I'm going to clap my hands over my ears and pretend I didn't hear those
differing scientific opinions. Don't you know we have "consensus"?
It is irresponsible of the DN to publish stuff like this. You can rail against
facts, but they still remain what they are.
Great article! Would someone please send it to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and
President Obama with a cc to Al Gore?
It is frustrating to listen to the Global Warming Debate, because everyone seems
to be asking the wrong questions. As is the debate is stuck between the Chicken
Little's, and those with their head in the sand. The Chicken Little's will
believe any disaster scenario, while the head in the sand crowd refuses to
believe anything no mater the proof. Here are some questions I think are
important.How much is the climate changing?How much of
climate change is human caused?What are the likely affects of
climate change?What are the possible ways of mitigating climate
change?Of each of the possibilities of dealing with climate change
what are the pros and the cons? Every option after all has its pluses and
minuses.What is the best way for dealing with Climate change? By
this I mean that I want to know the plan that has the best combination of pros
with the lowest amount of cons.Of these questions I think the most
urgent is how big of a problem are we facing. In the current debate we are
arguing between two extremes, neither of which may be correct.
Even when we are seeing a record year in cold fronts, it must be just blistering
outside. I gotta put on my sunscreen everytime I go out in that -13 degree
weather. I just might die of heatstroke. Some people are so messed
up that even if we have an ice age, they will still be spewing this nonsense.
Now if they were saying that the earth was shifting, then it might be just a
little more credible.Don't forget your preschool educations now. I
know Al Gore has a new interpretation for Hot and Cold. Here is how you can
remember. Objects in your freezer are COLD. Anything taken out of your oven is
HOT. Now why don't you try this excercise?
Climatologists agree on man Co2 causing global emmissions.Sociologists agree we won't do much about it. The best we will do is spread
the warming out over a longer time giving us and those displaced by rising
oceans and desertification more time to adapt.Of course you can just
stick with, "Nu uuhhhhhhh!"
T. Party:There is in fact a difference between "consensus"
and "unanimity". Look it up.Example: Not all scientists
believe smoking causes cancer. I have a cousin who died from lung cancer, but
never smoked. Maybe, just maybe, the government was using their campaign
against cigarettes as an excuse to take away liberty, or at least prepare us for
a broader anti-liberty campaign.You just never know, huh?;)
There is a consensus amoung scientists that climate change is real. There are
always a few contrarians, but most of these are not real scientists and there is
a serious campaign being financed by big oil and coal companies to discredit
science.Climate change is causing world warming, but this may
actually result in more snow due to lake affects from normally frozen-over
oceans at the extreme north. Regardless of the debate over climate
change though, it is in our national interests to persue a path of clean green
renewable energy and energy independence.
The GW alarmists are just as vocal as the anti's in shouting down the reason of
their opposition.The "facts" as the proponents call them
are not just in the need to protect our planet. There are also economic and
sociological facts to be considered.Let's assume for a moment that
the Gore-ites are completely correct. There are still the enormous issues to be
sifted as to how to implement, explore and administer solutions which are
nowhere near "concensus" in fact.The writer merely points
out that there are indeed other factors, and immediately the GW extremeists
shout down anything that abuts their sacred theory.Extremeism on
either side is the biggest hindrance to any substantive agreement and/or
soulution for the problems we face. Knee jerks on the left are no less helpful
than head in the sand on the right.
@Anti-BushObamaYes it's cold in D.C. however globally it was the
about 15th warmest January on record. (more Arctic blasts down south into the US
means that up near Greenland it was way above average). This was largely due to
the la nina in effect which tends to lead to cooler years although 15th warmest
is notably pretty high for an over-100 year dataset. @T.PartyYes the paper notes some distinguished scientists who don't believe man plays
much of if any role in climate change (at least Lindzen is, I'm not too familiar
with the other one noted but I'll assume he is too). However, the vast majority
of climate scientists disagree with them.@goitalone"There
are still the enormous issues to be sifted as to how to implement, explore and
administer solutions which are nowhere near "concensus" in
fact."Absolutely, many climate scientists completely stay out
of the realm of policymaking. Science and policy are two separate issues. Many
scientists (the ones whose names nobody knows) sticks with science only, Hansen
of NASA is one that deals with both and Gore is policy only since he's not a
Scare stories sell newspapers. Just ask Rupert Murdoch and the writers at Fox
News. However, the reality keeps popping up and we can't ignore the fact of the
situation.OK, so there are those who say "global warming is a
fraud", ignore scientific findings and projections, and just look outside
and see it snowing.However, there are those in the energy industry
who acknowledge that global warming is a reality, but insisit it is all natural
and isn't because of the burning of fossil fuels. It's much like Ronald Reagan
saying that pollution is caused by trees.Then there are those far
off on the other end who say that global warming is advancing so fast that the
Utah will be a West Coast state next week. There appear to be four
sides to this question:1. Those who deny global warming
completely.2. Those who accept global warming but deny human
contributions to pollution.3. Those who think we need to get ready
for another, immenient Great Flood.4. Those who see global warming
as a threat and acknowledge human activity as a contributor.So, what
makes sense to you?
I don't think it's Global_Warming itself that needs to be treated cautiously...
it's the people SURROUNDING the Global_Warming movement that have to be
scrutinized to confirm what their real motivations are.Al Gore?
Michael Moore? and others... What do THEY know about science or climate???Most of these people stand to reap fortune, fame, economic or political
POWER from this movement being accepted widely and the movement AND their
solutions being embraced by the New World Order.---If
the people leading the effort to make the case for Global_Warming were
scientists (not buffoons, politicians and opportunists)... I would have an
easier time giving my full support to the solutions they are proposing. But so
far the solutions just seem rigged to enrich these people or the reputations of
the scientists who came up with the most supportive data to help them achieve
their goals.---I guess I'm just a skeptic. But I've
been around a long time... and I've seen TONS of these earth ending
scare_tactics hyped_up and eventually dissolve. And I've seen the people who
try to take advantage of the crisis and the opportunity it presents.
alenalena | 3:12 p.m.I vote for #5... Global Warming is real.
It's happening and their are both Natural AND Man_Caused contributions. It's
both a natural cycle AND man is contributing to the affect.The
problem with that being the case is... You can't blame it totally on man OR
nature. So it's a tougher problem to solve than just saying, "It's MAN's
fault... until Man is enslaved or exterminated we have a problem"... or the
OTHER extreme... "It's only Nature... and we all know puny man can't
completely control Nature".So my dilemna is... man can't 100%
solve it (even WITH international power-glots, environmental police, New World
Order type unelected Global Governance, etc). And Nature alone can't solve it
(because man IS a contributing factor). So even if man did all he
could... Even if man were exterminaged it's quite possible the problem would
remain. And since we aren't going to exterminate man anyway... why even pretend
that man alone (or GOVERNMENT alone) can solve the problem.This may
be a natural_cycle... but maybe not.So... We need to work together
Ambrose: "While some fanatically vile environmental activists try to make
it sound as if anyone disagreeing with their conjectures is on the
take..."It is the rare climate change op-ed or online
discussion thread that does not not include some comment that climate scientists
push AGW to keep their grants coming. Ironically, this thread defies that
observation, so far.I could take Ambrose more seriously on climate
if his closing DDT caveat wasn't so muddled on science, policy, and history. I
could take climate change skeptics in general more seriously if their positions
on other scientific issues were more reasoned and credible. I suspect the Venn
diagram of the set of creationists and the set climate change skeptics looks a
lot like a Target logo.