Originally Posted By HyperTyper Kind treatment of the earth is a good and noble thing. The biggest argument in favor of environmental responsibility is simple: It's bad to litter, it's bad to pollute, whether or not it causes "global warming." Republicans could do a lot more in the way of environmental responsibility, though they are not do-nothings as the liberals would suggest, and conservatives have participated in a number of environmental issues. Several problems with the liberals' approach to environmentalism: 1. Global warming. Temperatures have fluctuated since the beginning of the earth. Pollution is unsightly and unhealthy, and on that everyone agrees. Blaming Bush policy for bringing the world to the brink of destruction is both dishonest, unscientific, and unnecessary. 2. Hypocrisy. The environmentalist darling himself, Al Gore, has a very blemished record where his own environmental practices are concerned. Most of the liberal politicians and entertaininers touting environmetnal responsibility still drive big cars and fly in private jets. (Apparently cutting-down on gas consumption is only a responsibility for the little people.) Memo to such: Test-driving a Toyota Prius and buying recycled toilet paper do not an environmentalist make. 3. Political and international bias. Environmentalism is being used to poke the Bush administration and America in the eye. America is hardly the sole polluter. Indeed, America has improved remarkably in cleaning-up industrial and transportation pollution. My grandfather tells of when a black cloud of coal smoke hung over the city, turning white collars black with soot. Some nations are still lanuishing in such conditions decades after the U.S. has cleaned that up. Interesting, too, to note that while the French lecture the U.S. about environmentalism, they have great difficulty in keeping their public places free of tobacco smoke and their sidewalks free of dog poo. I'm not even kidding.
Originally Posted By ecdc I posted this on the other thread started by Dirk on global warming. It turns out Bob Carter used to work for the Ocean Drilling Program. Gee, what were we saying about scientists who argue against global warming and their sources? "Hmmm... so you do a google search on Canada Free Press and it takes about two seconds to show what a strong conservative agenda they have. The Wikipedia entry is worth it's weight in gold. Another quick search of the name Bob Carter shows that he's been severely criticized by other scientists - you know, ones that didn't used to work for the Ocean Drilling Program."
Originally Posted By ecdc Since people seem to think global warming is being made up, here's some links and information: From the prominent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." See <a href="http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm" target="_blank">http://www.grida.no/climate/ip cc_tar/wg1/007.htm</a> From the National Science Academies of the G8 nations: We need to "acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing." See <a href="http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222" target="_blank">http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/docu ment.asp?latest=1&id=3222</a> From the U.S. National Research Council: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising." See <a href="http://fermat.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html" target="_blank">http://fermat.nap.edu/html/cli matechange/summary.html</a> From the Federal Climate Change Science Program (commissioned by the Bush Administration, for crying out loud!): There is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." See <a href="http://climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm" target="_blank">http://climatescience.gov/Libr ary/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm</a> Finally, Wikipedia summarizes articles published in Science and the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society that surveyed scientists and found that an overwhelming majority believe global warming is real and that it is the result of human beings. So far we have one post that reproduces the statements of a scientist who worked for the Ocean Drilling Program. Anyone else want to say why all these organizations and scientists are incorrect?
Originally Posted By HyperTyper Yes, we have pollution. That's been proven. Yes, climactic temperatures have risen according to some studies. Is is fair to say they might be linked? Sure. But here's the rub: Climactic change has always been around. We used to have an ice age, where glaciers filled the greater part of the North American continent. Did conservative Republicans cause THAT global warming? I doubt it. The forces that are at play on our earth are far too big for even our most brilliant scientists to comprehend entirely. For a few of them to step forward and say humans are "causing" global warming is akin to saying that Islam is causing tectonic plate shift because they have had an unusually high occurance of earthquakes in the Middle East. Maybe there is a link, but there is no way, with our limited understanding and technology, of making that determination for certain. Here is an interesting article that demonstrates a more responsible approach to environmental science: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new s/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html</a> None of this undercuts the underlying premise of environmentalism, that we should take care of the planet. I totally support that. It is reasonable and factual to say humans DO affect local environments. And I don't mind a fair debate on the benefits vs. the negatives of industry and its resulting byproducts. But I totally reject the wholesale blaming of one single factor, one administration, one party, or one philosophy for advancing global destruction. It is scientifically, morally and politically dishonest and hypocritical. Scientists, of all people, should know better.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Oh, I forgot. You have your "belief" that it isn't so.> Well, looking over all the evidence that's been presented, belief is all you have as well.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Blaming Bush policy for bringing the world to the brink of destruction is both dishonest, unscientific, and unnecessary.> "Brink of destruction" is hyperbole, and this is something that has been building for years, predating Bush of course. But the the Bush admin. is quite rightly criticized when it does things like censor reports that it itself commissioned. <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/24/politics/main564873.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories /2003/07/24/politics/main564873.shtml</a> "n a draft of the report – obtained by CBS News – strong language that "climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment" was stricken by the White House; as was government research that suggests recent climate change is "likely mostly due to human activities." An edited version said that climate change "may have potentially profound consequences" but, "The complexity of the earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change, document its cause and develop useful projections on how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future." The revised draft removed a reference to a 1999 study showing global temperatures had risen sharply in the past decade compared to the previous 1,000 years. But it did cite another study, partly paid for by the oil industry, challenging the uniqueness of recent temperature increases. And it deleted a National Research Council finding that various studies have suggested that recent warming was unusual and likely due to human activities. The 2001 NRC report had been commissioned by the White House and cited in the past by President Bush. "When presented with real science that talks about what climate change means to you and me, the Bush administration instead wants to essentially take that out, censor it," says Jeremy Symons of the National Wildlife Federation. The changes were protested by EPA staffers, who wrote in a confidential memo that the report "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change." Compared to this, Al Gore driving a large car or the French having dog poo on the sidewalk are pretty small potatoes.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Oh, I forgot. You have your "belief" that it isn't so.> <Well, looking over all the evidence that's been presented, belief is all you have as well.> Nope. As ecdc's links show, we have science on our side.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <As ecdc's links show, we have science on our side.> I read some of the links, and didn't see anything definitive.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yet you must have seen the vast majority of scientists saying that they thought it was at least partly caused by humans. Which is all we're saying.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yet you must have seen the vast majority of scientists saying that they thought it was at least partly caused by humans.> No, I didn't see that. Which article stated that?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Yet you must have seen the vast majority of scientists saying that they thought it was at least partly caused by humans.>> <No, I didn't see that. Which article stated that?> Referring to the links; that the majority of scientists involved in writing the pieces in question, believed it was at least partly caused by humans (I believe all those links are reports by groups of scientists, not individuals). For instance, when the US National Research Council says "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities," that would reflect the consensus of the scientists of that group.
Originally Posted By planodisney If humans cause global warming, can someone on here please explain the last ice age? Seriously. I believe in climate change, and that includes global warming and cooling. I also believe that being responsible in the way you treat the Earth is just good citizenship. But, the idea that man has caused this recent warming trend cant be proveon. The earth has warmed and cooled many times before industrialization and the automobile or the oil industry. This guy may or may not be biased in his assumptions, but facts are facts. If the Earth hasnt warmed, and has actually cooled slightly in the time period he gave, and if the Earth had the same increase in temperature during the forties which he posted, as the recent warmup that liberals site, then that does count for something. I am not saying his facts are correct, or that he isnt biased, but if his facts ARE correct, then it would be pretty hard to argue with some of his assumptions. But, how did they earth warm up during the Ice Age, without man, and how, with the knowledge that the Earth has gone through colling and warming trends in the past, can anyone jump to the conclusion that this time it is mans fault? I would realy appreciate an answer to this.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 There's no question that the earth goes through natural periods of warming and cooling. The question is: is human activity contributing to a warming in an unnatural way? Either exacerbating a period when we're naturally warming, or countering a period when we should be cooling. Here's another study that suggests humans have something to do with it: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4290340.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci ence/nature/4290340.stm</a> "The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk for a fourth consecutive year, according to new data released by US scientists. They say that this month sees the lowest extent of ice cover for more than a century. The Arctic climate varies naturally, but the researchers conclude that human-induced global warming is at least partially responsible. They warn the shrinkage could lead to even faster melting in coming years. "September 2005 will set a new record minimum in the amount of Arctic sea ice cover," said Mark Serreze, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, Colorado. "It's the least sea ice we've seen in the satellite record, and continues a pattern of extreme low extents of sea ice which we've now seen for the last four years," he told BBC News. " (snip) "All data goes through cycles, and so you have to be careful," she said, "but it's also true to say that we wouldn't expect to have four years in a row of shrinkage. "That, combined with rising temperatures in the Arctic, suggests a human impact; and I would also bet my mortgage on it, because if you change the radiation absorption process of the atmosphere (through increased production of greenhouse gases) so there is more heating of the lower atmosphere, sooner or later you are going to melt ice." (snip) ""What we're seeing is a process in which we start to lose ice cover during the summer," he said, "so areas which formerly had ice are now open water, which is dark. "These dark areas absorb a lot of the Sun's energy, much more than the ice; and what happens then is that the oceans start to warm up, and it becomes very difficult for ice to form during the following autumn and winter. "It looks like this is exactly what we're seeing - a positive feedback effect, a 'tipping-point'."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Referring to the links; that the majority of scientists involved in writing the pieces in question, believed it was at least partly caused by humans (I believe all those links are reports by groups of scientists, not individuals).> I agree that the vast majority of scientists who believe that global warming is caused by humans believe that global warming is caused by humans. However, I have yet to see evidence that they represent the vast majority of all scientists, as has been asserted.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>Temperatures have fluctuated since the beginning of the earth<< The overall trend is still that the the globe is getting warmer in the long run: <a href="http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Sect16_2.html" target="_blank">http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect1 6/Sect16_2.html</a> >>Hypocrisy. The environmentalist darling himself, Al Gore, has a very blemished record where his own environmental practices are concerned.<< Hypocrisy of politicians (and everyone else) is another topic. It doesn't change the facts surrounding global warming. >>But I totally reject the wholesale blaming of one single factor, one administration, one party, or one philosophy for advancing global destruction.<< I don't think this is a partisan issue. I doubt anyone will remember Bush as an environmentally friendly president, but he's hardly to blame. Should he do more? Sure, so should everyone else. >>America is hardly the sole polluter<< <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0613-02.htm" target="_blank">http://www.commondreams.org/he adlines05/0613-02.htm</a> "The United States constitutes 4 per cent of the world population It is responsible for a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions - an average of 40,000 pounds of carbon dioxide is released by each US citizen every year - the highest of any country in the world, and more than China, India and Japan combined" Biased source obviously, but it was the first one google gave me America could aspire to be a world leader in protecting the environment, or it could point fingers at "lesser" countries and say "well, they're not doing anything". I think that being more progressive than other nations would be something to aspire to.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But, how did they earth warm up during the Ice Age, without man, and how, with the knowledge that the Earth has gone through colling and warming trends in the past, can anyone jump to the conclusion that this time it is mans fault?<< Forest fires occur naturally, but sometimes they're started by a careless human. I don't know if the current period of global warming is caused by man or not, and obviously, it's open to debate. But just because something has happened naturally in the past doesn't automatically exclude the possibility that humans might be able to trigger that same even through their actions.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan last sentence should be "trigger that same EVENT through their actions."
Originally Posted By Shooba >>However, I have yet to see evidence that they represent the vast majority of all scientists, as has been asserted.<< Al Gore says: "Some would say there is a tiny number of people who are still respected in certain subspecialties who have questions about this or that. But that's always going to be the case. The fact is there is a stronger consensus on global warming than there is on almost anything else in science. The most impressive international scientific collaboration in history - 2,000 scientists in 100 countries for 20 years - have produced a consensus that is so strong as to be quite rare in science." "But focusing on some small remaining uncertainty on the edges of the issue is different from having a serious dispute with the main part of the science. And virtually no one is in that latter category anymore." Anyone know Al's sources?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <However, I have yet to see evidence that they represent the vast majority of all scientists, as has been asserted.> Well, the immediate antecedent was the links themselves, but still... The majority of scientists in those links, which represent some highly respected institutions, believe it. Do a majority of all scientists, worldwide, in every scientific discipline? I suspect so, but I've never seen a poll. But we've certainly provided many more unfunded-by-industry scientists than you have.
