global Warming Crisis” something is wrong. When anyone, either a scientist or ordinary citizen, asks questions regarding the validity of some of the more sensational scenarious presented is called a liar or an idiot, then something is wrong! It should NEVER be a problem to question the data. When there is some data that refutes a hypothesis, you don’t just disregard it, as so many seem to want to do.</p>
<p>That’s it for me – the polarization of this thread is indicative of how political a scientific issue has become. Not a good sign, imo.</p>
<p>^^^ This is my opinion as well. When lay people (like Weenie and 1 of 42) as well as politicians (like Gore) take to demonizing any different views than theirs, there leaves little room for science to do its work. It’s sad that if they feel so passionately about it that they have to turn others off by all of the personal destruction. They really are not doing their cause any good (if they really buy into the science of the cause and not just blind faith in the messenger.) It is even sadder when scientists stoop to that level - it definitely raises red flags in my mind concerng the validity of their science.</p>
<p>1sokkermom, sjmom, fundingfather: Are you guys blind to the fact that the right wing propagandists have been fighting a running battler against every aspect of global warming theory for years? And that you guys are the only ones buying the last ditch arguments? Sjomom - denial of global warming was de rigueur in righty circles just a few years ago - usually accompanied by “I remember when all the scientists were predicting global cooling in the 70’s! Heh heh.”* That argument having become untenable in the face of visual evidence of glaciers melting, etc., the fall back position is “But we’re not causing it!!!” </p>
<p>Each of you have repeated an argument being aggressively pitched by right wing “news” and information outlets. Why is it “political?” Because the right wing has chosen to make it so. Why does the right wing resist addressing environmental issues? I’m not sure. I started a thread asking this question a year or two ago - some of you participated.</p>
<p>But the fact is that recognition of the fact of climate change, and the role of human activity in triggering it and increasing its pace, is mainstream. You guys cling to the handful of fringe scientists (including outrageous frauds like Fred Singer - really!) who pump out superficially plausible, but scientifically untenable theories to justify doing nothing in response to the now uncontroversial fact of climate change. It’s “political” because only those who are pushed by their political bias into believing things that they’d otherwise be sensible enough to recognize as baloney are on your side. And that political bias is right wing.</p>
<p>*P.S. In fact the “global cooling” hypothesis was a preliminary theory developed in the early days of analyzing the first climate change data which was hyped by a single pop-science magazine article in Newsweek, not a widespread scientific belief. The got the “change” right but their data and analytical tools weren’t advanced enough to get the direction right.</p>
<p>^^^ Unless we’re demonizing Gore and entire scientific community though. Then it’s totally alright. Ha ha! I guess projection is all the rage these days.</p>
<p>On related note to the VCs, you can look at insurance companies, who are also preparing for global warming and taking steps to mitigate the damage. Seems like when it comes putting $$$ on the line with global warming, companies tend to go with Gore. I think that says something.</p>
<p>Asking questions is fine, though an important of asking questioning is listening! Many “skeptics” seem to do the former and not the latter, so discredited ideas get repeated ad nauseam and it looks more like rightwing PC think than real debate.</p>
<p>I would be interested in knowing two things though. Of global warming skeptics here, (a) how many have seen “Inconvenient Truth”, (b) Roughly what kind/level of “proof” would you (individually) want before believing the mainstream opinion on global warming from the IPCC.</p>
<p>Rugburn,
You certainly can’t be naive enough to think that insurance companies are putting their money on the line. Check the rise in insurance premiums anywhere within 100 miles of a coast and you’ll see whose money they are “putting on the line”. For them its a can’t lose proposition - take excessive money from policy holders just in case something happens - if not, well a little extra money in the coffers never hurts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you would consider Richard Lindzen of MIT a fringe scientist? <a href=“http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm[/url]”>http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm</a>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By the way, if you can point me in the direction of where I might learn more about the “right wing news” I’d apprecieate it. I read the Boston Globe and the Wall Street Journal. I seldom watch TV news, except for CNBC. If I’m missing out on the right wing perspective, I’d really like to get it.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t mean to speak for another poster, but I’m fairly certain that Sokkermom would NOT describe herself as either conservative or Republican. But according to some people here, just the fact that she questions the hyperbole of global warming, she must be on the far right. That just shows how ridiculous this is.</p>
<p>Thanks sjmom. You are correct. I am not really a right winger. I AM an environmental scientist though! Nope, not for the oil company as someone suggested. (I actually have worked for both public and private entities, focusing on recycling!..)</p>
<p>Kluge, the fact that I do not believe in the gloom and doom does not mean that I don’t agree that something is causing global warming. I don’t think I ever said that.</p>
<p>You are a lawyer ( I think). I’m a scientist / engineer / business person. I have not attempted to label you politically. I could care less what party you belong to. For your information, I am a registered Independent. :rolleyes: (Didn’t vote for Bush either!)</p>
<p>(P.S. I am currently Manager of development for a company - promoting a technology that has won several awards for environmental sustainability and energy efficiency. If that’s right wing - ok, I’m guilty. :o) Recently attended presentation with EPA Region 1 Director. I used to work for him…</p>
<p>If you want to know whether global warming is real and whether it is a real problem, you don’t have to ask a politician. You don’t even have to ask a climate scientist. Ask a walrus:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/weather/environment/2007-10-05-alaska-walrus_N.htm?csp=34&loc=interstitialskip[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/weather/environment/2007-10-05-alaska-walrus_N.htm?csp=34&loc=interstitialskip</a></p>
<p>Walruses aren’t right wing or left wing. And they know nothing of science. But they apparently know they are facing a big problem and have drastically changed their behavior to try to deal with it. The question is are we humans willing to change our behavior too?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you read the editorial page of the Wall St. Journal, you’re hearing the right wing.</p>
<p>Sjmom, Richard Lindzen - who will inform you that second hand cigarette smoke is harmless, among other things (there’s a peculiar overlap between the smoking-causes-cancer deniers and the climate change deniers) - gets a lot of attention for making grand pronouncements, which are widely distributed by the usual propagandists. His actual scientific papers on the subject (as opposed to his WSJ pontificating) have not held up to scrutiny, including his own:
</p>
<p>His problem is that he staked out a position in 1988 stating that climate change wasn’t happening, and he has no incentive to change as long as he’s the hero of the “contrarians” He is, I grant you, the closest thing the climate change deniers have to a respectable scientist/spokesman. Most of his recent “work”, however, has been heavily political ranting in non-scientific journals. The problem is, there are so many scientists on the other side that you can’t know them all personally by name.</p>
<p>By the way, he offered to bet that global temperatures would decline in 20 years, but when taken up on the offer he demanded 50-1 odds. Gotta love a guy with chutzpah like that!</p>
<p>1Sokkermom - sorry if I lumped you in with the deniers and “But we’re not causing it!” rear guard. I don’t know what you categorize as “gloom and doom” but I do recognize that in California (home to one in eight Americans) the cost of dealing with the impact of climate change on our water supply system - just that one thing - will be huge. I’d rather not have to see my kids have to fund that. As I see things, we have a huge infrastructure designed (and barely adequate) for supporting our society the way things are. Raise sea level, change rain patterns, make places hotter (or colder) than they are now, and we have to spend a huge amount of money just to stay in the same place. Is that “gloom and doom”? I’d say that ignoring the predictable and unpredictable impact of climate change is “whistling past the graveyard.”</p>
<p>See, this is where the big question comes into play. What is at fault and what can be done. While I am most definitely a conservative, christian, republican; I am also an environmentalist. However, I have also done many years of study on climatology and other environmental issues. I think most people agree that there is most definitely a global warming in the last few centuries. I don’t know of too many people on either side of the politics that strongly disagrees with that. They do however argue 2 points.</p>
<p>1st; is this something new. If you look at research; as best as science can show; you will realize how much the climate of this planet has changed. Not just long term, but even short term. Hell, we even had what they consider to be the mini-ice-age that was only a few hundred years ago. That had Europe colder and iced more than anything in the recent 100 years of man’s influence on the planet. There’s also been extreme measures of heat as well as cold. Yet, there are those that want to believe that the last few years of cold and heat changes is somehow something new.</p>
<p>2nd; Is mankind somehow responsible for all of this change. That too is the other debate. One side will have you believe that somehow in the last 100-150 years, mankind has caused all of these climate issues. They will disregard the fact that 99% of greenhouse gases and their affects are caused by water vapor. And that approximately only 0.28% of greenhouse gases are caused by mankind. Of course, the one side will also have you believe that because the earth is such a delicate balance of issues, that even the 0.28% that may be caused by mankind is significant. The other side however believes that while there are plenty of reasons to look for alternative energy sources; e.g. efficiency, consumer price, running out of fossil fuels, pollution, etc…; that they contend that it’s arrogant to believe that we humans are more powerful than mother nature is. That with everything that’s been seen in the years with natural disasters such as fire, volcanoes, floods, earthquake, etc… and yet the land has no problem healing itself</p>
<p>I personally fall into the second group of people that doesn’t believe that mankind has had all that much influence on global warming or the environment. I do believe that we make a lot of the environment unusable because of pollution, but I don’t believe that is affecting global temperatures. I don’t base my opinions on the republican party. I don’t base it on being a conservative christian. I base it on what facts are available. I believe that Al Gore is nothing more than an opportunist and sensationalist. It’s his little niche in life that he can feel important. His position isn’t based solely on facts. His thinking is quite finite. He doesn’t accept what science says about how the planet is very good at adapting and fixing itself. But for him, it works. </p>
<p>The vast majority of people in our country, and more so in most other countries, are taught to automatically trust and believe those who are the so called “Experts”. Unfortunately, both sides will spin their position and use the supposed expert that sees it their way. If people could educate themselves instead of being so ignorant, they would see that it isn’t ALL of the experts who believe a certain way. Plus, just because Al Gore says it doesn’t make it true. He isn’t all that credible. The same goes with Hillary. If her name wasn’t Clinton, no one in the nation would even listen to her. She has nothing to offer the country. Her only claim to fame is riding the coat tails of her husband in the presidency. And even then, she brought in more embarrassment that she did integrity. Until now, all these people have done is to become alarmists. They want you believe that the world is coming to an end; that it’s all our fault; and that unless we do something right this minute, we are all going to die. When the truth is; if mankind was to go extinct this very second, global warming would still happen. Just as it has done in the past and will again in the future. When scientists can control the Sun and the oceans, and thus the water vapor; then they can control the greenhouse gases, the ozone, the environment, and global warming.</p>
<p>Its not like an award that’s been given to Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter means anything anyway.</p>
<p>Christcorp, you criticize people for believing “those who are called ‘Experts’”. But you have chosen to believe a much smaller group of “experts” who are allied with people you tend to agree with on other issues (hence, the politicization of this issue.) You don’t actually understand the science behind climate change theory; neither do I. The closest we get is a dumbed-down pop-science shorthand explanation of both the theory and the counter-theories. Given that, it’s understandable that people choose the theory which tends to align with their other beliefs, and which is held by people who tend to share their other beliefs.</p>
<p>The denial arguments you cite - such and such a percent of atmosphere…sounds so small… how could it matter, etc. sound plausible - but you really don’t have the scientific knowledge to know if they really make sense or are just plausible sounding BS. (The water vapor issue has been thoroughly debunked, by the way; it’s a matter of saturation and tipping points, not overall mass of substances in the atmosphere.) </p>
<p>But there are some fairly objective means of dealing with this lack of personal knowledge. First: is there really a “consensus” among those who are actually qualified to analyze the data and the theory? Not unanimous agreement - you’ll never get that - but an actual overwhelming degree of agreement one way or another? I think we’ve reached that point here.</p>
<p>Second: is the “pro” argument based on experimental data, not just theory? Its reported that the experimental data has been accumulating at a pretty good clip for a number of years now. Actual instrument readings have been compared to predictions from climate models, the models have been refined, anomalies in the data have been investigated, etc. Most reports indicate that the real world evidence is corresponding pretty closely with the models’ predictions at this point. That suggests to me that the theory upon which the models are based is likely to be sound - even if I don’t understand either the science or the models.</p>
<p>Finally, you claim your position isn’t based on politics - yet you seem to feel impelled to spend a lot of time expressing your contempt for Democratic politicians. I think if you were more honest with yourself you’d be forced to admit that you really don’t have a sound scientific basis for your opinion because you really don’t understand the science, and really don’t know the data, and it really is a gut-level reaction to root for the same team you’ve been rooting for on the other issues of the day.</p>
<p>Kluge, I grew up in So. Cal. The issues of water have been around for as long as I can remember – the area does not have the natural resources to support the population. The ups and downs of climate have a bigger impact there than they should, simply because it’s overbuilt. Better planning would have prevented this problem.</p>
<p>“As I see things, we have a huge infrastructure designed (and barely adequate) for supporting our society the way things are. Raise sea level, change rain patterns, make places hotter (or colder) than they are now, and we have to spend a huge amount of money just to stay in the same place.”</p>
<p>It may be that our goal should not be to stay in the same place. Adaptation and change may be inevitable. Could this be just another phase in our evolution? Who really knows?</p>
<p>Sure to <em>spark</em> some discussion… ;)</p>
<p>From post 137 It may be that our goal should not be to stay in the same place. Adaptation and change may be inevitable. Could this be just another phase in our evolution? Who really knows? </p>
<p>The most generous thing that can be said for the above comment is that it is just plain silly. </p>
<p>It also shows why scientists and engineers while needed for policy discussions are very rarely involve in public or private policy decisions.</p>
<p>“It also shows why scientists and engineers while needed for policy discussions are very rarely involve in public or private policy decisions.”</p>
<p>^ In my humble opinion, that statement is just plain stupid. (Some of us also have advanced degrees in other fields. ;))</p>
<p>“Adaptation and change may be inevitable.”</p>
<p>Like the changes in Atlanta area?</p>