Chicago Trib proves Bernie right

[dlhhld]

It was just yesterday I read the following quote from "crazies---"

speaking of liberals page 70: " they fear a one-degree change in temperature over the next 100 years more than they fear being blown up by a terrorist next week."

Today The Chicago Tribune has a story taking up 3/4 of the front page on penguins in Antartica being affected by "global warming", with colored pictures. Buried on page nine is a 1/2 page story on the terrorist attack at the Glasgow airport.

Don Huckstadt

[banjobkp]

Exaggerating the threat of terrorism is a classic conservative trait.

Take these juicy stats for instance.

Despite increased usage of safety belts and attention to drunken driving, 43,200 people died in car crashes last year, up from 42,636 in 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated. The death rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled was up from 1.44 to 1.46.

Murders in the U.S.

2000 FBI Crime Index figures: There were an estimated 15,517 murders in 2000, virtually no change from the 1999 murder estimate of 15,522. The number of murders was 21 percent less than in 1996 and 37.2 percent less than in 1991.

If a conservative gives no regard to the apparent threat of dying in a car accident or simply being murdered, then of course environmental concerns would probably be just as meaningless.

Ridiculing those who have differing priorities or viewpoints of what is important isn't really a discussion. But in the end, I believe there are just too many people who don't trust the science behind Global Warming simply because they believe that environmentalism is anti-business and pro regulation, which generally is ananthema to conservative "values".

All I would ask a conservative to do is look at the information being put forth by scientists. Don't let your anti environmental view get in the way of honestly looking at the reports our scientists are putting out. Yeah, I know how hard it is to put aside personal core beliefs, but at some point, we can't just be reciting dogma that conservatives have. (just like liberals, conservative like to have denigrating, spiteful views of others who don't think like them. BTW - I really enjoy the holier than though comments stating how hateful and mean liberals are, implying of course, how saintly and generous those on the right are.)

So what do you see? A liberal environmental agenda simply created by liberal scientist who would do anything to stop free enterprise, or is there scientific evidence that is tested and verified by the rules of scientific discovery, hypothesis, testing and theory.

What is nice, in general terms, about science is that it is what it is. A system for discovery and establishment of truths about nature and the physical world. Its not up to us individuals to believe or not believe. Its all there in the evidence and the science that produced it.

So the next time you like to elevate the threat of terrorism over the threat of global warming as a method of ridiculing non-conservatives, remember that there are lots of threats out there. Maybe you could quantify why that is and show us a bit of analysis. Anyone can make denegrating statements. How about articulating an argument?

[lou1355]

The Earth is warmed by the Sun. The Sun goes through high and low cycles of energy output. When the current high cycle reverts back to low in a few years, many folks, especially those in Greenland, will be looking back with nostalgia to the good old days of Global Warming.

In the meantime, all of the global warming hype is indeed a bunch of anti-capitalist malarkey combined with self-serving prevarication designed to stimulate government and corporate grants to "study the problem."

Money for global warming studies are into the billions with no let up in sight.

Just try to get a grant for de-bunking that baloney--you'd sooner be ostracized as a holocaust denying lunatic.

So much for the integrity of the scientific community.

If there were billions available for proving that the primordial soup didn't produce squat, the "scientists" would all be creationists!

[banjobkp]

hmmm, interesting comment about the lack of integrity of the scientific community.

If integrity is the issue regarding scientist, I would dare say that most of the scientific results that we all enjoy would be a foundation we could stand on if there weren't basic integrity within how science operates. This is not to say that scientists are saints and don't have pressures to produce results. But the nature of science which is not opinion based as much as it is based upon building a case of repeatable conformable observations.

Is science always right? I would say that science advances as the community of knowledge advances. There are after all more to learn about the physical universe everyday.

The idea the climate science is somehow substandard or perverted by political opinion vs. other areas of science is a claim I cannot agree on. Global Warming is not a new idea. And while early hypothesis's can always be debated, if the community of scientists can establish enough evidence and trials and repeatable tests, well, it bears working to understand it and the implications of the information and conclusions drawn from the evidence.

Just 5 years ago, there was enough doubt to place the likelyhood of global warming as being from the emission of green house gases at 60% likelyhood. 5 Years later, based upon the results of continued research, we are now at 90% based upon the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Regardless, I know I'm not going to change a conservative's mind about the values of science and the nobility of the profession. I would just point out that scientists and their integrity and their practices are important to the actual quality of our lives. It is one thing to talk about people and perceptions of the world and how and why we think about things and everyday life. Plenty of variability to debate.

Having know scientists who conduct research in the medical sciences, what you publish is scrutinized and if critically important also verified by repeating those observations. The nature of peer review is such that fraud, which does occur, can be exposed. Or erroneous results or lack of verification often identified. (i.e. cold fusion.)

My inclination is to believe what science is reporting that the globe is warming do to the CO2 being released by burning fossil fuels.

If your inclination is to refute that, well I only have one proposition for you.

Are you sure that CO2 emissions are not having an impact on the environment?

Is it possible that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere is impacting the climate?

What would you need to see as evidence to convince you that CO2 can alter the environment?

And lastly, do you really believe that climate scientists are part of a vast left wing conspiracy to do what exactly?

There are times when we don't like what we hear. Just because we don't like what we hear doesn't mean it is not true. There is also time to be skeptical about what we are being told and what policies we should be engaging on based upon results of scientific findings.

Naturally, all you have to do is put Al Gore in front of something and all good conservatives who equate liberalism with socialism will just mock and ridicule the message as delivered by a reviled politician.

Debating policy is fine. Being a skeptic is fine. Being a denialist is something else. Being a conspiratorialist is also something else. I'm beginning to believe that good reason and thought are now on the edge of just being honery.

Personally, I will share that I'm not going to be around when the real s bomb hits the fan. Having no children, I really don't care about what my progeny will have to face. And being an athiest, well I'm not too concerned about the survival of the human race. So I don't care about global warming, I'm just being honest about this, but I'm not really going to doubt what the scientists are saying, because I'm not hearing a really rational thought process as to why the science is wrong.

Lastly about the grant thing, I'm pretty sure the oil industry would happily fund and have funded studies to try to disprove the effects of burning fossil fuels at the rate we are. I recall that after the report released, that there was an effort to find scientist to provide the counter point to the conclusions from the international panel studying the results of the evidence. If conservative who have money aren't trying to fund studies to disprove global warming, then what is this world coming too?

cheers!

[lou1355]

I feel I owe you a thoughtful response.

First, to relieve you of false assumptions about me, I am not an under-educated, knuckle-dragging, bigotted rube thirsting for my next beer or looking for women or children to kick around. I'm not even a conservative. I also appreciate science because it is a pathway to Truth. It can't be the only pathway (by definition, science depends on observation and observation of the extreme macro and extreme micro are not possible via our five senses even when aided by our most modern technology) so I am also open to other avenues which may lead to Truth.

I also know that all persons are biased, even scientists, and history is replete with examples of biased scientists being on the wrong side of Truth.

By the way, I define Truth as: "Knowledge of things as they really are."

Now, back to the global warming issue:

I have some questions for you:

1. Why does no one I ask know that the #1 greenhouse gas by a wide margin is water vapor? Perhaps because the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can not in any way be controlled by humans--not even self-serving, corrupt politicians?

2. Why doesn't anyone generally know that the human contributions to greenhouse gases are a round-off number somewhere less that 1% of the total? Same reason?

3. Why doesn't the public know that greenhouse gas warming would occur in the troposphere (where the radiant heat is being trapped by the greenhouse gases) but the troposphere has actually gotten cooler over the last decade?

4. Why doesn't the public know that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are actually a trailing (not leading) indicator of global temperature?

5. Why doesn't the public know that the ocean is the most important CO2 sink on Earth--releasing more CO2 during warm periods and holding more CO2 during cool periods?

6. Why doesn't the public know that global temperatures track most closely with solar activity over the millenia?

7. Why doesn't the public know that atmospheric CO2 levels have been much higher in the past?

8. Why doesn't the public know that all the ice in both polar caps, if melted, would not produce a 20 foot rise in sea levels?

9. Why doesn't the public know that an abundance of high-caliber, heavyweight climatologist strongly disagree with the current conclusions and junk science of the global warming hysteria?

You, being a self-declared atheist, said it best. If there is no intelligent "Great Cause," then there is no purpose or meaning to our existence and none of it matters one iota--there is only the here and now.

I frankly would like to be left alone by all the busy-bodies who want to tell me how to think and act and what I can drive and how much money is too much and how much is "fair" for me to have to give to others, etc., etc., etc.

This global warming hyusteria smells a lot like the DDT hysteria of 40 years ago. The "scientists" lied to us then, and now perhaps 40 million people are dead of malaria. Did you know that "Silent Spring" was fraudulent? The birdies had weak egg shells because they had been denied calcium in their diets--it didn't have anything to do with DDT. Now Third World leaders are insisting that DDT be brought back into use to kill the mosquitos that cause malaria. Another holocaust brought to you by the hysterical Left.

I'm not anti-science....I'm just anti- junk science with an agenda.

In the end, I'm against incompetence and hysterical busy-bodies who don't know how to do anything productive and instead just want to boss others around and interfere in things they know little or nothing about.

Phew, I feel better now.

Over and out...

[dlhhld]

banjopkp's reply:

In his reply, he shows the complete lack of understanding of the terrorests' threat. Comparing auto deaths has no releationship to the objectives of the terrorists. By killing groups of people in democratic countries their objective is to influence leaders and possibly cause changes in government policy. The train bombing in Spain is a perfect example. A new left leaning government was elected after the bombing there. We conservatives are not afraid of being blowning up, rather we are afraid of the weak kneed left wing governments that may be voted in after terrorists attacks.

As for Globle Warming the two previous post demonstrate the vague way libs defend their position. They site scienists in a vague way but don't mention any names or stats. For all we know the "scientists" they site could all be very left leaning socialists. The consverative post provides facts and figures instead of vague refferences which we are just suppose to trust.

DH

[steve1633]

The facts and figures relied on are all discussions of the history of earth's climate. They discuss the trends and relationships existant before humans and compare human contribution as a percentage of the past influences. The issue with climate change now a days is that humans have suddenly become a much larger influence than they were even 1,000 years ago (a very small time if we're talking about historical climatology). I don't know the numbers exactly but I do know that even since 1800 we've trippled our population which would mean 3 times the impact at least. If a scale is well balanced even the introduction of the tiniest weight can through it off. What the science indicates is that humans are influencing the earth's climate in a way that is completely new and could possibly, and appears now to be, dangerous to our basic systems of life. No science can ever be positive because there is always that chance that all of our universal constants are shifting constantly ever so slightly so that each moment our scientific relationships refer to a set of rules relevant to a past universe whose laws are no longer dictating our present. However, the climate science combined with surveys of population demographics, water and air quality, resource use and habitat destruction combine to paint a very grim picture for the future of many environments we now call home.

[lou1355]

Next to Nothing.

Saying that industrialization has doubled, tripled, even quadrupled over the past two centuries doesn't mean much if the current total human-sourced C02 contribution barely moves the needle as a percent of the total.

Here are some facts:

1. C02 is not a pollutant regardless what the Supremes have declared. I laughed myself silly over that one. C02 is an absolutely life-essential gas. It's current levels are nowhere near historical highs.

2. C02 isn't even close to being the most significant greenhouse gas. Water vapor is number one: somewhere between 60-98% of the total effect depending on who is grinding the axe. As far as potency, methane, nitrous oxide and flourocarbons are magnatudes more potent, though their concentrations are not as great as C02.

3. The warming trend noted in the 90's and early part of this decade did NOT occur in the troposphere (where the greenhouse effect would manifest itself). The temps being discussed are surface temps. What caused it? Higher solar output, which, by the way, is likely to decrease by 2012 and hit a very low cycle by 2020. One of my motivations for attempting to extend my life is to live to see that Denier in Chief Al Gore have to pull a Roseanna Anna Danna on national TV: "OH! Never mind!"

4. As for Kyoto, the only reason C02 got center stage is because it is the only minor greenhouse gas readily subject to political control and government regulation. It's nowhere near the most important, but it is doable--as long as you don't mind sending the world into a major economic depression & chaos leading to the deaths of billions (bonus for the greenies).

5. Final minor point: the carbon footprint of the US has actually gone down in the past 30 years despite greater economic activity and more energy consumption. Why? Because we are no longer cutting down trees for wood and the trees we do cut down are systematically replaced. We have been experiencing urban, suburban and rural re-forestation in this country for decades. The Kyoto-philes don't take this C02 scrubbing effect into account when they rant about our carbon footprint because it doesn't help foster hysteria when you admit that our net carbon footprint is actually shrinking already--even faster than Kyoto would have required. Don't believe me? Check it out and prove me wrong, please.

6. OK, one more point: anybody want to guess why you've probably never heard these things before? Could it be that those who control the mainstream information flow in this country have an agenda? Nah!

[dlhhld]

Those sounding the alarm about CO2 will site huge figures in thousands of tons of CO2 going into the atmosphere. However, do you ever hear of the actual per cent of the total atmosphere. It is only 380 parts per million or 0.038%. How could such a small relative amount of CO2 have such a huge impact?

[lou1355]

Did I really say we no longer cut down trees for wood? Why haven't I been flamed yet?

I meant to say that we no longer use trees as a primary source of energy (fireplaces, locomotives, furnaces, etc.) nor do we use them as a sole building material. The lumber we do use comes largely from managed acerage in the US and Canada.

The result: significant reforestation in the suburban and rural expanses of the continent.