All posts in the topic Global Climate Change. What's the Minnesota take? (Short link)
Summary
- There are 3 posts — by 3 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Laura Waterman Wittstock at Jul 20 03:21 UTC
Of course the debate is not over, Lee. Do you have the slightest notion of just how it is that science works? Just because some guy writes a book does not vindicate one position or another on unsettled issues like global climate change, a field that is certainly in flux, but there are important considerations about it that require political action on a global scale even if the current hypothesis of rising sea levels and other catastrophic effects had only a 50-50 chance of being correct. Would you flip a coin with many trillions of dollars and billions of lives at stake? Maybe you would, but thankfully most of us would not. Here's a fact, Lee: We're here on this planet because of global warming. An environment suitable for our lives depends on the greenhouse effect, the basis of global climate change, and the question is whether we can contribute too much carbon to the outer atmosphere and take that effect too far. There is a great deal of evidence to support that we have and continue to be doing just that (pumping too many greenhouse gases into the air) and that we are too late to stop much of the damage from it. The guys Solomon is touting as experts are very definitely in the minority and if you believe there is some vast conspiracy by followers of Al Gore to silence the scientific community, you should consider that this might be a bit of projection of what Republicans have tried to do for many years, (maybe the last 150 years with a mild jolt of reality thrown in from one person or event in that time, but the Bush/Cheney tenure is what I'm thinking of). Even if one were not to accept that anthropogenic global climate change exists, one cannot deny that the steps to mitigate it contribute to world peace through energy independence. I'm not that worried about convincing Lee, but the Chinese may take a while and are much more important to the success of any global efforts than Lee's corner of Maple Grove, MN and the rest of the listening area for David Strom. So how do Minnesotans feel about the issue and what government should do when the science is not crystal clear? Do you toss the coin? Call it, then, and live with one outcome or another; or don't gamble at all and work towards a sensible energy future with minimal impact on the environment regardless of the effects on climate. I think even most of our domestic Republicans hold a the view that policy must reflect some recognition of what may or may not happen, whoever or whatever is right or wrong about one hypothesis or another. Here's some Minnesota links: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/hot/globalwarming.html http://www.mnclimatechange.us/index.cfm And the Pew Center on Global Climate Change: http://www.pewclimate.org/
> Of course the debate is not over, Lee. Do you have the
> slightest
> notion of just how it is that science works?
As a former Bio major, I know that saying "the debate is over" and "consensus
is universal" - which has been Algore's and the Man-Made Global Warming Cult's
line for the past several years - is NOT how science works.
Mitch Berg
More Empirical Than Thou
The Midway
This isn't a crap shoot. Bad guesses don't get second chances. The
nons(ci)ense abounds:
With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science,
could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever
perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it.
JAMES M. INHOFE, speech in U.S. Senate, July 28, 2003
Most meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And
boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and
say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the
chance of not getting funded.
WILLIAM GRAY, interview, Sept. 12, 2005
Global warming -- at least the modern nightmare vision -- is a myth.
I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what
is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers
are not.
DAVID BELLAMY, Daily Mail, July 9, 2004
Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with
vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and
the philosophy of science.
MARTIN KEELEY, BBC News, Dec. 6, 2004
On the other hand:
Richard Lindzen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in
1977 and is a professor at MIT. He is rather well known for claiming
that "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street
Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places. Other
researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to
do with reality"
How can Lindzen, a member of the National Academies be wrong about
the consensus?
Well every major scientific society on the entire planet with
relevant expertise disagrees with him. Even the National Academy of
Sciences, which he is a member of, disagrees with him. Here is a
press release released in 2005 which opens with the words Climate
Change is real. Its conclusion begins with We urge all nations,
in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to
reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure
that the issue is included in all relevant national and international
strategies. It is signed by:
Academia Brasiliera de Cincias, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Academi des Sciences, France
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Royal Society, United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America