1 of 2
1
Real Armagedon?
Posted: 26 April 2005 07:10 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

I've spent some time browsing through many of the threads in this science section and except for a few old posts there hasn't been much talk of the subject of global warming/climate change and the effects these have on our global ecosystem.

This seems strange to me given the increasing warnings from science regarding the state of the global ecosystem.  The problems have come into sharp focus with the recent publication of the UN Millennium Assessment (see Findings below).

I am envisioning a nightmare scenario in which religion will play a major destructive role in bringing civilization down, if not ending the rein of human existence, possibly even the life of the planet if certain runaway heating scenarios play out.  The scenario is essentially one in which increasing pressures from overpopulation and overconsumption of resources leads to increasing conflicts, fueled by religious zealots of all stripes.  Religious wars are a convenient excuse for taking over someone else's resources.  With idiots like bush in the whitehouse I don't have any problem seeing where this would lead.

There are a number of very prominent scientists who are sounding the warning bells that these pressures are now inevitable.  Even if finding number 4, below, were somehow to magically be implemented, we would still face severe problems.  Frankly I'm beginning to think global conflict (and I mean really bad stuff) will happen.  I just am afraid that religious zealousness is going to exacerbate the problems even further.

Just wonder what others think?

From the UN Millennium Assessment:

Finding #1: Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber and fuel. This
has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth.

Finding #2: The changes that have been made to ecosystems have contributed to substantial net gains in human well-being and economic development, but these gains have been achieved at growing costs in the form of the degradation of many ecosystem services, increased risks of nonlinear changes, and the exacerbation of poverty for some groups of people. These problems, unless addressed, will substantially diminish the benefits that future generations obtain from ecosystems.

Finding #3: The degradation of ecosystem services could grow significantly worse during the first half of this century and is a barrier to achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Finding #4: The challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystems while meeting increasing demands for their services can be partially met under some scenarios that the MA considered, but these involve significant changes in policies, institutions, and
practices that are not currently under way
. Many options exist to conserve or enhance specific ecosystem services in ways that reduce negative trade-offs or that provide positive synergies with other ecosystem services.

Bolded text added.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2005 07:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

but these involve significant changes in policies, institutions, and
practices that are not currently under way
. Many options exist to conserve or enhance specific ecosystem services in ways that reduce negative trade-offs or that provide positive synergies with other ecosystem services.

We should all be afraid, very afraid. In fact, christians should be more afraid of this imminent destruction than their god. Scientists have been warning us for 30 or more. Humans turn a deaf ear in the name of greed, a greed made more intense as our wants turn into needs. Take a look at the number of *ssholes with giant SUV’s thinking it’s their god given right to drive them. The fear that significant changes in the name of the planet will hurt the economy is never going to change. And politicians with hidden agendas like GW, or all of them for that matter, are not going to change. We’re toast. If there is a god, it would be good for it to throw a miracle into this mess, because that’s what it’s going to take to stop it. Humm… maybe I should invest in the fresh water supply before the Americans take it all from us. Oh wait, they will anyway.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2005 01:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Guest #2 you have hit the nail on the head.  I have been worrying over what I should do to prepare my kids for the future world.  Frankly I have serious doubts about where things are going with this world.  Has anyone read Dennis Meadow’s book, “Limits to Growth: The 30-year Update”?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2005 03:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

Global warming/climate change is either a huge problem or…………. it isn’t.

While a growing number of scientists are warning about global warming, only a few years ago, many of these same scientists were forecasting another immanent ice age.  Other well respected scientists downplay the current apparent warming trends as part of the natural cycle of heating and cooling that the earth has undergone numerous times throughout its history.

To the average guy on the street, it looks like science is split on the issue and has little credibility anyway due to the rapid rate at which forecasts seem to have changed in a relatively few years.  Plus, everybody knows that meteorologists have great difficulty accurately forecasting next weekend’s weather let alone what will happen in the next 10, 20, 50 or 100 years.

The confusion is not helped by the fact that there is so much spin and posturing from all sides of the political spectrum that it is increasingly difficult if not impossible to sort out what is real and what is Memorex.

Furthermore, even if we could somehow magically arrive at global scientific and political consensus that environmental disaster is looming, it is not clear that we could realistically do anything about it anyway.

It is inconceivable to me that 182 sovereign nations would all agree to subjugate their national interests by voluntarily curtailing their economies in the cause of moderating or stopping global warming.

What seems much more certain is that over the next 25 years, the competition for the earth’s natural resources will intensify to the point that widespread conflict, starvation, and death on a massive scale will be extremely likely.

This conflict will have little to do with religion, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.  Rather, it will be driven by the much more powerful and primitive instinct to survive!

As the rapidly growing Chinese and Indian economies propel hundreds of millions of people into the global “middle class”, the demand for the resources of this planet will be stretched to the breaking point and, almost certainly, well beyond it.

Consider the following facts and projections:

• In 2004, China was the largest world consumer of grain, meat (2 times US), coal (40% more than US) and steel (2.5 times US).
• The Chinese economy has been growing at an average rate and 9.5% annually since 1978 and, if those rates are sustained, will surpass the US in GDP by around 2040.
• At these rates by 2030 the average Chinese income per person will rise from $5,300 today to over $38,000 (the current US average) in inflation adjusted dollars.
• If, in 2030, the Chinese consume resources at the current US per capita rate, they will consume two thirds of the current world grain production, 80% of the current world meat production, 110% of the current world coal production, and 125% of the current worldwide oil production.
• If they demand the US average of three cars for every four people, they will own 1.1 billion automobiles compared to about 800 million on the roads worldwide today.
• India has economic growth rates similar to those of China.
• By 2030, the Indian population will surpass China’s which has had serious population control for over 20 years.
• Of course, over the same period of time, the US and the other developed economies will not stand still and will steadily increase their demands for resources as well but at a somewhat slower rate.

Now, if the above projections are actually realized, I do not know whether global warming, climate change or environmental destruction will make the earth uninhabitable or not.

However, I am pretty sure that the resulting intense competition for a finite amount of global resources will generate serious conflicts worldwide.  These conflicts will not be fueled by religious differences. 

Rather, they will be over the very survival of nations, populations, families and individuals.

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2005 05:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

CA,

I have to say that this sounds exactly like a script written by the Bush administration for this topic.
[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]Global warming/climate change is either a huge problem or…………. it isn’t.

While a growing number of scientists are warning about global warming, only a few years ago, many of these same scientists were forecasting another immanent ice age.  Other well respected scientists downplay the current apparent warming trends as part of the natural cycle of heating and cooling that the earth has undergone numerous times throughout its history.

This comes straight out of the whitehouse.  In fact there is consensus among the scientist that global warming is real and caused by human activity.  Have you ever taken a look at the UN IPCC report or something like the Pew Center for Climate Change for a basic education in the science?

To the average guy on the street, it looks like science is split on the issue and has little credibility anyway due to the rapid rate at which forecasts seem to have changed in a relatively few years.  Plus, everybody knows that meteorologists have great difficulty accurately forecasting next weekend’s weather let alone what will happen in the next 10, 20, 50 or 100 years.

I am frankly stunned by this.  I will agree that the common man in the street may be confused but that is only because the Bush admin is pumping out statements like: “there is still uncertainty in these projections”.  Well of course there is uncertainty.  Anyone who understands the nature of science knows what it means to say that a model has inherent uncertainty in making specific predictions.  But this isn’t about specifically predicting that New Jersey will experience a 2 degree increase in average summer temperatures over the next 5 years. The science is about determining the trend in warming and then building scenarios for climate changes.  Bush, oil and coal and some automakers are exploiting this notion of uncertainty very dissingenuously with a campaign of disinformation.  They are basically lying.  There is no uncertainty that global warming is happening.  The uncertainty is with respect to a few minor details, such as how long it takes for CO2 to difuse to the deep ocean trenches.

There are a FEW scientist of questionable reputation who are on the coal/oil payroll who have worked hard to confuse the public as well as subvert the IPCC conferences.  Their only claim is that there is uncertainty in the models. They have nothing. 

The confusion is not helped by the fact that there is so much spin and posturing from all sides of the political spectrum that it is increasingly difficult if not impossible to sort out what is real and what is Memorex.

If you want to sort things out read the science.  Don’t listen to the politicos. They have no understanding of anything except what the special interests tell them, and that goes for both sides of the spectrum.

Furthermore, even if we could somehow magically arrive at global scientific and political consensus that environmental disaster is looming, it is not clear that we could realistically do anything about it anyway.

On this I’m willing to concede, but not because it is technically infeasibile.  It is because we have idiots as leaders.

It is inconceivable to me that 182 sovereign nations would all agree to subjugate their national interests by voluntarily curtailing their economies in the cause of moderating or stopping global warming.

Again, this is whitehouse spin.  There are a number of economic analysis that show that it need not be a curtailing of economies, only the switching from one kind of energy source to another.  Like when we went from buggys to cars.  Someone loses and someone gains.  Overall the economy comes out ahead.  The assumptions underlying the whitehouse position are unfounded.  In fact, a recent study suggests that the US will lose out to Germany, Netherlands, France and Japan in developing and marketing new energy technologies (same thing with stem cell research).

What seems much more certain is that over the next 25 years, the competition for the earth’s natural resources will intensify to the point that widespread conflict, starvation, and death on a massive scale will be extremely likely.

This conflict will have little to do with religion, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.  Rather, it will be driven by the much more powerful and primitive instinct to survive!

I said:

Religious wars are a convenient excuse for taking over someone else’s resources.

I didn’t say religion would cause these conflicts.

CA.  I’ve read a number of your posts and have generally thought you presented reasonable statements, even when I’ve disagreed with your politics.  But this one is way off base.  I don’t have my references here so I will have to post them another time.  But I will provide some of the science that backs up my above claims.

As the rapidly growing Chinese and Indian economies propel hundreds of millions of people into the global “middle class”, the demand for the resources of this planet will be stretched to the breaking point and, almost certainly, well beyond it.

Consider the following facts and projections:
[deleted some undisputed claims]

Now, if the above projections are actually realized, I do not know whether global warming, climate change or environmental destruction will make the earth uninhabitable or not.

However, I am pretty sure that the resulting intense competition for a finite amount of global resources will generate serious conflicts worldwide.  These conflicts will not be fueled by religious differences. 

Rather, they will be over the very survival of nations, populations, families and individuals.

And just what justification do you think the fundies or the shiites are going to use to go to war?

Look, we’re guilty of this right now. Only the ideology de jour is democracy.  Forget that we supposedly invaded Iraq to prevent the use of WMD but now we are installing democracy in the middle east.  Its about the oil and if you think otherwise, you simply haven’t been paying attention to reality.  If you give Bush enough time, it will be about making the middle east safe for christianity!  But it will still be about the oil.  Keep your eyes on Saudi Arabia.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2005 08:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

Guest # 2

Please go back and carefully read my last post and your response again. 

I tried to lay out the perspective from the layman’s viewpoint without ANY political spin.  Nothing that I posted came from the Whitehouse.  It was strictly my interpretation of the reporting that has appeared in the main stream press. 

Virtually every article in the press contains both the global warming lobby position and the skeptic’s views.  I stand by my assessment that, to the man in the street, it looks like science is totally divided on the issue of global warming and, in addition, has relatively little credibility with the public.

One of the reasons that the environmental lobby has so little credibility with the public is that they have taken very strident positions on thousands of relatively trivial issues that the public simply does not take seriously.  How many jokes have you heard about the Gnat-Catcher holding up highways, housing, etc. in California?  Their hand-wringing over oil drilling in Alaska while people are paying $3.00 for gas at the pump and the caribou herds are thriving is another example of credibility gone down the toilet.

I am trying to tell you that the global warming science community has failed to effectively communicate and make their case with the man on the street (and with a lot of politicians).  You may want to blame that on Bush and Karl Rove but they have really been relatively silent on this topic.

The burden of proof and the responsibility to convince the politicians and the public rests squarely with the scientists who believe that they have the supporting evidence.

Many years ago when I was a young math/physics student, I had the opportunity to meet and spend a couple of days with Robert Oppenheimer the father of the atomic bomb.  I asked him what he found to be the most difficult aspect of the Manhattan Project.  He said that it was trying to communicate the implications of the science to the politicians and the military and for the politicians, generals and the scientists to mutually understand the military and political impact of the weapon and its potential use. 

He said that, although each community had a sincere and vital interest in understanding the other, they had great difficulty and ultimately failed to effectively communicate because they essentially spoke different languages. 

You may not like my opinion but, as a relatively scientifically aware layman with degrees in mathematics and physics, I have not yet seen anything definitive on this topic in the public press that was both convincing and unbiased.

On the other hand, your response to my post was totally political.  It was Bush this, Whitehouse that, Coal/Oil company’s payroll, etc, etc.  It looks like you put my post through your environmentally biased filter and read something that I did not write.  Frankly, I expected better.

I am perfectly willing to read unbiased scientific studies, opinions and debates on the issues that present both sides fairly.  However, don’t send me one-sided articles from environmental lobbyists who are trying to push their political agendas.

It is still my opinion that the resource contention conflicts are a much more near-term “real and present danger” than the potential global warming or environmental damage that might eventually occur.

BTW, I predict that if and when I ever get around to telling you my proposed solutions to these difficulties, you will like them considerably less than you cared for my previous post.

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 02:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  77
Joined  2005-02-28

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]
I am perfectly willing to read unbiased scientific studies, opinions and debates on the issues that present both sides fairly.  However, don’t send me one-sided articles from environmental lobbyists who are trying to push their political agendas.

No agenda - just science.

1.) Is the greenhouse effect theory supported by facts? Can CO2 concentrations drive climate change or not?

There is no doubt that greenhouse gasses affect our climate. In fact, without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be about 33 degrees Celsius cooler than it is. The planet is warm because naturally occurring gases (including carbon dioxide) that trap heat which would otherwise escape into space.

2.) What evidence is there that a rapid increase in greenhouse gasses has increased global temperature?

This graph should give critics pause:
  CO2 concentration against temperature difference

A fair and conservative conclusion is that greenhouse gasses do drive climate change and there is ample and clear evidence that these changes are accelerating due to an increase in CO2 concentrations.

The implications and remedies are open for debate, but you sound like fundies who point to gaps in the fossil record to disprove evolution.

===========
The light at the end of the tunnel is the explosives around that little ball of Pu239.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 07:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

As promised.

CA , these aren’t from “balanced news reports”.  This is the science and some policy recommendations resulting from it.  This list covers more than just global warming.  I’ll save my attempt to point out to you what my original point was for another post so as not to swamp this post.  All I’ll say here is that maybe you will do me and others the courtesy to actually look at the science before you launch your opinions.

Global Issues and Suggestions for Action

BOOKS
These books cover a wide range of resource topics.  Most of them, however, do point out that global warming and climate change will have a dramatic impact on the way these resources will be affected.

Brown, L.R. (2003). “Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a
  Civilization in Trouble”, W. W. Norton & Company, New York.

Brown, L.R. (2001). “Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the
  Earth”, W. W. Norton & Company, New York.

Diamond, J. (1999). “Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human
  Societies”, W. W. Norton & Company, New York.

Diamond, J. (2004). “Collapse:  How Societies Choose to Fail
  or Succeed”, Viking Adult, New York.

Erlich, P & Erlich, A. (2004). “One with Nineveh: Politics,
  Consumption, and the Human Future”, Island Press, Washington.

Meadows, D., Randers, J. & Meadows, D. (2004). “Limits to Growth:
  The 30-Year Update”, Chelsea Green Publishing Company, White
  River Junction, VT.

Rees, M. (2003). “Our Final Hour”, Basic Books, New York.

Rischard, J.F. (2002). “High Noon: 20 Global Problems, 20 Years
  to Solve Them”, Basic Books, New York.

Speth, J.G. (2004). “Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis
  of the Global Environment”, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Global Warming/Climate Change (specifically)

BOOKS
These books specifically address the problems of global warming
and climate change.

Gelbspan, R. (2004). “Boiling Point”, Basic Books, New York.

Leggett, J. (2001). “The Carbon War”, Routledge, New York.
[This one is particularly good since it covers the history of the
international negotiations based on the IPCC assessment reports.]

Lynas, M. (2004). “High Tide”, Picador, New York.

Schneider, S.H., Rosencranz, A. & Niles, J.O. (eds.) (2002),
  “Climate Change Policy: A Survey”, Island Press, Washington.

Energy and Energy Policy

Books
Just to look at the flip side of the global warming issue, these books deal with the looming energy crunch.

Goodstein, D. (2004). “Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil”,
  W. W. Norton & Company, New York.

Roberts, P. (2004). “The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous
  New World”, Houghton Mifflin, New York.

PAPERS/ARTICLES

Grossman, D. (2004). “Spring Forward”, Scientific American, Vol. 
  290,  No. 1,  pp 84-91.

Hansen, J. (2004). Defusing the Global Warming Time Bomb,
  Scientific American, Vol. 290, No. 3, pp 68-77

Smith, H.J. (ed) (2003). “Special Section: State of the Planet”,
  Science, Vol. 302, pp 1171-1177. Available on the Web:
   
Strum, M., et. al. (2003). “Meltdown in the North”, Scientific
  American, Vol. 289, No. 4, pp 60-67.

Sudgen, A., Ash, C. Hanson, B. & Smith, J. (eds) (2003).
  “Special Section: Tragedy of the Commons: Where Do We Go
  From Here?”, Science, Vol. 302, pp 1906-1929.  Available on the Web:
   
Web Resources (general)

Earth Policy Institute (2004). “Home Page”, at:
     

Gelbspan, R. (2004). “The Heat is Online: Home Page”, at:
     

Hansen, J. (2003). “Can we defuse The Global Warming Time
  Bomb?”, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Columbia
  University Earth Institute, New York, at:
  http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh.html

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (2003). “Home Page” at:
     

Mahoney, J.R. et. al. (2001). “Strategic Plan for the U.S.
  Climate Change Science Program” [pdf format], A Report
  by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee
  on Global Change Research.   Available here:
   
National Academies (no date given)   on the Web:

Pew Center on Global Climate Change (2004). “Home page” at:
     

Shah, A. (2003). “Global Issues That Affect Everyone: Home Page” at:
  http://www.globalissues.org/

Speth, J.G. (2004). “Red Sky at Morning: Home Page”, at:
     

The Earth Institute at Columbia University (2004). “Home Page”, at:
     

Union of Concerned Scientests (2003)   on the Web:
   
Union of Concerned Scientests (2003). “Scientists’ Statement on Climate Change”   on the Web:
 
Wackernagel, M. et. al. (no date given). “Home Page”, at:
     

Have fun.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 12:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

Talk to the folks in Colorado who just had a snow storm in April. Global warming….ya right. ha ha ha.

Hey, I heard a report that indeed, a lot of glaciers are melting. But the scientific data was that the glaciers were not affect my mankind’s activity. There was a loss as to explain the dilemma. However, environmental wackos can take it and run with it for the purpose of eliminating the combustion engine. Anybody want to carry your groceries on a bike today????

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 12:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“TheChampion”]Talk to the folks in Colorado who just had a snow storm in April. Global warming….ya right. ha ha ha.

Hey, I heard a report that indeed, a lot of glaciers are melting. But the scientific data was that the glaciers were not affect my mankind’s activity. There was a loss as to explain the dilemma. However, environmental wackos can take it and run with it for the purpose of eliminating the combustion engine. Anybody want to carry your groceries on a bike today????

HOW CAN YOU BE SO BLIND, YOU’RE LIKE A CHILD. IF ANYONE IS GOING TO SAVE THIS ROCK, IT’S PRECISELY THOSE “ENVIRONMENTAL WACKOS”. GROW UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 12:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

I think I touched a nerve here.

Sorry, did not mean wackos, I mean activists. Forgive me. grin

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 12:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“TheChampion”]I think I touched a nerve here.

Sorry, did not mean wackos, I mean activists. Forgive me. grin

I still stand by my post

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 12:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

I just think that we cannot get overbearing on this environmental stuff. Change comes slow in our world. Governments usually don’t act until they have to. But I think things are changing. Hybrid cars are getting more popular. I did an economic report; I believe it was in Tampa Bay Florida, on solar heating, its outlook in the market, etc. The outlook was great. They just have to design more aesthetically pleasing equipment and the boom will come. Actually, the more the demand, the more the boom. If we have an energy crisis, you can expect the technology to get better in a hurry. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 01:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

[quote author=“guest #2”]As promised.

CA , these aren’t from “balanced news reports”.  This is the science and some policy recommendations resulting from it.  This list covers more than just global warming.  I’ll save my attempt to point out to you what my original point was for another post so as not to swamp this post.  All I’ll say here is that maybe you will do me and others the courtesy to actually look at the science before you launch your opinions.

I have read some of these in the past and will be glad to read SOME of the others. 

However, I do not have the time or a plan to read all of this stuff so, if you could narrow down the list to the few that you believe would be most enlightening, that would be appreciated.

Apparently, you STILL have not READ and UNDERSTOOD my previous posts on this thread.

NOWHERE on this thread have I challenged ANY of the science or expressed ANY opinion on its validity one way or the other!

However, I have (accurately) pointed out that the press consistently reports the views of the global warming skeptics along with the views of the defenders of the science.  This is simply an objective fact…...not my opinion! 

My ONLY point is that the global warming science community has not yet convinced the man on the street or the politicians of the immanent danger…........a point that you continue to ignore!

My reading and even agreeing 100% with every one of your reference documents will not change the validity of that point.

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]
I have read some of these in the past and will be glad to read SOME of the others. 

However, I do not have the time or a plan to read all of this stuff so, if you could narrow down the list to the few that you believe would be most enlightening, that would be appreciated.

Read the Science articles and, if time permits, the Scientific American articles.

Apparently, you STILL have not READ and UNDERSTOOD my previous posts on this thread.

NOWHERE on this thread have I challenged ANY of the science or expressed ANY opinion on its validity one way or the other!

However, I have (accurately) pointed out that the press consistently reports the views of the global warming skeptics along with the views of the defenders of the science.  This is simply an objective fact…...not my opinion! 

My ONLY point is that the global warming science community has not yet convinced the man on the street or the politicians of the immanent danger…........a point that you continue to ignore!

My reading and even agreeing 100% with every one of your reference documents will not change the validity of that point.

I have read, but do not have sufficient time to respond in full just now.  I will just say, for now, that this is a non-point.  The science has been published.  The politicians were elected to take responsibility for turning what is known of the situation into good policy and they (Bush et. al.) are failing miserably.  The common man in the street needs a better education and stop trusting the politicians.  Scientists do science and there actually are many good accounts (esp. in SA) of the science in terms anyone with a high school diploma ought to be able to understand.  It is not the job of scientists to dumb down their work to make it accessible to lazy intellects that prefer watching Monday Nite Football or Desperate Housewives.  They are not in the promotion game and I for one don’t want them to be.  This is not the scientists’ fault.  It is the fault of the education system, the politicians who are themselve uneducated, and the masses who accept anything they seen/hear on NBC Nightly News as factual.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2005 04:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

I’ve been listening to a number of good news analyses of the global warming issue on NPR. Especially Talk of the Nation, Science Friday. They had Michael Crichton on (State of Fear) to provide, so-called, balanced views. Needless to say he made a fool of himself.  The show Living on Earth has had some excellent coverage as well as coverage of the hydrogen economy. This latter is Bush’s answer to the crisis.  Only problem is, hydrogen technology is way off.  Not only that, guess where hydrogen comes from - natural gas, one of Bush’s constituents.

On another note: Bush’s science advisor, Dr. John Marburger, is really in hot water with the science community.  What a joke this guy is.  I heard him try to defend the president’s position on stem cells.  He didn’t know what he was talking about.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed