A B&S Free-For-All
I’m working all day, and Owen’s out-of-pocket, so here. Entertain yourselves. Talk about whatever you want.
I’ll start the randomness—Jessica Alba is overrated. 
Why aren’t conservatives more concerned about the environment? This is a sincere question. I believe this to be true. If you think I am wrong tell my why without name calling.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2007 at 1259 hrs
Kris, There is a big difference between being an environmental activist and an active environmentalists. Not to be too general here, I will try to focus on my actions and not those of the ‘conservative’ movement.
I am not too keen on recycling but i do it. As a kid I collected aluminum cans and newspapers and used that money to fund my hobbies (baseball card collecting, etc.).
I hunt and fish and contribute to funds that protect the habitat of the game I seek. In fact, hunters and fishermen and farmers are generally MORE concerned about the environment because they are closely tied to the bounty which the land sprouts forth.
I understand that food comes from the earth thanks to man’s labor. It does not come from a shelf at Outpost or Whole Foods.
I believe that the earth has been warming for the last several decades.
But I don’t buy into the capitalist don’t care about the environment, the earth is dying, America is threatening the planet, we’re all going to die in 50 years global warming gospel.
To assume that the earth’s temperature was at it’s perfect poin anytime in the last century is pure arrogance.
To ignore the proven environmental atrocities that socialism and communism have wrought is pure ignorance.
I believe in property rights, and I generally am against government efforts to regulate away the rights of property owners. I say generally, because nothing is black and white.
I have no idea why you would say conservatives are anti environment. If anything, I think their actions (in life, not at protest rallies or global concerts) prove just the opposite.
Posted by Fraley on August 12, 2007 at 1328 hrs
I just have a quick moment, but I’ll speak as a conservative Christian.
Yes, we are charged to be good stewards of the earth; however, we do not put the earth above all else as to do so would make the earth and environmentalism a god.
Have we always done a good job? No, there are areas where we have not done well, but it is up to each of us to do what we can to become better stewards.
Posted by hsgbdmama on August 12, 2007 at 1423 hrs
Conservatives are concerned about the environment, it’s just that they think that individual property owners are in a better position to make decsions about their property ( the environment) than some un-elected and un-accountable bureaucrat.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2007 at 1429 hrs
I love summer… I can’t think of anyplace else I’d rather spend a summer than in WI.
After a spectacular weekend like this its hard to believe that certain times of year this is a miserably frozen slush bucket.
Fall here is even spectacular. I dread Jan - 2 til around April… But I suppose if it was nice ALL year round you wouldn’t enjoy the summer as much.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2007 at 1535 hrs
Kris, what are some examples of conservatives not being concerned about the environment?
To the others, managing one’s own property is one thing; what about actions taken by man that affect other people’s property and the shared resources of land, air and water?
Fraley, it’s easy to attack communist environmental damage. Have you ever seen an example of it happening in the USA?
Posted by John Foust on August 12, 2007 at 1540 hrs
Kris asks: Why aren’t conservatives more concerned about the environment?
The reason you are wrong I think is because you base your reason for it being true on false assumptions. I think it is true that conservatives are more likely to question, or at least be skeptical of science than they used to be.
There is very good reason for this growing skepticism. Scientific research requires huge amounts of money, and where a small amount of it used be be government grants, most of it is now coming from government funding, instead of private funding. This introduces politics, big business lobby, and a government grant system that is a “good old boy network” lacking any kind of transparency, and embraces failed paradigms.
The reason failed paradigms continue is because of money and politics, that so often allow only one hypothesis to be entertained to the exclusion of all others. The government grant system needs transparency so that the tax payer can see what their dollars are going for, and what results are forthcoming. The peer review system is now broken too, because politics has even creeped into those sacred publications. In other words, money talks, truth walks.
A good example is global warming. Of course global warming is a fact, only a fool would believe otherwise. The question is whether humans are a significant contributer. The big cry is that CO2 levels are increasing the earths climate. Yet it can be proven with the laws of thermodynamics and mathematics that CO2 cannot possibly store/transfer enough heat to cause global warming.
Global warming is a cyclic, recurring with solar radiance and other natural phenomenon. Why do the human caused global climate scientists ignore other global warming occurrences, like the one from 700 AD to 1450 AD, that preceded the little ice age (1645 AD to 1715 AD)?
Posted by Sandi on August 12, 2007 at 1754 hrs
I think Kris may have been attributing conservatives’ seeming lack of concern for the environment to something much simpler—votes in Congress. For the last 30-40 years, environmental legislation has faced a lot of conservative opposition in Congress.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2007 at 1958 hrs
For God’s Sake nothing is “over-rated” about Miss Jesscia Alba!!!!!!!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2007 at 2116 hrs
A couple of things. One, I have watched conservatives vote against environmental legislation for quite awhile. I read this and other blogs and see conservatives speak actively about the fact that global warming is not occuring. Clearly it is. Is it entirely the fault of humans? I don’t know. I believe that humans have a hand in it. We are required to be good stewards of the earth, at least that is what I learned in church. That being said I feel it is less than ethical to put capitalism and the desire for more money ahead of our duty to the earth.
Two, this is the kind of disussion that should be had with every topic. Civil, well thought out discourse. We don’t have to agree on everything, but we need to be willing to discuss not rant at each other.
Three, I am not sure what Jed meant by over rated, but Jessica Alba is undeniably HOT.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 0812 hrs
I read this and other blogs and see conservatives speak actively about the fact that global warming is not occuring. Clearly it is.
How so, Kris? The scientific community has not reached consensus on this. For every article you can provide, we can provide another stating it is not happening. There is no consensus; it is not clearly happening.
Furthermore, 30 years ago (mid 1970s), I was taught in school that we were at the cusp of the next ice age ... we covered the previous Ice Age thoroughly, and took numerous trips to Kettle Moraine State Park to look at the different effects from the glaciers. We learned about what will happen in the impending next ice age. We had the bejeebers scared out of us.
And. it. never. happened.
Posted by hsgbdmama on August 13, 2007 at 0823 hrs
Kris, global warming is occuring, but I don’t think the trend is man made. And I know a bunch of bureaucrats are not going to reverse the trend. The earth has had many cycles of warming and cooling. I’m frustrated that someone makes the issue political!
I care about the environment. I ride a scooter that gets 100 miles to the gallon, and that’s when I’m not walking. I walk everywhere I can. I recycle absolutely everything including chip board, magazines, plastics, newspapers and glass. Anything reusable goes to another home or Goodwill. I even take my own cloth bags when I shop. The only thing I haven’t managed is a compost pile for household waste.
So I don’t think it’s fair to say we don’t care. It’s more likely that conservatives don’t believe that responsibility for the environment lies in more government. If everyone (liberal and conservative) would like to give up electricity and motors, we could really improve things. Until then, the market will have to decide the issue.
And who is Jessica Alba?
Posted by Cindy on August 13, 2007 at 0828 hrs
“Jessica Alba is overrated?”
Sorry, not possible.
Posted by elliot on August 13, 2007 at 0951 hrs
Jed… Jed… Jed…
I’m assuming that you must be either really gay… or not straight.
Jessica-friggin-Alba is in NO WAY overrated.
Angelina Jolie… now there’s an overrated actress.
Posted by Fuzz on August 13, 2007 at 1037 hrs
Sandi - Science requires a sort of skepticism. Scientists can advance their careers by challenging the status quo, by not going with the flow and then proving it. It’s not as if you can just make something up in order be one of the popular kids and then tweak some data to prove it. You might try, but it doesn’t last long. Someone else is just as eager to show you’re wrong. Yes, it can appear that any particular field of science has developed a consensus about particular phenomena or that some research topics become more popular than others. You might call it a marketplace of ideas, except they do have a clear check and balance system and a reliance on facts. If your story can’t be reproduced, it’ll be thrown out.
“If you do not apply heat to the pot, the fababeans never will cook.” Wow, you link to some fancy ‘kwashuns and provin’ and writin’.
So how do you explain the Bush interventions where non-scientists tell the scientists what they can say? Is that part of your anti-science conspiracy, too?
Posted by John Foust on August 13, 2007 at 1216 hrs
The scientific community has not reached consensus
on this. For every article you can provide, we can
provide another stating it is not happening. There is
no consensus; it is not clearly happening.Jodi, if by consensus, you mean 100 percent of the scientists, then you’re right, a consensus hasn’t been reached, but the overwhelming majority (and by overwhelming, I mean mid to high 90s) of scientists accept global warming as a given. A recent Newsweek cover came close to outright ridicule of those that denied it. I also think you might have a little trouble with your article for article claim, at least if you stick with peer-reviewed journals.
The whole “new Ice Age” scare from the 70’s is a nice straw man argument, but it really has no bearing on the science of this argument.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1237 hrs
You might call it a marketplace of ideas, except they do have a clear check and balance system and a reliance on facts. If your story can’t be reproduced, it’ll be thrown out.
This is patently false. What you’re describing is “real” research, like making a new material or designing a new process or chemical or device.
What the vast majority of this “climate science” is based on—including most of the papers that get published in that field—is climate modeling and predictions. There truly is very little concrete science going on, using the definition of the scientific method. What is their hypothesis, their experiment? What conclusions can they draw from connecting dots on a chart and then stretching the lines out 100 years into the future? This is not science, its sketchy statistical fortune telling. Because of that there’s very little reproduction, because there’s not a ton to reproduce—its just a gigantic equation that they run on the computer. The only way to check it is to generate your own equation and your own data set, because re-doing the non-“experiment” will only produce the same result. And, unfortunately, when you’re using flawed data, flawed assumptions, and, in many cases, flawed statistical methodology, your conclusions will be exactly the same—and still wrong.
The peer reviewed process in scientific journals isn’t nearly as rigorous as Al Gore and his climate consensusmonger friends would have you believe; I know because I’ve gone through it.
I also love how you sneer at the link because of a colloquial phrase halfway down; was that the only thing you were able to understand? I assure you, the rest of the math is quite accurate. If you have found an error, I would be interested to see it because what he writes seems spot on to me.
Rather than standing on the side of the rah-rah consensus team and thumbing your nose at those who are using science to argue, why don’t you do a little investigation of your own and come up with your own conclusions?
That may, however, require some learning.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 13, 2007 at 1250 hrs
Jessica Alba is one of the hottest, most beautiful women on earth. I think she is underrated. See here:http://boboblogger.mu.nu/archives/itb_wallpaper_sam1280x1024_a.jpg
Posted by Brandon on August 13, 2007 at 1259 hrs
K2, I’m sure the climate modeling folks will welcome your criticism, as much as they’ll welcome similar questions from any undergraduate in their courses. If their model doesn’t match reality, it’s not much of a model. Obviously the atmosphere is complex and we don’t understand all the subtle turns of its many mechanisms. I’ll swing a bat at Nasif’s naive interpretation: CO2 isn’t the top greenhouse gas, water vapor is. Clouds matter, too. Nasif has a very interesting site; he also explains how garlic cures cancer and shampoo and underarm deodorant causes cancer.
Posted by John Foust on August 13, 2007 at 1410 hrs
John I’d just like to preface this with a statement - I really enjoy your participation on this site. Its head and shoulders above the rest on your “side”.
I recently attended a talk held by a oceanography professor at the University of Chicago. He specialized in ocean CO2 dynamics and their effect on climate. The thing I noticed in his talk, and in the way he answered the ensuing questions, was how little scientists actually know about the system they’re describing and how much they discount as “irrelevant” to their equation.
CO2, they say, changes the climate by increasing temperatures. This, in turn, increases water vapor in the air—the real greenhouse gas, everyone agrees. This is known as the water vapor feedback effect.
The increased temperatures also melt ice, which reduces albedo, which, in turn, increases temperatures. Also a feedback mechanism.
That’s fine, as hypotheses go. However, when asked questions like this: “If water vapor concentration in the air is increased simultaneously with temperature, won’t that cause increased levels of clouds and albedo?” they respond with something like this: “We don’t precisely understand cloud formation and as a result we discount it from the equation. However our model matches the data pretty well so we think its ok”.
And, actually, almost every conceivable “gotcha” point in the equation is essentially reduced to zero.
When I asked why he thought his trend predictions were valid for up to three hundred years in the future, expanding off of only 100 years of data, he replied that while weather forecasts were unreliable beyond a certain point due to chaos theory the number of factors affecting global climate were significantly reduced and were therefore more easily modeled; I pressed on, and asked him if, then, he believed that the global climate was not inherently chaotic and therefore not subject to chaos theory. He responded that no, it wasn’t chaotic.
Now, you’ve just admitted that the atmosphere is complex and that we don’t understand what’s going on. (Any sane person also realizes this, but scientists aren’t daunted by the staggering egotistical world view they currently possess.) NASA as recently as last week amended vast amounts of data—nearly a century’s worth—that resulted in them dethroning 1998 as “the hottest year in a millennium”, changing that lofty title instead to 1934.
If the models are flawed—and they are, both based on assumptions and incorrect use of statistics as demonstrated by Mann’s hockey stick graph—the data is flawed, and the assumptions themselves are flawed by omission (for example, many of the climate models do not take into account the effects of burning foliage, cloud formation both due to cosmic rays or increased water vapor / temperature anomalies, or ice albedo feedback mechanisms) how then can we trust these models? Especially when the models themselves cannot be checked other than by “wait and see”?
This type of approach was used before, in the early attempts to control flooding on the Mississippi. Some scientists said one thing, others said another—and the government appointed board did what their “consensus” said. And they were dead wrong. The “deniers” of their policies were ridiculed or ignored, and the result was the worst flooding of that area ever seen, due only to their massive ignorance of the system with which they were dealing. They oversimplified the problem and reduced it to too few variables.
These cases run rampant throughout history. Why are people convinced that it won’t happen again? Especially considering the magnitude of the system we’re concerned with this time around?
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 13, 2007 at 1449 hrs
No global warming? No scientific consensus?
What’s most interesting to me is that I’d bet no one in here is competent to evaluate the scientific data on global warming. I know I’m not smart enough because one of my roommates in grad school was an atmospheric physicist and whew! (he was modeling how raindrops interact on their way to the ground…. gack.)
So, unless you’re an atmospheric physicist or climatologist, we’re all left with the problem of what story to believe. What continually startles me is that so many people are willing to believe the news media (“grave doubts about global warming!!!”) rather than the scientific consensus (no doubts about global warming).
You certainly shouldn’t believe me, but I spend most of my day around people who *do* understand the math and every one of them says that the scientific consensus is pretty near 100%. I believe them.
If you want to know what the scientific community is saying, start with this article in Science.
The interesting sidebar to this is that surveys of scientific, peer reviewed work on climate change agree nearly 100% whereas something like only 50% of news media articles from the same period say so. People hear more media than science.
I believe the science guys.
hiho
MpetersonPosted by Mpeterson on August 13, 2007 at 1449 hrs
Mpeterson, I don’t like you right now. If I have to see that Oreskes study one more time I might throw up in my mouth, a little anyways. Her stuff was debunked, and to my knowledge there has been no comprehensive survey of climate scientists—or even general scientists—done on the issue. And she’s not a “science guy” anyway…shes a social scientist. I talk about her example of the fallibility of the peer-review system here.
In 2003 a different survey (unofficial) had these results:
In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that “the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases.” About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.
I’m also rather surprised that you seem to think the media doesn’t support the idea of global warming. Its pretty funny, actually. I covered that in May here on my blog.
The idea that science ever operates with a consensus is ridiculous. Furthermore, fields that do operate under a true consensus (acceptance of gravity, for example) aren’t budding fields of research; research itself indicates new ideas, new knowledge—and a lack of concrete consensus.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 13, 2007 at 1502 hrs
Science is a method for accumulating facts and understanding. It doesn’t get you very far to pick and choose bits of scientific study based on preconceptions based on particular political or religious beliefs. Yes, climatology is incredibly complex and some scientists are cheerfully working in obscure corners. Yes, it’s incredibly complex to model, especially if you’re hoping for some predictive value when at the same time humans are monkeying with many of the same characteristics you’re trying to measure or understand.
At some level, I’m stunned at the head-in-the-sands who are happy to ignore - IGNORE, completely DISCOUNT! - the possibility that man has had an effect on his environment. Yes, the climate has changed on its own many times in decipherable history, and we don’t always know why. Science marches on, maybe we’ll know more tomorrow. But to think that burning wood, coal, oil, deforesting land, tilling land, sucking up aquifers won’t have any effect? It’s crazy. Lately I’ve seen more who seem willing to admit that temperatures may be rising, that many regional climates are warming, but they’re not ready to link it to humans yet. Fine. Even if we had nothing to do with it, it will probably have a dramatic effect on your children’s lifestyle. Ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics? I once heard a conservative speaker in the 80s who suggested that if global warming was happening, all we’d need to do is buy more air conditioners.
Although it’s clear we disagree on several fronts, thank you for your kind words. I don’t think of myself as being on a “side” for one party or another. I do see plenty of sloppy thinking among conservatives. There’s plenty to go around.
Posted by John Foust on August 13, 2007 at 1506 hrs
As to whether or not the Earth is cooling or warming right now, I’m holding off. My perception is that it is warming; however, I have grave doubts as to the reliability of our temperature record. I will abstain from making any serious judgment until we get a good method of measuring true global temperature anomalies—such as a satellite program. Until then, I am fairly confident in the more recent data, but skeptical of data dating prior to the digital age.
That conservative speaker was an idiot
I think its possible for Man to have an effect on his environment; its how we survive. The entire state of Montana is a testament to that: there is simultaneously more usable land and less grass due to massively increased water from irrigation and livestock tanks and grazing. However, I’m not willing to extend that quite as far as Al Gore, who eternally believes the world was supposed to end yesterday.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 13, 2007 at 1533 hrs
John, this thread started when Kris asked for civil comments without name calling.
While you may not be name calling, you are right on the edge. Let’s try to keep it civil.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1614 hrs
Ah, John’s ok. Its kr you gotta watch out for.
Kris, my personal belief is that the reason conservatives get painted with the big brush of enviro-haters is because we disagree with the “how” rather than the “what” of conservation.
I’m an Eagle Scout, which means I spent my youth in the Boy Scouts, which means I spent a lot of time outdoors. Boy Scouts learn about conservation, “leave no trace” etc etc. And yet the Boy Scouts are a conservative organization.
Conservatives are also generally more pragmatic about things than liberals. Things tend to get evaluated more on a cost/benefit analysis than an emotional one. So when it comes to cutting down a tree to make money or saving the rain forest, money wins. Of course, this is a bad example because most tree cutting that goes on here in the states is much more similar to farming of a grow-and-harvest cyclical nature than a slash-n-burn 200 year old growth nature.
Seriously, I think most of it is political rather than truthful. That and most conservatives aren’t willing to restrict personal freedoms to save the environment, something that burns up a lot of liberals.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 13, 2007 at 1627 hrs
I’m like Al Gore, I believe the sky is falling.
Never mind cars get 3 times the mileage they used to, never mind unions and liberals chased factories and jobs out of America.
The sky is falling one luxury jet at a time.
Libs believe this man made global warming dung, because they need a religion and something to be in charge of.
Any questions?Posted by rusty on August 13, 2007 at 1712 hrs
K2—
Cool. I hadn’t read your blog so I was not familiar with some of your exceptions to the scientific consensus. We’ll get to those in a sec. [You’re an Aggie? I remember, barely, a couple of really fun Willie Nelson 4th of July picnics in College Station back in the 70’s.]
Again, I’m not a scientist , so I’m left to rely on sources I think are reasonably trustworthy [which do not automatically include, let me be clear, documentaries by former vice-presidents]. While there is some controversy about Oreskes numbers, the fact that she’s a social scientist isn’t relevant. She was doing a descriptive statistical study on the peer reviewed work of the scientific community, not producing science of her own.
The kind of exceptions you cite as clear contradictions of Oreskes’ findings seem to depend on Benny Peiser’s review of Oreskes’ work. Some of his comments are troubling, but his critique depended on changing the criteria Oreskes used to establish what articles would be included as part of her review. That caused problems of its own. By altering Oreskes’ original search criteria, Peiser ended up including editorials and tracts by the Petroleum association—in other words, he included materials that were not peer reviewed scientific documents.
That’s cheating to make a point. But even if you allow him to use his changed criteria, only one article in his sample actually questioned the scientific consensus. Here’s some of that.
It is, of course, possible to argue these things to death… which is why it usually takes longer than a single human lifetime to work out the actual scientific facts. :^)
For me, I’m left to rely on people who’ve studied the question and, in this case, I don’t believe the climate is changing because a historian of science in SanDiego says so, but because groups like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the national science academies of the G8 nations, and American Association for the Advancement of Science say so.
So, that’s why I’m inclined to believe that there is both a consensus and that those within this consensus have reasons for thinking as they do.
It is always possible to wade out into the blogosphere and find exceptions to well established points of view. There are, for example, plenty of people who believe the earth is flat, that germs do not cause disease, that perpetual motion machines are possible, and that humans never really landed on the moon. Exceptions are only exceptions because there is a rule that makes them stand out as exceptions.
Like I said, I can’t do the math on climate change myself, but there seems to be a consensus among governments and scientists, your handful of exceptions notwithstanding, who seem to have reasons for believing that global temperature is rising and that humans are involved in at least some of it.
Are they right? I have no idea. I only know that they are probably more reliable as sources of scientific belief than an engineering student from College Station, Texas, or a philosophy professor from rural Wisconsin.
Ymmv.
hiho
MpetersonPosted by Mpeterson on August 13, 2007 at 1724 hrs
Grin… I have got to stop talking in 50 minute increments. Sorry about the length of that last one.
Kris,K2 is right about a lot of that. Conservatives are often criticized on environmental questions for reducing all costs and benefits to economic costs and benefits. Liberals are often criticized for ignoring the economic realities of environmental protections that will inconvenience human lifestyles and, most often, for sounding like a bunch of wingnuts. It is possible, when the entrenched fringes let go of their assumptions (infinite growth is possible / humans are a blight on the planet), to find something sensible that keeps us in Rice Krispies and doesn’t drive species to extinction. ... it’s just that that’s really tough.
Christianity is pretty clear about not making a mansion for yourself in this world, but lately even Evangelicals have begun to come together in something called the Creation Care movement. My grandmother always made me make my bed and clean my room before I left it—I don’t see why we shouldn’t do the same thing with the planet. :^)
hiho
MpetersonPosted by Mpeterson on August 13, 2007 at 1734 hrs
Mpeterson:
The beauty of science is that it is published openly. As a result, I have as much access to the science of climate change as the most accomplished scientist in the field. One thing I’ve noticed, as a student of science, is that there are a lot of rather large holes in this theory (anthropogenic global warming, that is).
Another thing I’ve noticed is that there’s quite a lot of money flowing right now based entirely upon this theory. $10bn from the US government alone for research last year.
A third thing I’ve noticed is the increasing political nature of the debate—and the rip-roaring good humor everyone on both sides seems to be taking.
Finally, I’ve also seen and heard a whole lot of “you shut your mouth” sort of talk from the pro-global warming camp. I’ve never heard of this sort of thing done before in science; usually, it is the old theorizers yelling at the new theorizers about their scientific heresy. This time its the newcomers shouting down the oldsters. I don’t get it.
All of these add up in my head that there is some merit in taking a step back and reviewing the data—especially when we seem to be hell-bent on doing something right now.
And I’m not alone. There a lot of smart, smart people that agree with me, even on the IPCC and other bodies of scientific knowledge. So in the meantime I’ll use my brain and my reason to muck through the data. When I stop finding holes and mistakes and egregious errors—errors so flagrant that they almost appear to be intentional—I’ll quit flapping my mouth about it and stick to politics, technology, and other things I find interesting.
Until that time, global warming and the politics of fear associated with it will remain on my blog (and in my comments!)
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 13, 2007 at 1852 hrs
K2—
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I’ve noticed a few things too.
One thing I’ve noticed, as a student of the history of science, is that loud opposition to a ‘scientific’ hypothesis is usually the result of a threat to the economic or religious status quo.
I’ve noticed that the people who have the most to lose from the economics of global warming are the loudest detractors. The current administration, closely tied to the oil industry, notoriously changed the data on federal websites and in its official press releases to support industry claims, even while contradicting the findings of its (our!) own scientists.
Thirdly, I agree with you completely, except with regard to good humour. You and I are a better example, I am happy to say, of civility and good humour than the usual and increasing acrimony this issue is mounting.
But let me breathe a hopeful sigh with you here about the continuing assessment of the science. The IPCC has just released its latest report. Here’s the link to the Summary for Policy Makers. It is rather unequivocal about the reality of global warming and about the possibility of human involvement in some of that temperature rise. and contains the points specifically on my mind when I jotted off my previous message.
hiho
MpPosted by Mpeterson on August 13, 2007 at 2125 hrs
I think individually conservatives may be concerned with the environment, but the politicians they elect don’t vote that way.
Mpeterson is correct that it is unlikely that anyone talking here is qualified to evaluate scientific data. So, we get a lot of opinion and conjecture.
I would like to thank everyone that has commented because this discourse has been civil and informative. Anyone that has had to endure a rant by Mickey or Clint will know how much better this has been.
Finally, Jessica Alba is really hot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 0915 hrs
Anyone that has had to endure a rant by Mickey or Clint will know how much better this has been.
Amen!
I agree—the discussion has been informative and edifying.
Posted by hsgbdmama on August 14, 2007 at 0957 hrs
I’ve noticed that the people who have the most to lose from the economics of global warming are the loudest detractors.
I think there are two facts that merit notice with regard to this:
1.) “Big Oil” is seen to be evil and anti-Earth.
2.) “Big Oil” employs the vast majority of geophysicists and geologists.This is important because geophysicists and geologists often have the best perspective on matters that occur over extremely long periods of time—they call it “geologic time,” as in (usually) millions of years. Things like climate change, plate tectonics, how oceans used to cover most of the Mississippi flood plain even into New Mexico, etc.
But because of their “tainted” associate with the current Demon of the left, they’re shills and their opinions are discounted. That’s one of the biggest fraudulent positions of the Warmie movement, in my opinion.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 14, 2007 at 1013 hrs
Total Entries: 19655
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 08:28 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 56
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 09:12 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).