There are a number of separate questions here that liberals, global socialists and the environmentalist zealot crowd like to lump together. Let's look at them.
1. Is global warming taking place? The issue here seems to be inconsistencies in ground temps and those taken from satellites.
2. Assuming there is warming, are human activities causing it? This is where the problems with the global warming models begin to appear. Apparently they do not even explain past temp changes. Would you trade using a model that could not make a profit on historical data? The standard reply is that there is a consensus of scientists. Science is not determined by consensus, but by empirical data and experiments that can be replicated by others. There is also a hypothesis that to the extent there is warming, it is more attributable to sun spot activity than anything we are doing.
3. Assuming we are causing some climate change, can we do anything to stop or reverse it? Here again we come up against the issue of unreliable models. How do the models distinguish between CO2 expelled by internal combustion engines and that expelled by billions of humans every breath? How about volcanoes? If population growth and volcanoes overwhelm conservation efforts, would we be ruining our economies for nothing?
4. Should we even attempt to alter climate change? The earth's history has involved climate changes that dwarf those predicted by even the most apocalyptic models. Aren't we being a tiny bit arrogant to think that our present climate is some perfect state that we must take draconian measures to preserve? The models predict that most of the warming would take place in arctic areas. Some warming of those areas might be beneficial and turn them from wastelands into productive areas that could support population growth.
5. Assuming all the warnings our accurate, what is the optimum response? Liberals act like Kyoto was the answer. Even the most zealous scientists however agree that it would have had largely symbolic effects. Kyoto was merely the latest attempt by the international left to rein in the US economy and make the world "fairer" and more "equitable." Other wise, why were devloping ocuntries, which are bigger polluters than the US, excluded?
It is hard to take scientists seriously when we see them willfully distort data and conclusions, put politics ahead of credibility and engage in scare tactics with no basis in fact. We are sophisticated enough now to appreciate the PR tactics of the left: create a "crisis" out of thin air, then demand immediate policy changes without much debate to address the "crisis." After all, as Clinton loved to say, "it's for the children."
The best evidence that this is exactly the game that is being played is the reaction to honest criticism and skepticism, which is what science is supposed to encourage. Instead, we get attacks that only a moron doesn't buy into the "consensus" and that we are destroying the planet, etc. When the Democrats had an opportunity to implement the Kyoto Protocol, what did they do? Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for confirmation and the Senate voted something like 97-0 that they wouldn't accept it. The same Senators who voted against it now want to castigate Bush for destroying the planet. This is politics, not science.
1. Is global warming taking place? The issue here seems to be inconsistencies in ground temps and those taken from satellites.
2. Assuming there is warming, are human activities causing it? This is where the problems with the global warming models begin to appear. Apparently they do not even explain past temp changes. Would you trade using a model that could not make a profit on historical data? The standard reply is that there is a consensus of scientists. Science is not determined by consensus, but by empirical data and experiments that can be replicated by others. There is also a hypothesis that to the extent there is warming, it is more attributable to sun spot activity than anything we are doing.
3. Assuming we are causing some climate change, can we do anything to stop or reverse it? Here again we come up against the issue of unreliable models. How do the models distinguish between CO2 expelled by internal combustion engines and that expelled by billions of humans every breath? How about volcanoes? If population growth and volcanoes overwhelm conservation efforts, would we be ruining our economies for nothing?
4. Should we even attempt to alter climate change? The earth's history has involved climate changes that dwarf those predicted by even the most apocalyptic models. Aren't we being a tiny bit arrogant to think that our present climate is some perfect state that we must take draconian measures to preserve? The models predict that most of the warming would take place in arctic areas. Some warming of those areas might be beneficial and turn them from wastelands into productive areas that could support population growth.
5. Assuming all the warnings our accurate, what is the optimum response? Liberals act like Kyoto was the answer. Even the most zealous scientists however agree that it would have had largely symbolic effects. Kyoto was merely the latest attempt by the international left to rein in the US economy and make the world "fairer" and more "equitable." Other wise, why were devloping ocuntries, which are bigger polluters than the US, excluded?
It is hard to take scientists seriously when we see them willfully distort data and conclusions, put politics ahead of credibility and engage in scare tactics with no basis in fact. We are sophisticated enough now to appreciate the PR tactics of the left: create a "crisis" out of thin air, then demand immediate policy changes without much debate to address the "crisis." After all, as Clinton loved to say, "it's for the children."
The best evidence that this is exactly the game that is being played is the reaction to honest criticism and skepticism, which is what science is supposed to encourage. Instead, we get attacks that only a moron doesn't buy into the "consensus" and that we are destroying the planet, etc. When the Democrats had an opportunity to implement the Kyoto Protocol, what did they do? Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for confirmation and the Senate voted something like 97-0 that they wouldn't accept it. The same Senators who voted against it now want to castigate Bush for destroying the planet. This is politics, not science.
