Global Hoax?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UteStar

So I am just curious...lets say in 2 years, there is a consensus that global warming is real and it is basically proven true. What will you say? I am not trying to argue, I am interested as to what your response will be. Now, the same question could be asked of those that are staunch global warming supporters as well, but I am curious as to your response.

Well, I should note that the debate seems to be less about the reality of global warming, and more about the cause. Despite the amusing farce with the NASA numbers, I think there is indeed general consensus that the earth has warmed ... the question is, are humans responsible and is there anything we can do about it?

When I hear Al Gore call the combustible engine the greatest enemy we face to our existence, I have to laugh.

As to your hypothetical ... what do you expect me to say? Deny the sky is blue? Obviously if there were incontrovertible evidence, then I would be wrong. Unfortunately, such evidence rarely exists for such ephemeral topics as global warming. There's simply too much we don't know.

[DirtyHippieUTE]

Originally Posted by Tex

Indeed. I love the outdoors ... camping, hiking, backpacking, repelling.

Repelling vs. Rappelling... Insert joke here about someone having a repulsive personality...

Sorry... Just couldn't help myself...

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

Well, I should note that the debate seems to be less about the reality of global warming, and more about the cause. Despite the amusing farce with the NASA numbers, I think there is indeed general consensus that the earth has warmed ... the question is, are humans responsible and is there anything we can do about it?

This frames the deabte rather well, I think. The farce with the numbers tends to show that the relationship between human sourced CO2 does not have a linear realtionship with global temperatures. OTOH, I think there is a consensus that more CO2 has some tendedncy to increase temperatures. THe question is what increment of temeprature change, if any, can be attributed to human acitivites? Ther are amny variables in the atmospheric system that we have a hard time modelling and predicting. Removing the inflammatory nature of the debate, the risk is sort of like the "rivet in the wing" analogy that Paul Erlich talked abotu in the context of species extinction. IOW, if there is no clear linear relationship, will our actions push the atmosphere over a tipping point that will set in motion changes that cannot be absorbed or otherwise moderated by natural forces? Again, it is hard to say. So what lifestyle changes and economic dislocations do we accept in order to avoid this difficult to identify and quantify risk?

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Global warming is the perfect storm of

1. Incomplete and flawed data
2. Wild and baseless extrapolation
3. Political opportunism

While all of your points are part of the equation, this is true of a lot of issues. It doesn't mean that global warming is not being caused in large part by humans. You can't just overlook solid science (which is there if people would just look beneath the politics) and use your three points to deny reality, though research backed by dubious funding is doing a good job of convincing people otherwise. One still has responsibility to sift through the "storm" to get to the heart of the decent information/data that is there.

I think Arch is right in that conservatives are scared to death of this for political reasons, mainly because the Republicans have made no solid contributions to the policy debate. They need to get their heads in the game and quit acting scared. I, for example, would favor a free market approach to the problem, one that would be helped along MUCH more if the problems were acknowledged, and not unreasonably dismissed due to panic as much as anything else. The answer to this problem, AND to other problems that we should all have an interest in solving (energy conservation, freedom from mid-East oil dependence, to name two), lies potentially within the parameters of conservative politics and economics. The only thing missing is the will to compete in the marketplace of policies on the part of Republicans (at least is *seems* this way... I don't think it stems from any intellectual deficit on their part). Acknowledging the problem does not mean the democrats win!! Let's acknowledge the problem so that *reasonable* approaches/solutions can take the floor.

Again, even if environmental benefits from this effort turn out to be minimal, the political and economic benefits unrelated to the environment could well be enormous.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

The cover story for Newsweek this past week is about the small group of dedicated folks who are still in denial about global warming despite a broad global consensus among scientists and experts. And how many of the scientists who claim it is a hoax are part of think tanks funded by oil companies. It's an interesting read.

You may have missed a Newsweek editor slapping down his own paper's story.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ing_crusa.html

More:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...69c3&Issue_id=

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

You may have missed a Newsweek editor slapping down his own paper's story.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ing_crusa.html

More:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...69c3&Issue_id=

Interesting. I like Robert Samuelson. Morano's summary of the article was kind of funny. And to call him an editor seems a bit of a stretch. He writes a column on finance and economics.

I thought the last two paragraphs in his article were particularly interesting. I tend to agree with him.

What to do about global warming is a quandary. Certainly, more research and development. Advances in underground storage of carbon dioxide, battery technology (for plug-in hybrid cars), biomass or nuclear power could alter energy economics. To cut oil imports, I support a higher gasoline tax -- $1 to $2 a gallon, introduced gradually -- and higher fuel-economy standards for vehicles. These steps would also temper greenhouse gas emissions. Drilling for more domestic natural gas (a low-emission fuel) would make sense. One test of greenhouse proposals: Are they worth doing on other grounds?

But the overriding reality seems almost un-American: We simply don't have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale -- as Newsweek did -- in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Interesting. I like Robert Samuelson. Morano's summary of the article was kind of funny. And to call him an editor seems a bit of a stretch. He writes a column on finance and economics.

Both Morano and Wikipedia (cue scary music) call him a "contributing editor." So does his Washington Post bio (for whom he also works). We report, you decide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Samuelson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv.../samuelson.htm

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I thought the last two paragraphs in his article were particularly interesting. I tend to agree with him.

No doubt. But the point is, Newsweek's agenda got in the way of reporting the facts.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Both Morano and Wikipedia (cue scary music) call him a "contributing editor." So does his Washington Post bio (for whom he also works). We report, you decide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Samuelson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv.../samuelson.htm

You are missing the point, Tex. I am not saying that isn't his official title. As usual, you are focusing on the minutiae in order to avoid real issues.

Originally Posted by Tex

No doubt. But the point is, Newsweek's agenda got in the way of reporting the facts.

But their "contributing editor" somehow is not part of this conspiracy? Please.

[UtahDan]

Last night I was reading the section in Bryson "Short History" about glaciers, concidentally.

What little we know seems to be that all of the recent history of our climate has been periods of glaciers advancing and then retreating. Of course all of modern civilization has sprung up in the most recent interglacial period.

The reasons for this are not at all well understood but seem to be a complex interplay between the variation in the orbit of the earth between eliptical and circular, the "wobble" in the rotation of the earth and apparently random cool summer temperatures which fail to melt all of the ground snow and reflect more heat away from the earth.

I don't doubt that the climate is warming up, that seems conclusively established. I do think, however, some of the panicky feelings people have about this stem from a view that climate ought to be static. It never is. We are ALWAYS cooling down or warming up.

Climate is so poorly understood. It is a lot like gravity. We can describe it and we know what it does, but we are very much at a loss to explain why. I'm also on the side of not wanting to turn economies on their heads if we don't truly know if we are causing the warm up or if we can even do anything about it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

[/URL]
You are missing the point, Tex. I am not saying that isn't his official title. As usual, you are focusing on the minutiae in order to avoid real issues.

Of the two of us, I'm not the one guilty of minutiae-focusing problems. Witness your fit over the definition of the word "now."

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

But their "contributing editor" somehow is not part of this conspiracy? Please.

Hey, I'm just reporting what the man said. Take it up with him if it bothers you.

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Last night I was reading the section in Bryson "Short History" about glaciers, concidentally.

What little we know seems to be that all of the recent history of our climate has been periods of glaciers advancing and then retreating. Of course all of modern civilization has sprung up in the most recent interglacial period.

The reasons for this are not at all well understood but seem to be a complex interplay between the variation in the orbit of the earth between eliptical and circular, the "wobble" in the rotation of the earth and apparently random cool summer temperatures which fail to melt all of the ground snow and reflect more heat away from the earth.

I don't doubt that the climate is warming up, that seems conclusively established. I do think, however, some of the panicky feelings people have about this stem from a view that climate ought to be static. It never is. We are ALWAYS cooling down or warming up.

Climate is so poorly understood. It is a lot like gravity. We can describe it and we know what it does, but we are very much at a loss to explain why. I'm also on the side of not wanting to turn economies on their heads if we don't truly know if we are causing the warm up or if we can even do anything about it.

This is the second time in as many days that all I have to say is, "I agree with this."