Politicizing 'An Inconvenient Truth' (Repeat)

"St Roch Asking the Virgin Mary to Heal Victims of the Plague" by Jacques-Louis David 1780, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Marseille

 

I received an e-mail this morning from Alex Muchow @ Across The Board, a new reader of ATB, who is passionate about the subject of global warming: "The crisis that the earth faces is real, and the evidence that suggests that humans are responsible for global warming is indubitable and overwhelming. I think it is very important that we make this issue known to the world. Very important indeed."

Alex panged my conscience and prompted me to re-post below what I wrote a few months back, and re-visit this important subject once again, the relevance of which cannot possibly be forever stained by the mere fact that Al 'Truthiness' Gore seems to have monopolized the subject and given it the all too evident liberal spin. As I say below: "Think of Gore and his message what you will, the issue is far bigger than that." And it is.

Are we too blasée? Do Republicans not care for the environment? Are we placing partisan ideology before the healthy future of our children?

These and a flurry of related questions that have been bugging me over the last few days since Vice President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" hit the silver screen, giving his high-profile campaigning on the threat of global warming a decisive push.

Let me be upfront and tell you outright, that I have not been able to reach any halfway satisfactory let alone conclusive answers to these fundamental questions. How could I.

Calling us "a renegade band of rightwing extremists", didn't help shoring up sympathies for his cause. But neither did Bill Gray's sensationalist and holy unrelated comparison, "Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews", add any credibility to his claim that Global warming is a hoax.

So what is a blogger to do? Take up the study of climatology and question the research and data hurled back and forth between scientists of both camps, with the media pitching for a position of their own? I don't think so...

Acknowledging that most of us have to make a choice which camp to believe is an important start; and I stress, the emphasis is on 'believe' not on choice! Most of us can't claim certain knowledge, although judging from what is published by the MSM, you could have fooled me.

Frankly, I don't worry too much about Gore's end-of-world statements. Politically, these scare-tactics are almost immediately discounted and rarely influence the polls; most big picture messages don't (that's why 'Bush lied, People died' has been so effective; it's up close and personal).

But I do worry about blind faith, especially when I read comments like these: "He [Gore] insults God and all of us by thinking we can change climate. Look to the heavens, Mr. Gore, and you'll see the One who will determine when this world comes to an end.  I'm comfortable with that."

I'm not. Think of Gore and his message what you will, the issue is far bigger than that. The global environment is being affected. 2.5 Billion Chinese and Indians are going to make first time purchases of cars in the next 50+ years. Reducing current and future economic and social changes like these and their inevitable impact on the global environment as mere political scare tactics is neither prudent nor convincing. Nor is it helpful to be associated with arguments which take the meaning of spin to a new level:

"Climate change is actually good. Growing seasons will be longer. Plants like carbon dioxide. Trees devour it. This demonized molecule, CO2, isn't some kind of toxin or contaminant or pollutant -- it's fertilizer." [...]

It won't do to sidetrack legitimate concerns about sharply rising pollution of our air, soil and water especially in developing countries as merely a healthy sign of economic growth which will self regulate itself when things get a bit too sticky. That's not the political message the President intended when he said:

"Addressing global climate change will require a sustained effort, over many generations. My approach recognizes that sustained economic growth is the solution, not the problem – because a nation that grows its economy is a nation that can afford investments in efficiency, new technologies, and a cleaner environment."

Instead the President is telling us, that he is addressing the charge and that political action to address the problem is severely delayed by concerns about the supposed costs by highlighting the most powerful incentive of all: Profitability. Government won't stop climate change and pollution through regulation. Profitability will; as soon as money can be saved by operating an environmentally friendly economy (Hybrid cars are no longer a fantasy but in an age of crude oil priced around the US$ 100.00 mark have become a necessity).

Meanwhile we are left to fight the messy and unrewarding 'war in the trenches':

Let us be honest about the intellectual culture of America in general: It has become almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion about anything. [...]

In a media-saturated world, it's hard to get anyone's attention without cranking the volume. Time magazine recently declared that Earth looks like a planet that is sick (cover headline: "Be Worried. Be Very Worried". [...]

The skeptics feed on alarmism. They love any sign that global warming is a case of mass hysteria. [...] Everyone, on both sides, is arguing like a lawyer these days, he [Myron Ebell, an analyst at CEI] says. "What is going on right now is a desperate last-ditch Battle of the Bulge type effort by the forces of darkness, which is relying heavily on the lockstep/groupthink scientific community." [...]

The president's science adviser, John Marburger, thinks the politicized debate has made it almost impossible to talk sensibly about the issue. "There seems to be the general feeling that somehow the administration doesn't feel that climate change is happening," he says. "That's completely wrong." The administration just doesn't think the problem can be solved with the "magic wand" of regulation.

My choice in what to believe? What the best course of action for our children's future should be? I like Amory B. Lovins' approach and I am impressed by his track record. The difference between Lovins and Gore is that Lovins calmly provides the answers at the grass roots level. Gore is busy standing on a soap box preaching to the masses and politicizing, which will do more harm than good, as it consequently polarizes the issue and brings a harsh spotlight on his motives and choice of timing, rather than the important facts underpinning this sensitive subject.

Comments

[Mark Alger]

Alexandra;

There is an easy and simple answer to all of this.

We. Don't. Know.

If you examine the data set(s) used to -- scorn quotes -- "prove" that "global warming" even EXISTS, you quickly discover that they are laughably inadequate to the task. A volume of gas -- a very active volume of gas -- roughly 1,230,877,500,000 cubic miles in extent has been measured for a little over 100 years by a notional network of 7,200 stations (1 per degree of longitude and latitude) -- of which no more than 5,500 have ever been operational at any one time, and of which only 2,000 are in operation at the moment, and those concentrated in Western countries and their outposts such as Antarctica. And these are the MOST PRECISE of the temperature gauges available to us. Others are far less so.

Those who assert as proven fact that global warming is happening are either ignorant of the facts or are deliberately lying. From that, one may -- one must -- extrapolate that their stated policy prescriptions are not made in the best interests of mankind.

M

[Richard Egan]

Part 3

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/18/prnw.20061218.DCM029.html

Text of Monckton letter calling for the resignation of
the Senators (If you only read one of these, read
this):

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf

Meanwhile there is research going on which may link
Global warming to Cosmic Rays:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061023_rays_warming.html

The truth is that this issue is seen as a path to
power, and as such has been highly politicized.

Tread with caution.

[Richard Egan]

Part 2

Al Gore responded with this article:

At stake is the survival of Human Civilization

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/19/nclim19.xml

Monckton's Responded to Al Gore with this article:

Wrong Problem Wrong Solution:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/12/nclim12.xml

Monckton has also called for the resignation of
Senators Rockefeller and Snowe;

[Richard Egan]

Part 1 (split into parts because of the links)

Global warming is socialism based on weather.

No one can prove anything one way or the other.

Everything will happen or not happen when we are all
dead.

But in order to "save the future" we have to give
control to the left. We have been down that road
before.

Here is a report on the oil and gas sector in Russia.
In passing it contains a comment on the geo political
effects of global warming;

http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20061217-123530-8717r.htm

The author asserts that the Kyoto Treaty on global
warming has forced Europe into energy dependence on
Russia.

>From Page 2 of the article:

With Europe hooked on Russian gas, its demand for it
is expected to grow by 64 percent in the next 25
years, spurred by requirements of the global-warming
treaty that force it to rely on such low-carbon fuels.
The European Union was instrumental in persuading Mr.
Putin to sign the treaty two years ago in a stroke
that served to put the treaty into effect worldwide
and to deepen the continent's energy dependence on
Russia.

There is an amusing tiff in the British papers between
a British Peer earing his living as a Journalist and
Al Gore. Of course Al Gore is out to save the future.

Monckton of Brenchley, the Third Viscount of that name
holds forth on Global Warming:

The sun is warmer now than for the past 11,400 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml

[fulldroolcup]

Grant Foster's naked assertions offer us little wisdom or guidance. For example, he claims that "The climate scientists who argue that modern warming is due to man-made greenhouse gases number in the thousands." This is a gross over-generalization, in that it seems to deny that the sun has ANY role to play in (conveniently defined) "modern" warming.

He also guts his own anecdotal arguments by sneering at those who disagree with him as "denialists". A real scientist would never use such a contemptuous term, one that seeks to kill debate rather than sharpen the issues. ["Shut up", he explained.]

As for his allusions to "ice outs": can he explain the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age? Has he ever asked himself, for example, why Greenland, now largely covered with ice, was named Greenland by its first European visitors five hundred years ago? Or why England used to have extensive vineyards, when it was warmer?

As a Wikipedia article on the Little Ice Age puts it: "In the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, gradually engulfing farms and crushing entire villages. The River Thames and the canals and rivers of the Netherlands often froze over during the winter, and people skated and even held frost fairs on the ice."

Face facts: Just in the last 1000 years, the earth has been both warmer AND cooler than it is today. So far, NO scientist has been able definitively to tease apart the human component, if any, in global warming, because NO scientist has a "baseline" upon which to measure human-induced climate change vs. normal variation.

If Foster can cite peer-reviewed articles to contradict me, he should produce them.

As for the 30,000 who died in a European heatwave: most of those were elderly people who liveed alone and had no air conditioning. People like Foster, by calling upon everyone to forgo the benefits of energy-consuming technologies that insulate us from the ravages and predations of climate, would sentence millions to a similar fate --- just as the DDT scare (based on bogus "science" and misplaced hysteria) has doomed millions in the Third World to needless deaths from malaria.

Mr Foster, is it too much to ask that you give us a falsifiable experiment that would "prove" that humans are the main agent for global warming. Or give us one that has been conducted and proves your case.

Put it right HERE>>>

A free clue: computer models are not falsifiable experiments.

Oh and by the way: both Mars and Jupiter have shown signs of warming lately. Ya think the sun might have anything to do with it? Ya think that the sun might have something to do with warming here on earth?

Ya think?

[nofate]

P.S. Here is a much more credible presentation than I could ever come up with. A must read for those who believe the debate is not over and that consensus is not science and vice reversa.
Alexandra: Merry Chistmas to all. I miss this, but it is an enjoyable pastime for me, and not a necessity. Necessity requires my attention elsewhere. I am itching to join the next post about the truth of Islam's "peaceful" teachings, but that will have to wait, probably. But thank you for the articles from FaithFreedom.org. Excellent stuff. For myself, I started coming to the same conclusions after running across Andrew Bostom's writings. The more general public wake up will not happen until after another 9-11, maybe even worse to make people realize the threat. Shame on me for going off topic. Ho! Ho! Ho! Merry Christmas!!!

[nofate]

The earth has had something like ten mass extinctions since life first appeared on this planet. At least one of those mass extinctions wiped out approximately 90% of the known life forms on the planet at the time. The other mass extinctions each in it's turn, wiped out 50%, more or less, of the known life forms of the era the extinction occured in. Scientists are not in consensus as to what was the exact cause for each of these extinctions. They theorize that a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs, but that is still under debate, and in fact, did not appear as a theory until fairly recently. There is no consensus on the meteor theory.

There have also been some events that scientists speculate may have led to either mass or minor extinctions, called the Siberian and Deccan Traps. These were lava flows on a vast and unimaginable scale, in what is now Siberia and India, that occurred at different times. Large parts of present day Siberia include those flows. Large parts of the western Indian coastline and for miles inland include the lava flows that originated west of the Indian peninsula out in what is the present day Indian Ocean. There are massive rock formations in that part of India that were formed as a result of those flows. There is no consensus on whether the Siberian and Deccan Traps were the primary or secondary cause of major/minor extinctions.

There were something in the range of 50, more or less (I don't have the actual references available, I am going from memory) minor extinctions, caused by various, still debated events. There is no consensus. The last minor extinction that I am aware of was 10 or 20,000 years ago and was caused by the end of the last ice age. But there is debate on that, as I have seen the theory put forward that humans crossing the ice bridge caused all the wooly mammoths and saber toothed tigers, etc. to disappear, because the humans brought diseases with them to North America. I find that one hard to swallow, because hey, weren't there humans and wooly mammoths and saber toothed tigers living side by side in Siberia too, before the land bridge formed? I am no scientist, so I don't know. But evidently they don't either as it is still under debate and there is no consensus.

In more recent times, following the ravages of Katrina, eminent scientists and weather forecasters predicted that we were headed for an even more terrible hurricane season for 2006. There was not much debate and almost near consensus, unless one bothered to read sources not used by the antique media.

So now we have Al Gore as the self proclaimed high priest of the church of environmentalism proclaiming, and speaking sloowwwly to us as if we were simple minded children, that "The d-ee-baatte--is-- ooo-v-e-rrr". There is absolute consensus among all reputable scientists. Those who refuse to see this and will not agree to support the policies that evolve from this knowledge that has been handed down, are therefore to be known as "Global Warming Deniers"! And Gray is castigated for his statement! This all makes me think of the Inquisition and autos da fe, only now instead of burning at the stake and evisceration, we have the modern version, i.e. persecution by zealous acolytes in the political and judicial (overzealous prosecutors anyone? Certainly Nifong is an anomaly.) classes ruining reputations and fortunes, ala Billy Dale or Scooter Libby. More recently the eugenics movement which ensnared many prominent early 20th century itellectual, political, and scientific lights, ended with a wimper as "enlightened" individuals like Margaret Sanger attempted to quietly distance themselves after the Hitlerian abomination.

So we have one poster attacking Mr. Porretto as if he were corrupted by big oil (are you Francis? Fess up now.) The number who argue that solar variation is the primary driver of modern temperature can be counted in single digits. The climate scientists who argue that modern warming is due to man-made greenhouse gases number in the thousands. 'Scuse me, but if you are trying to tell us that ol' Sol ain't the primary driver of everything that happens here, then you need to do more reading of your "peer reviewed journals". And since you seem to be so well "peer review" read, where are the cites that show this "thousands" to "single digits" ratio that you cite? The "issue is a sound issue" only because the media and a huge number of scientists, politicians, and other hangers on keep driving the issue. There is no crisis. There is only the earf and the sun doing what they have always done. Evidently we are in a warming cycle right now. So what. We have elevated ourselves to the point where we are so arrogant that we believe we have the power to cause the earth to be destroyed! And further, that we also have the power to make the earth go in a different direction. And how is this to be accomplished? By punishing the U.S. We are ants. If the earf decides to spout out a new series of lava flows ten thousand times the size of Kilauaea, is that man's fault too? If the giant supervolcano beneath Yellowstone decides to blow, is that man's fault? What are we gonna do about it? Gimme a break.

I will proudly stand with those who support Israel and denounce the "Holocaust Deniers". We know the truth, and it cannot be hidden, including the links to the current "keepers of the way of the holocaust" who use every bit of evil knowledge gleaed from the previous disgusting episode to further their modern incarnation. But I also proudly claim the title of "Global Warming Denier", because I believe, based on common sense and hopefully objective reading and reasoning, attempting to discern true motives, that the global warming movement is taking on a life of it's own, and if it is allowed to gain power, totalitarianism will be the result. Those elected to power under the guise of "global warming reformists" will show what political correctness gone amuk really is.

[Willed]

"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."

John 14:27

[gringoman]

Alexandra: Calling us "a renegade band of rightwing extremists", didn't help shoring up sympathies for his cause. But neither did Bill Gray's sensationalist and holy unrelated comparison, "Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews", add any credibility to his claim that Global warming is a hoax.

Alexandra,

Agreed, Bill Gray's statement, per se, abstracted and cherry-picked (as media will do and maybe must do) may not add to his anti-hoax credibility, as neither will the gringo description of Preacher Man Gore as a "Messiah of the Warmists" who is leading a Google-enriched schism or heresy within the great anti-imperialist Church of Marxianity. But so what? BG doesn't need to be just a visionary without a spectroscope or grant money from foundations run by his intellectual inferiors with agenda.(Funny, how many of them, while denouncing Bush as a "scare monger" re the Islamics, are pressing the Warmist hysteria buttons. And you know it's working, don't you? I can see it from here, without any scientific assistance.) Gray is a highly credentialed scientist of great energy with low tolerance for pompous rubbish. Will we ever have final, irrefutably conclusive proof one way or the other? Probably not, unless you've got hundreds or thousands of years to spare. Meanwhile, the Warmists have got themselves a spectacular hustle for low or no talents who can produce little but fear and mountains of mind-numbing factoids--- the new form of Baby Boomer "People's Action" against the West in general and the US in particular. Is the earth currently warming? Of course it is, just as it has many times before, warming, cooling, warming, cooling. Professor Emeritus Bill Gray, "the world's greatest hurricane expert," has spent a lengthy lifetime of study, including flying into hurricanes back when Al Gore was being carefully sheltered for a few months at Long Binh Army Base outside of Saigon, Vietnam. The difference between them is that between an ambitious rear-echelon desk jockey and a lifelong battlefield commander. It's a rather sensational difference. Wars can be so revealing of what you are---another reason that weasels will do anything to stay out of one. I'll take one of Bill Gray over ten of Al Gore any day, thank you.

Best wishes in the Diva contest!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305.html

[jainphx]

No man can destroy what G-d has made.None of our accidental or purposeful endeavors can undo the will of G-d.If you don't believe in G-D that is on you,but it changes nothing.

[mac Brachman]

Alexandra and GD: I'm no Patti Smith fan (I've heard interviews she has given and she sees herself as some sort of Christ figure, saving rock and roll's soul back in the '70s) whom I find to be self-righteous and sanctimonious, and mediocre as a musician. For female rockers/bandleaders I much prefer Chrissie Hynde (also somewhat self-righteous but Pretenders songs are good, not merely comments upon themselves, like PS's: "look at me; I hang out with Bill Burroughs and other deracinated junkies; aren't I the revolutionary one") and Joan Jett. But I'm with you on this one. It defies common sense not to recognize there is a major problem and to work to err on the side of safety. I think troutsky may be right; but woe unto any politician who calls for taxing wasteful energy consumption or polluting behavior.

Sorry to go off topic, but I appeal to Alexandra and all good ATB readers. I'm currently caught up in a verbal fight elsewhere in the blogosphere. I've made several lengthy posts on Rolling Stones national affairs blog (www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs) in response to an entry in the blog from 12/12 attacking Ahmadinejad and his Holocaust "revision" conference. Some bloggers chose to use this as an excuse to attack Israel, its legitimacy, and the supposed perfidious influence of the "Israel lobby." This has now gone on several days. My posts are under the screen name "mackb." My primary adversaries in this attack use the screen names Jed Clampett, British Guy, and Word. In my opinion (it makes me angry just thinking about it) they're all shills for Holocaust denial and blame-Israel-first. Could some of you please take a look? Again: www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs, entry (by RS correspondent Drew Hinshaw dated 12/12/06 at 5:13 p.m. EST; following my post this evening (Sunday) the total number of responses was about 56... Sorry to interrupt the global warming discussion... Shalom, Mac Brachman

[troutsky]

What drives the "denyers" is the thought that this could cut into their precious comfort level, that fixing a problem could cost them something, that it might involve a ,should i even say it, a TAX! of course the exact same message delivered by Newt Gingrich would be non-partisan and unpolitical.

[Alex]

I'm sorry for the skeptics who are so gullible as to believe in the notion that there is even some mild form of dissent in the scientific community surrounding the causes of global warming. Our own government attributes increasing greenhouse gases to "human activity." (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html). You laught at those who deny the Holocaust, at those who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but how naive and ignorant are you? Put aside partisan politics and the thoughts that Al Gore engenders, and for once perceive this issue through scientific eyes. We have trusted the validity of provable science for years, so why in the world would we doubt it now?

[Grant Foster]

Francis W. Porretto's comments are the same-old-same-old denialist arguments I've heard for years. I suggest he stop blogging and start doing some reading.

Thirty-five years ago they were bleating about the imminence of a new Ice Age.

Thirty-five years ago scientists were not "bleating about the imminence of a new Ice Age." At that time, scientific concensus was that we were indeed headed for another ice age -- possibly as early as in the next 3,000 years! The origin of this myth is an article warning of danger, published not in Geophysical Research Letters or Climate Research, but in Newsweek. I don't get my climate science from Newsweek -- I get it from peer-reviewed scientific journals.

What principally drives the global temperature curve? (Current consensus: the solar cycle)

Where does he get this stuff? The number who argue that solar variation is the primary driver of modern temperature can be counted in single digits. The climate scientists who argue that modern warming is due to man-made greenhouse gases number in the thousands. Where's the "concensus?"

This is a clear-cut example of a denialist making utterly ludicrous claims, with no references, no scientific support -- but expecting that simply by saying it, people will believe it's true. I hope the voting public is not that gullible.

Do we have reliable data about earlier ages that prove that the temperature of the Earth is changing in a dramatic fashion? (Current consensus: No.)

You might as well claim that human beings aren't able to read a thermometer. Or measure the extent of polar ice and glaciers. Or note the arrival of spring snow-melt runoff. Or notice when a record-breaking heat wave kills 30,000 people in Europe. Or record when "ice-out" occurs on frozen lakes and rivers. Or keep track of the number and intensity of wildfires. Or read. Or count. Or think.

What is the highest-percentage Earthly contributor? (Current consensus: cow flatulence.)

Mr. Porretto must have seen the recent report that greenhouse gases from animal husbandry are greater than from automobile emissions. He's ignoring (or didn't bother to read) that much of the greenhouse gases due to animal husbandry are from the energy cost, and due to massive deforestation to provide grazing land for cattle. He's also ignoring the fact that automobile emissions are only a fraction of the total greenhouse gas source -- industrial activity and power generation make up a larger share. But by blaming greenhouse gases on "cow flatulence" he hopes to make the whole issue seem ridiculous. He has only succeeded in making himself look ridiculous.

Do we understand enough about the hydrodynamics of the atmosphere to be confident in either our data or our ability to produce specific effects by human action? (Current consensus: no, and no.)

We know quite a bit about the hydrodynamics (and thermodynamics and chemistry) of the atmosphere. As for producing specific effects by human actions, try this: more greenhouse gases, more heating; less greenhouse gases, less heating.

It's a common tactic of denialists to claim that we're so ignorant we don't know anything about climate. Certainly there's a lot we don't know. But there's a lot we do know. And here's the bottom line: greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, trapping heat near the surface of the earth. This isn't fancy-shmancy computer modelling; it's basic physics.

Would a temperature change in either direction have beneficial or detrimental effects, and by what standard? (Opinion is all over the map.)

I'm only aware of one episode in the geologic record of sustained global warming even nearly as rapid as we're experiencing right now: the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum (PETM). The result? Extinction of 95% of earth's species. Sounds "detrimental" to me.

The overwhelming concensus is that global warming is gonna be bad. Real bad. Just saying that "opinion is all over the place" doesn't make it so.

Assuming for the sake of the argument that it were determined objectively that 1) the Earth really is getting significantly hotter, 2) Man is a major contributor to global warming, and 3) that to permit it to continue would be bad in a widely agreed sense, what would we have to do to make a significant dent, without knocking all of civilization back to Paleolithic standards?

This is the most pervasive and misleading argument of all: that actually doing something about global warming would result in "knocking all of civilization back to Paleolithic standards." The opposite is true: not dealing with the problem is a far greater danger. The Stern report (to the government of the U.K.) by a leading British economist emphasizes that failure to deal with global warming would be one of the greatest "market failures" of all time. Do you want the grain belt in the U.S. to dry up? Do you want coastal areas (supporting about half the population of the planet) to be underwater? Do you want Katrina-like hurricane damage to become routine rather than a once-in-a-century event? Do you want the collapse of the base of the food chain in the oceans?

If you want to knock civilization back to the stone age, keep ignoring global warming. If you want to maintain prosperity and quality of life, it is utter folly to ignore the greatest threat that faces humankind today.

"Don't panic" is good advice. But for heaven's sake, don't bury your head in the sand.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Go to Dr. Tim Patterson's website, a paleoclimatologist at Carleton University, and unlike Al Gore, someone who is actually publishing CLIMATE SCIENCE in peer-reviewed academic journals.

Not some twit with an M.Eng or a B.Sc. in Physics calling themselves a "scientist concerned about global warming" much to the media's glee.

envirotruth.org also makes interesting 'dissenting' reading. Funny how the International Left is all about celebrating dissent for the sake of dissent, except when it's THEIR agenda drawing the dissent.

[igout]

While the rest of the world can go to hell with my blessing, I think finding a better way to power this country is an urgency of national defense. This is the back door through which the right will approach the subject of global warming.

[Mike Anderson]

"The crisis that the earth faces is real, and the evidence that suggests that humans are responsible for global warming is indubitable and overwhelming. I think it is very important that we make this issue known to the world. Very important indeed."

OK, so it's getting warmer. Now let's parse that statement above.

It's a crisis. Well, if you're among the millions who just had to have beachfront property, Florida or Bangladesh, yeah. But you knew about stuff like tides and hurricanes, you just chose to ignore them. Ignorance isn't bliss. If I lived in Saskatchewan, or North Dakota, or Siberia, I wouldn't mind a milder winter.

Humans are responsible. Yes, but not just the ones with automobiles and electric lights. The Chinese are burning 300,000 tonnes of coal each year in coal seam fires, and the Heroic Indigenous Peoples of Africa and India are doing more than their share of stinking up the planet with cow flatulence.

Make the issue known, fine. Use it to bludgeon the Rightwing Capitalist Oppressor (like the guy who's funding your AIDS treatments and malaria eradication), not so fine. Positive and creative approaches should be encouraged. Finger-pointing, show trials in the press, and command-and-control restrictions on the economy should be anathemetized.

[Ghost Dansing]

The issue is a sound issue... and a central issue for human beings (if I may be so bold)... How we use limited resources, and how we pollute our limited environment as we become increasingly industrialized is truly a matter of survival.

Once again when it comes down to the "Republican versus Democrat" thing... we enter the realm of public policy and law... and answering the question "what do we do about it?"

The Republicans have sought to minimize the issue and denigrate Scientists that have sounded alarms... Why?... because of Republican ideology... their ideology believes that all social problems can ultimately be solved in the market... all values are ultimately reducible to activities associated with the profit margin... and if the market doesn't fix it, it doesn't need fixing.

Within this context, government has only one function... to funnel public monies into the profit margins of private Corporations... "Job Done!"

Unprofitable issues such as environment where concerns might lead to public policy and laws that subtract from the corporate profit margin have no platform... there is no room for such things on the Republican stage. And when they are forced to consider "environmental issues"... the answer is what?

"Addressing global climate change will require a sustained effort, over many generations. My approach recognizes that sustained economic growth is the solution, not the problem – because a nation that grows its economy is a nation that can afford investments in efficiency, new technologies, and a cleaner environment.""

You guessed it... the private sector in its pursuit of profit will eventually deal with the issue.

But even look at this solution... What prevents industries, when squeezed and regulated in advanced, industrialized countries, from simply moving to places in China or the so called "Third World" (maybe the "Second World"?) where they don't have to address those problems... same holds true with labor exploitation. Laissez Faire follows the path of least resistance... if they can exploit cheap labor and fowl the Amazon... worrying about it later... they will... That doesn't do squat for pollution on a global scale... but it keeps the money flowing into Corporate coffers... so that's the policy.

Criticize Gore if you like... but what he is arguing is that Environment is a Political issue to counter the Republican assertion that it is not... no more no less.

To think that human beings can continue to grow in population and continue to pollute the environment with no repercussions is absurd.

The Republicans have taken that absurd position for the last few decades... What's their answer? "Oh... it ain't that bad!"

"The transformation of waste is perhaps the oldest preoccupation of Man."

Patti Smith

[Francis W. Porretto]

Amory Lovins? The Amory Lovins who said to Playboy in 1977:

"If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other." [Playboy interview, Nov/Dec 1977]

That Amory Lovins?

Alexandra, it might make you feel uneasy not to be concerned about "global warming," but please, don't assume that it's for real just because a lot of folks whose government research grants depend on scaring us half to death are saying so. Thirty-five years ago they were bleating about the imminence of a new Ice Age. Nor should you assume that Man has anything much to do with it; there's no decent evidence for that, either.

Many questions impinge on this subject. The ones of highest importance are:

• What principally drives the global temperature curve? (Current consensus: the solar cycle)
  
• Do we have reliable data about earlier ages that prove that the temperature of the Earth is changing in a dramatic fashion? (Current consensus: No.)
  
• What is the highest-percentage Earthly contributor? (Current consensus: cow flatulence.)
  
• Do we understand enough about the hydrodynamics of the atmosphere to be confident in either our data or our ability to produce specific effects by human action? (Current consensus: no, and no.)
  
• Would a temperature change in either direction have beneficial or detrimental effects, and by what standard? (Opinion is all over the map.)
  
• Assuming for the sake of the argument that it were determined objectively that 1) the Earth really is getting significantly hotter, 2) Man is a major contributor to global warming, and 3) that to permit it to continue would be bad in a widely agreed sense, what would we have to do to make a significant dent, without knocking all of civilization back to Paleolithic standards? At the moment, the change closest to plausibility is to replace all fossil-fuel-dependent heat generators with nuclear reactors. Would the very forces that are most strident on the subject smile upon such changes?
  

For me, the Ace kicker to the subject is that the forces behind the stop-global-warming campaign are unwilling to present anything but dubious computer models in support of their thesis, shout down anyone who questions their conjectures, and, when asked what sort of development would constitute evidence against their thesis, are unwilling to allow that anything would be. So they're short of actual evidence, intolerant of disagreement, and regard their thesis as unfalsifiable -- which makes it a matter of faith.

Please, dear: don't panic.