Global Warming?

[Chuck52]

George,

I admire your taste in ginger ale, but I think you fall into the common trap of assuming that whatever problem comes up must be the fault of those other guys, and here those other guys would be the foolish liberals. It is not at all clear how the US nuclear energy program was essentially junked. Certainly there were left wing environmentalists who opposed nuclear energy development, especially after Three Mile Island, but they never had much real power and they were hardly alone. Was anyone clammoring for nuclear power? Since the Great Prevaricator made Liberal a dirty word in the 80's, Conservatives have had at least as much time to undo the damage if that was of interest to them. Follow the money is a phrase that comes to mind, and money knows no ideology. Environmental concerns also tend to follow the whose-ox-gets-gored path. Florida's governor has, I believe, opposed some oil development plans which might have impacted his own state.

Is Science a Liberal field? My point in citing the NAS as a reasonable source for information about the state of scientific debate on global warming was that body is rather diverse. The only member I personally know seems rather conservative to me. The other guy I know whom I figure might be elected to membership regularly cancels my votes. While Universities have the reputation of being Liberal, the Sciences, Engineering, Medical and Agricultural faculties probably reflect about the same political balance as the general population.

The next political cycle may help clarify who thinks what, since the apparent front runner on the Republican side doesn't seem to hold Al Gore in contempt.

Chuck

 

[LMTC]

Since the Great Prevaricator made Liberal a dirty word in the 80's, Conservatives have had at least as much time to undo the damage if that was of interest to them.
Chuck

And who, good sir, do you reference as "the Great Prevaricator?"

 

[cp1969]

And who, good sir, do you reference as "the Great Prevaricator?"

He must be talking about Clinton. Just has his decades mixed up.

 

[_RaT_]

I agree completely. I would also say, taken as a whole this thread has been civil and educational



I could agree with this in principle. The fact is, that boat has sailed. Global Warming is now a globally political hot potato. ( Is Dan Quail around? I'm not sure I spelled potatoe correctly....how's that for balance?). There are too many people on both sides of the issue with political and ideological investments in it. It is almost impossible (or even reasonable) to discuss the issue without considering those investments. But, as I said, for a bunch of weekend warrior tractor jockeys we're doing a pretty good job of it.



We're all big enough to shrug off a snide remark or two aren't we?

I would like to throw a couple of things in the mix that I think worthwhile to consider. First, the nuclear issue. Nuclear energy was very methodically and successfully stifled in this country by left leaning environmentalists. I doubt there would be much debate about that. And god forbid that I point at the Europeans with anything but contempt but they have handled nuclear energy quite well. In any case, fast forward, and you have the very same type of people if not the very same people telling us that we must now break our dependance on fossil fuel because we are going to fry in our own atmosphere. They killed nuclear energy which for all practical purposes hooked our wagon to the two headed monster, dependance on foreign energy and the middle east. They also assured that our very own resources (Gulf of Mexico, ANWAR) were off limits and even production (refinerys) were hamstrung. And now all they can suggest, in any real or practical sense, is that we just get along without the energy we need and desire. They have no solution to a monster that they created! Why should I believe them now or even consider trusting their "science". How many times does their science and their advice have to be absolutely wrong and disastrous before we quit believing them?

Second point. We (the US) are not going to be the problem child for long. China, India, the Pacific rim and to a lesser degree Russia, are poised to eclipse us economically and industrially. (They will probably eclipse us militarily as they form tacit allegiances with our terrorist enemies upon whose rock our ship has foundered.) And rest assured, China, India, Russia and the Pacific rim have no interest in environmentalism. It is their turn to grow and conquer and prosper. We can wring our hands and gaze at our navels and bask in self contempt about how bad we have been to the environment but these guys are going to make us look like choir boys. And in this regard, is it even fair for us to tell them that they can't have their day? In the 1800's we raped and pillaged this continent to get to the point we are now. Is it fair for us to tell them they can't do the same thing with their continent? I think not. It certainly opens us to the charge of hypocrisy anyway.

Which brings me to this final point, which is not my own. A few years ago there was an article in Atlantic Monthly about this. The gist of the article was that no one really knows if global warming is real or if we caused it or not. Given our current addiction to fossil fuel and the ascension of Asia, it makes no difference. Even if we did have the power to affect globle climate, we don't have and won't have the power to fix it. There is no government budget, global economy or global will that has nearly the money or science to fix the problem even if we did cause it. So if its real, we better just learn to deal with it.

I'm planning on buying some ocean front real estate in Asheville, NC.

George, excellent comments, I really enjoyed reading your post. You write much of what I am thinking. I cannot help but to think that nuclear energy or some form of it will be our salvation. Mapping our destiny based on oil looks quite dismal. On the otherhand, eliminating much of our oil addiction gives us much to be hopeful for.

 

[dmccarty]

N80,

I like what you said....

Except for

I'm planning on buying some ocean front real estate in Asheville, NC.

I live EAST of Asheville at about 500 feet elevation. I don't like what you said. Not at all. Nope Nope Nope.

There was a program on the History Channel, that just ended, about the mini ice age. Some of my skepticism regarding Global Warming is covered in the program.

Later,
Dan

 

[Egon]

Somehow I seem to recall reading that ice ages occur during periods of global warming.

 

[Doc_Bob]

N80:
Plus, they play these games here because they CAN play these games here.
Bob

Yes, we are an easy mark.
Bob

 

[Doc_Bob]

Somehow I seem to recall reading that ice ages occur during periods of global warming.

Yes, that is true. In 1985 the "experts"were talking about an ice age coming upon us. 20 years later, same folks, different tune. And people wonder why these same "experts" have lost credibility?
Bob

 

[Egon]

No, no -- It takes Global warming to create the ice age.

Heat is required to produce percipitaion in excess of what can melt in the winter.

 

[dmccarty]

No, no -- It takes Global warming to create the ice age

There is a theory that says that the melting ice caps will change the movement of the ocean currents which would cause cooling and possibly an ice age.

Later,
Dan

 

[N80]

George, I admire your taste in ginger ale, but I think you fall into the common trap of assuming that whatever problem comes up must be the fault of those other guys, and here those other guys would be the foolish liberals. It is not at all clear how the US nuclear energy program was essentially junked.

Well, I agree and disagree. I do not agree that there were significant other factors outside of environmentalist/anti-nuke pressure. I understand that it was a multifactorial issue, but the primary factors were clear. The fact that Three Mile Island became a rally cry, was pretty much an anti nuke creation.

I do agree that my post was purely one sided and I thought about that as I typed it but decided it was an overly involved rant already. But sure, you create a vacuum by disabling nuclear energy and you create market and power opportunities that will be filled. The petroleum industry in all this is as big a bug bear as any other faction or idealogy.

Was anyone clammoring for nuclear power?

Why yes, yes they were. Definitely. But between the media and the activists, what was already a potentially risky investment became untenable.

Since the Great Prevaricator made Liberal a dirty word in the 80's, Conservatives have had at least as much time to undo the damage if that was of interest to them.

The Great Communitcator had less to do with making 'liberal' a dirty word than the Great Do Nothing he replaced. But I agree, in the interveneing years, no political party, right or left, has done anything to make anything better. But sure, plenty of blame to go around. But I prefer to blame those with whom I disagree....don't you? And someone mentioned the president from Arkansas. Who else could appear at a gathering of anti-logging environmentalists in the morning and a gatthering of lumberjacks in the evening, promise them both that he was totally on their side....and have both groups go home happy! That man is a Jedi!

Follow the money is a phrase that comes to mind, and money knows no ideology.

I am in total agreement. And there is no better way to divorce idealogy from money than to make property ownership corporate. Corporations do not have souls. Don't get me started, this is an interest of mine that I have put considerable study into. Corporate irresponsibility is a real issue.

Is Science a Liberal field?

No. And I did not suggest that it was. I said that science was as prone to liberal ideaology as any other institution. It can be prone to any ideaology you choose. That is my point. Too many people assume that 'science' is somehow this great, neutral arbiter of truth. It isn't. In fact, its no closer to that than any other -ism or faith based religion.

While Universities have the reputation of being Liberal, the Sciences, Engineering, Medical and Agricultural faculties probably reflect about the same political balance as the general population.

Maybe. Maybe not. The medical sciences tend to be enormously liberal in some very specific and prominent subspecialties and organizations. No 'science' is immune. In the fields you cite, corporate influence trumps ideaology more than anything else. When DuPont or Phizer builds your university a mulit-gazzilion dollar chemistry building....which way do you think the research trends?

The next political cycle may help clarify who thinks what, since the apparent front runner on the Republican side doesn't seem to hold Al Gore in contempt.

We've been asked to keep politics out of this but I'll hazard to suggest a bipartisan aphorism and state unequivocally that political cycles never clarify anything.

Great discussion Chuck.

 

[Chuck52]

Darn. I just PMed George and told him I wouldn't be posting to this thread any more because though the discussion was going OK, it was clear we could easily get heated up. However, I figured my latest take on Global Warming might be of inteest to the group.

I was writing my last post at 7:45 last evening when my phone rang. My wife was on the line wondering why I wasn't there to pick her up at 7:30. By reflex, I said "Oh! I forgot all about you!" No matter the cause. No matter the consequences, Global Warming is a trivial problem by comparison. I did make a bit of headway by whinning that I really meant I had forgotten the time, but for a good while there I figure the global temperature dropped several degrees.

Peace and farewell to this thread.

Chuck

 

[_RaT_]

I too have enjoyed the comments from everyone in particular George and Chuck. George, this comment is great...

The Great Communitcator had less to do with making 'liberal' a dirty word than the Great Do Nothing he replaced. But I agree, in the interveneing years, no political party, right or left, has done anything to make anything better. But sure, plenty of blame to go around. But I prefer to blame those with whom I disagree....don't you? And someone mentioned the president from Arkansas. Who else could appear at a gathering of anti-logging environmentalists in the morning and a gatthering of lumberjacks in the evening, promise them both that he was totally on their side....and have both groups go home happy! That man is a Jedi!

The one about JC was going through my head as I read Chucks post back a few and the last one about BC and the logging I remember very well.

 

[BobRip]

I have found the true cause of Global Warming. See attachment. I hope this will settle this once and for all.

 

[IH3444]

Media Shows Irrational Hysteria on Global Warming

 

[Egon]

Bob:

Right on in more ways than you may be thinking!

 

[EddieWalker]

Media Shows Irrational Hysteria on Global Warming

IH3444,

That link and article sums it up very nicely. Especially the part about the Midevil Warm Period and how it contradicts current global warming trends. If you eliminate that period of time and what happened back then, it's easy to conclude that the currrent warming trend is manmade.

Unfortunately for those who want to believe it's caused by man, there is that period of time when we had global warming before the invention of the automobile. Maybe it was caused by farmers plowing the fields with mules?

It seems to me that the global warming issue is based on selective facts and manipulating them to make it look like its a man made change in global tempatures. Add in allot of media hysteria and you end up with a political topic that has generated millions, if not billions of dollars, for an industry based on keeping the fear alive regardless of what history tells us.

I still like the earlier post asking what's wrong with global warming? Instead of worrying about all the worse case possiblilities, why not consider some of the benifits? Warmer weather means colder climates will have longer growing seasons and more food for people. Less fuels will be needed for air conditioning. More time spent outdoors and fewer people freezing to death. The list is just as endless for the possible benifits as it is for the possible negatives with neither being correct. Either way, it's gonna happen and we'll deal with it like everything else.

Eddie

 

[IH3444]

My backup plan Eddie is to plant palm trees.........
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

 

[Trev]

IH3444,
Unfortunately for those who want to believe it's caused by man, there is that period of time when we had global warming before the invention of the automobile. Maybe it was caused by farmers plowing the fields with mules?
Eddie

There appears to be an even more thorny problem for those who believe the climate changes we're seeing are caused by humans -- the changes appear to be happening in about the same way throughout the entire solar system.

Look at Mars; "global warming", huge storms, disappearance of the polar ice caps. Look at Pluto. Name a planet. Any planet. Look at what's happening with the sun.

Whatever one's beliefs about the causes, or even the existence, of climate change, it's seems a stretch to blame all of this on us.

 

[EddieWalker]

The UN has now downgraded the impact man is having on the planets climate.

Telegraph | News | UN downgrades man's impact on the climate

Eddie