Good news on the global warming front:
- So far the US and Canada have resisted efforts to get them to sign legally binding agreements to cut carbon emissions at the Bali global warming summit
- The former director of the National Hurricane Center contradicts Henry Waxman's (D-CA) investigation that claims Republicans pressured him to change his testimony regarding the impact of global warming on hurricane activity.
- Pope Benedict is now a global warming "denier." He will make a speech on January 1 (the speech was released in time for the Bali conference): The Pope "suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering." HT American Thinker.
Posts
6 comments:
You're wrong about the Pope. The Daily Mail says he said that, but he didn't. For what his statement actually said, see http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html
Here's the thing-global warming is man-made. One of Bush's own science advisors said so, with greater than 90% confidence (or see the IPCC report, which has more credibility than say Jim Inhofe):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm
For all of the Republican presidential candidates to indicate otherwise should be embarrassing to you as an intellectual.
How we respond to global warming is a political issue. There should be debate in a democracy about what we do. The presence of global warming, however, is a scientific issue on which scientists have no real debate.
Failing to respond to facts would be something like continuinig to suggest that Iran is a nuclear threat when intelligence indicates otherwise.
Oh wait that's happening.
How do you define "fact," tom?
The only actual facts that I've heard are that the temperature has gone up over the past century or so, and that natural disasters have, in recent years, been more active than "normal." (though- where were all of the hurricanes this year?)
This makes a trend- nothing more. The human race has only really been tracking data on this stuff for a century. In the broad scope of climate and human history, this does not add up to the global catastrophe that everybody's terrified of.
Maybe there's some global warming, maybe there's none. Calling it a fact is completely inaccurate.
seriously? scientific consensus. This feels like that sketch where Will Ferrell plays George W-"My opponents are always trying to make me look bad using things such as 'facts' and 'scientific data'". Global warming is happening, and is more than 90% likely to be caused by human activity. This is not my opinion. Rudi Guliani even owned up to this fact last night.
I trust this information as authoritative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Also, Rudi if you played Rob Bell in Burrito that was brilliant. I esp. loved the slow, drawn out "we eat so...many...burritos." And the "May you come to" ending was spot on.
Tom-
first of all, anytime that I can get into a debate with someone that praises my impression of Rob Bell, I'm a happy man. Thanks for the compliment- Jon and I had a ton of fun making it... and in 2 weeks, it's already over 1000 views on YouTube.
Secondly, the only scientific FACTS that I have heard are just what I said- we know that temperatures have trended up over the last century. All of the doom and gloom predictions BASED on these facts are only one take on this trend. Also, we have no idea what, if any impact Human Beings have had on this temperature trend.
As a Christian, it really shouldn't matter- we should be seeking to be steward's of creation as best we can. I'm all in favor of "going green," and I believe that technologies will eventually take care of most pollution issues.
HOWEVER, I'm NOT in favor of having the government in charge of every aspect of my life just to do what the "experts" say will slow down "global warming."
Ah, I am pleased that my post has started a little debate. I would add that it is impossible to know with any certainty how much (or how little) CO2 emissions have to do with climate. There are millions of variables that affect temperature. As I stated in an earlier post on June 20:
Two-thirds of more than 530 climatologists 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." And half of those polled said that the science of climate change was not settled enough for policymakers to be considering it.
I also claim with 90% certainty that this Bush advisor is making up his percentages on the spot.
Post a Comment