Originally Posted By DlandDug From the front page of today's LA Times: <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-warming31jan31" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/po litics/la-na-warming31jan31</a>,0,1195871.story?coll=la-home-headlines EXCERPTS: >>Headline: Climate is changing, politically New attention from presidential hopefuls and others shows that global warming is not just the Democrats' issue anymore.<< >>After years of languishing on Capitol Hill, efforts to curb global warming have picked up momentum, powered by a growing bipartisan belief that climate change can no longer be ignored. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has declared it a top priority for the House. Presidential candidates from both parties call it one of the biggest issues faced by the next occupant of the White House. Even President Bush, long a skeptic, is sounding the alarm. That's an abrupt break from the past, when many politicians shrugged off the issue. Especially among Republicans, it was regarded as an untested theory or an alarmist fantasy. Polls show that most Americans believe the studies that show pollution is a cause of climate change. And politicians now are scrambling to keep up with science and public opinion. Legislation to curb global warming is still a long shot in Congress, because there is no consensus on a solution.<< >>"The number of individuals in Washington who reject the clear evidence of global warming appears to be shrinking as its dramatic manifestations mount," McCain said. << >>The issue's prominence is rising for a variety of reasons. There is mounting scientific evidence that pollution plays a significant role in global warming. Climate scientists who advise the United Nations are meeting in Paris this week and are expected to issue a report on how warming is likely to affect sea levels. The Oscar-nominated documentary featuring Al Gore, "An Inconvenient Truth," that raised awareness of the issue, vividly depicting the consequences of a warmer planet. Some states, including California, are acting on their own, causing influential business leaders to call for federal regulation to avoid a patchwork of state and local laws. Most important, Democrats who want action on the issue now control the House and the Senate, and the party's leaders have moved it to center stage.<< >>The 2008 presidential candidate most deeply involved in the issue is not a Democrat, but a Republican. McCain has for years pushed legislation to impose mandatory limits on emissions that contribute to global warming. That goal has put him at odds with most in his party and has helped him build his reputation as a maverick. One candidate who has kept a distance from the issue is Republican Mitt Romney. As governor, he pulled Massachusetts out of a regional accord to reduce emissions, worried about its effect on energy bills. But GOP pollster Whit Ayres said Republican candidates would do well to follow McCain's lead. Ayres argues that global warming is a winning issue not just among Democrats, but among Republicans as well. In a July 2006 survey of GOP voters, he found that a majority agreed that the Earth's temperature was rising and that human activity, not normal climate cycles, was the cause. Ayres said the issue was "an opportunity for Republicans to reach out to people in the middle and demonstrate their sensitivity in an area not normally thought to be a Republican strength."<< So, if polls show that GOP voters are embracing man made Global Warming, will party leadership follow? And could it be that conservatives who reject Global Warming will find themselves at odds with the party?
Originally Posted By SuperDry One thing that I've noticed is that the party line, so to speak, from the usual suspects in the extreme conservative media have switched from the "global warming doesn't exist" to "global warming exists, but isn't caused by man" in recent times. This allows people that are opposed to doing anything about global warming to not seem totally out of step in a nation where most people believe it. But your question was more about the broader GOP. Actually, when I first saw your headline, misread it I thought you were saying that the GAP was finally doing something about global warming! But I stand corrected. Your question is an interesting one. I think this is reflective of a larger move within the GOP to swing back to a more moderate version of conservatism. That is, I think that more and more people are realizing that there's more to being conservative than the war in Iraq or ignoring science when it conflicts with some agenda you have. And this is why people like McCain continue to be villified by the more extreme factions. He's much more a threat to the hardcore conservatives in the GOP than Hillary Clinton is.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think this is reflective of a larger move within the GOP to swing back to a more moderate version of conservatism. That is, I think that more and more people are realizing that there's more to being conservative than the war in Iraq or ignoring science when it conflicts with some agenda you have.<< I agree. And I think there is a groundswell on the right of more moderate conservatives tired of being associated with policies that appear anti-science. They want their party back from the neocons.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>One thing that I've noticed is that the party line, so to speak, from the usual suspects in the extreme conservative media have switched from the "global warming doesn't exist" to "global warming exists, but isn't caused by man" in recent times.<< There are still many, many who continue to persist in the notion that global warming does not exist. I really believe that they are simply engaged in knee jerk thinking. While we still do not fully understand what is happening with global climate, it cannot be denied that, statistically, temperatures are higher than in the recent past, and have been rising steadily. >>This allows people that are opposed to doing anything about global warming to not seem totally out of step in a nation where most people believe it.<< Speaking only for myself, I tend to base my opinion not on polls, but what the science is saying. For about thirty years there were fairly regular reports issued that stated we were either about to be burned up, or were entering a new ice age. In the last decade or so, it has become clearer that temperatures are rising over all, even as weather anomolies occur. (For example, last year's hurricane season and this year's Winter.) The causes of global warming are now on the table. Because this has been politicized, science is being manipulated by those on both sides of the issue. Opinion polls are not a reliable source of facts. But within the context of this topic, they are of utmost significance. As more and more voters embrace the idea of man made global warming, the GOP will have to acknowledge that reality.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA So now, conservatives think global warming is 'real.' Wow -- what changed from last week? Some big, new revelation? [insert eye roll here]
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Wow -- what changed from last week? Some big, new revelation?<< I don't think anything has changed. I think that the media may finally be acknowledging that this issue doesn't divide as neatly down party lines as they would like. The poll cited in the article lead to the question: Has the GOP turned the corner?
Originally Posted By Shooba The Conservative Party of Canada has jumped on the bandwagon as well. Rather obnoxiously, they're now declaring themselves to be the most environmentally conscious political party of Canada and are criticising Liberals for having not done enough. It's rather annoying, considering they've cared about Global Warming for all of a week now. To me, the debate about the causes of Global Warming are almost moot. Everything that we're supposed to do to fight it, we ought to be doing anyway. If it turns out that being environmentally conscious can't stop global wamring, there's still benefits.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << The causes of global warming are now on the table. >> I think this is another red herring that gets thrown out there just for the sake of debate. The main smoking gun in the climate change debate is the rapid growth of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. You rarely hear anyone say they are uncertain about whether man has contributed to the growth of CO2 -- particularly since scientists have captured data that shows exactly how much CO2 our factories, increasing population, and deforestation practices have added to the atmosphere in comparison to an earth where we didn't have any of those man-made contributions. However, the opponents to climate change theories use "global warming" instead of "greenhouse gases" as their yardstick for whether or not man has contributed to climate change. They know that in any particular year there will be extremely cold days as well as extremely warm days and most people are sensitive to an average temperature that is increasing over a period of years. Snow in Malibu? What global warming? So goes the argument. All the while they sidestep the issue of CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. The fact that the earth's temperature has always been directly related to greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, concentrations is also glossed over.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Everything that we're supposed to do to fight it, we ought to be doing anyway. If it turns out that being environmentally conscious can't stop global wamring, there's still benefits.<< This is part of the problem with advancing the cause of man made global warming. There is a perception among many conservatives that it is simply another way to promote an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change. As long as this perception exists, the issue will continue to be politicized.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>The main smoking gun in the climate change debate is the rapid growth of CO2 levels in the atmosphere.<< While this is certainly a very valid argument, it fails to address historic climate change. Scientists know that there have been dramatic shifts in global temperatures, going back over millenia. Because there were no scientific measurements being taken thousands of years ago, it cannot be stated with certainty what caused this, any more than it can be stated with certainty right now that man's production of CO2 is the cause of the current warming trend.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>There is a perception among many conservatives that it is simply another way to promote an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change.<< They could have a valid point about that, and it is something to be mindful of. But at least by entering the arena and accepting what a majority (I won't say consesus to start us off on a tangent) of scientists are finding, it's a step towards finding the best solutions. Conservatives need to adopt more of a mental line item veto approach to this subject. Up until now, it seemed that too many rejected the entire concern about climate change as something only 'tree huggers' need worry about. We've seen shrill evidence of this on the boards.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>There is a perception among many conservatives that it is simply another way to promote an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change.<< That's interesting. Although, it's sad to think that environmentalism is so unimportant to some people that they'd have to be "tricked" into action. Being environmentally conscious is one of those "agendas" that I just can't fathom anyone being against. I think some are reacting to the "Liberal agenda" to destroy Capitalism and have everyone live in tree houses. Of course, it's not like that. There will always be a balance between polution and environmentalism.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Because there were no scientific measurements being taken thousands of years ago, it cannot be stated with certainty what caused this, any more than it can be stated with certainty right now that man's production of CO2 is the cause of the current warming trend. >> We have scientific data that goes back over a half million years, via geologic samples and ice cores, that show historic CO2 levels and their correlation with temperature. What these ice cores don't show is any time in earth's history where CO2 levels have ever been this high. We know that the warm periods in the earth's climate cycles have all correlated with elevated CO2 levels, so we have an idea where we are headed. However, since we have never observed CO2 concentrations as high as they are now -- or going as high as they are headed in the years to come -- there is some difficulty in predicting how severe temperatures will increase with elevated greenhouse gas concentrations. But to say that we don't have scientific measurements from thousands of years ago is a false statement.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...it's sad to think that environmentalism is so unimportant to some people that they'd have to be "tricked" into action.<< No one likes to be "tricked" into anything. >>Being environmentally conscious is one of those "agendas" that I just can't fathom anyone being against.<< And that's often the source of heated disagreement. There are others who are just as mystified that anyone would place our economy at risk by embracing environmentalism. Somewhere there has to be a point of understanding for these seemingly opposed points of view.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'm down with a treehouse. But it better have monkey butlers. And a strawberry daquari machine.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...to say that we don't have scientific measurements from thousands of years ago is a false statement.<< It would be false indeed, if that is what I had said. My statement, "there were no scientific measurements being taken thousands of years ago" is quite true. There is data available, but not the kind of precise measurements that are being employed in today's study of weather and climate. >>What these ice cores don't show is any time in earth's history where CO2 levels have ever been this high.<< Then it does beg the question of why temeratures are not presently higher than at any other time in earth's history. While CO2 is a clearly identified culprit in global warming, it is still not certain that eradicating it is the magic bullet.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << There are others who are just as mystified that anyone would place our economy at risk by embracing environmentalism. >> Except that no one can describe what these risks to the economy might be. When as our economy ever suffered from businesses becoming more efficient and technologically advanced? A good example is mentioned in the other global warming thread -- switching consumers to used CFLs instead of incadescent light bulbs. Making this switch reduces energy consumption (and greenhouse gas emissions) and saves consumers considerable money in the long run through both reduced energy costs and the fact that these bulbs last longer? What economic downfall comes out of changes like these? Well, there is one negative -- we won't need as much coal or gas to pump into our power plants since we're saving electricity, so ExxonMobil might have to shave a few pennies off of their revenues. Consumer spending contributes 70% to the calculation of GDB, so if I were running the numbers I would say that efficiencies that save consumers money would trump any revenue drops at the coal and oil companies.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << There is data available, but not the kind of precise measurements that are being employed in today's study of weather and climate. >> I guess you just don't believe in science then. Since I was trained as a chemist and have some amount of experience collecting data in support of the scientific method, I tend to have great faith in the data that we get from geologic samples and measurement of the varying isotopes found there. It is amazing how much information can be gained from atoms that are "frozen" in time in the ice and rock formations of age ago! I venture to say that these methods are incredibly precise in providing a window on our environment during the last half million years.
