Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is a nice clip of George Bush's position on Global Warming.
Bush Impersonator - This Kid Is Awesome | Parody & Spoofs | Funny Videos, Pictures and Jokes at JibJab (http://www.jibjab.com/view/125614 - broken link)
Anyone that actually believes the earth is warming due to anything WE are doing is very misguided, and I'm being nice with that term.
But, good luck with that. I'm sure Al Bore is laughing all the way to the bank. BTW, did you know he got on a kick in the '70s about the earth cooling? Yeah. Do a little research and you'll see the temperature of the earth in the 1970s was actually COLDER by a degree! Quelle horror! Another ice age!
Yeah, I am waiting for the changes to really go against their predictions in the future so I can watch them squirm about their position. Then again, they have set it up so they can't be wrong. If lets say the earth goes through a drop in temperature, they will merely claim that it is due to all of their efforts such as turning the water off when they shave. *chuckle*
I read an article about science and politics and it kind of made sense to me. They said that having all the science on your side does not settle the matter. That you can have the complete verified truth that can not be questioned on an issue and politics will trump it. As I said, it is not what the truth is, it is only what people "believe".
The Kyoto Treaty's certainly flawed and overly conservative, but where did you get the several trillion dollars/600 years for 1 degree statistic? The Heritage Foundation?
One doesn't need the Heritage Foundation to perform math. The time/cost comes from running the same average that Kyoto has currently paced with the until it reaches 1 degree of "averted" temperature rise. That would be over 600 years, 667 to be more specific. Then you simply factor in the cost per year average for that length of time. High school math stuff.
Considering that the biggest polluter hasn't signed on or made any efforts, I wouldn't be surprised if the impact of Kyoto as it now stands turns out to be minimal, but you haven't quoted any sources for your cost statistics, or for the degree of "averted change" that has happened...
I read an article about science and politics and it kind of made sense to me. They said that having all the science on your side does not settle the matter. That you can have the complete verified truth that can not be questioned on an issue and politics will trump it. As I said, it is not what the truth is, it is only what people "believe".
That does make sense!! So even though the vast majority of US and International Scientific bodies agree Global Warming is real, the Rush and Hannity drones continue to discard as irrelevant. Good point...
This could also be considered when one watches the contortions of our Politicians to try to make us believe that we are still in Iraq to somehow protect us. Belief does trump Reality. *chortle*
It gets tedious but here you go....one more time. It is indeed humorous that people will continue to stick their heads in the sand and follow the lead of environmental experts such as Rush (professor emeritus) Limbaugh, rather than the several independent major scientific bodies that confirm their studies that Global Warming is real. Then again, a lot of these same people prefer not to believe in evolution either, so there you go. (shrug)
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
In particular, the numerous indications that recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia, in combination with estimates of external climate forcing variations over the same period, support the conclusion that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming. However, the uncertainties in the reconstructions of surface temperature and external forcings for the period prior to the instrumental record render this evidence less conclusive than the other lines of evidence cited above. It should also be noted that the scientific consensus regarding human-induced global warming would not be substantively altered if, for example, the global mean surface temperature 1,000 years ago was found to be as warm as it is today.
That does make sense!! So even though the vast majority of US and International Scientific bodies agree Global Warming is real, the Rush and Hannity drones continue to discard as irrelevant. Good point...
This could also be considered when one watches the contortions of our Politicians to try to make us believe that we are still in Iraq to somehow protect us. Belief does trump Reality. *chortle*
Wow, nothing political about your response. I mean, there is no political slant or bias in it. Nope, all purely objective comments that doesn't identify one side or another. /golfclap
It gets tedious but here you go....one more time. It is indeed humorous that people will continue to stick their heads in the sand and follow the lead of environmental experts such as Rush (professor emeritus) Limbaugh, rather than the several independent major scientific bodies that confirm their studies that Global Warming is real. Then again, a lot of these same people prefer not to believe in evolution either, so there you go. (shrug)
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
In particular, the numerous indications that recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia, in combination with estimates of external climate forcing variations over the same period, support the conclusion that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming. However, the uncertainties in the reconstructions of surface temperature and external forcings for the period prior to the instrumental record render this evidence less conclusive than the other lines of evidence cited above. It should also be noted that the scientific consensus regarding human-induced global warming would not be substantively altered if, for example, the global mean surface temperature 1,000 years ago was found to be as warm as it is today.
Lol, I love it. Evidence that does not meet their conclusions is less "conclusive" to their own inconclusive findings. All the administrations agree though, good thing that is. I mean, as long as we all agree to hang the witch, it makes it right. /golfclap
Edit: Ive heard this line of reasoning before too. It follows the lines of an administration or group of people claiming everyone agrees with them as they can tell you because they all agree it is so. /boggle
Considering that the biggest polluter hasn't signed on or made any efforts, I wouldn't be surprised if the impact of Kyoto as it now stands turns out to be minimal, but you haven't quoted any sources for your cost statistics, or for the degree of "averted change" that has happened...
Do I really need to tell you increased taxes are a burden? Doesn't take even a grade school math education to figure out that one. Since it isn't a big deal, maybe you can pay any taxes on the issues I might have to pay? Sound fair?
I'm not saying it won't cost money, I'm just questioning tnbound's questionable projections.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
